First, I'd edit your post to remove names. You don't want to be fighting additional battles.
I will not. I see no reason to grant them anonymity.
"After they made sure my car was unoccupied, Officer Rodriguez opened the door and asked why I was carrying a gun. I told him, "In case I need it for self defense."
I would have replied, "I am exercising my right to self defense under city, county, state, and federal law." First, that's the truth. Second, that puts them on the defensive.
CA has no right to self defense under city, county, state, or federal law... so this response would have made no sense at all.
"He asked, "do you have a permit?" I replied, "I wasn't aware one was needed to carry a gun." He replied, "well it's illegal to carry a firearm without a permit.""
You gave him an out, even if it was an unlawful out. I would have responded, "Sir, a permit isn't required under local, county, state or federal law, Sir." Again the "Sirs show respect. Most join the force to "serve and protect the people," but some do so as a power trip. As they have jurisdiction, "feed that now, and fight it later."
This was my way of being passive. Rather than acting like I knew more than he did about the PC in question, I simply played dumb. I mentioned PC citations as passively as I could in hopes they would listen without getting pissed that I was making them look like tools.
"I was "under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon."
Was it concealed?
Obviously not. If it was I wouldn't have been un-arrested. Here in CA many cops think PC 12025 prohibits carrying "concealABLE firearms", when in fact it prohibits carrying "concealED firearms". In CA penal code, "concealable firearm" means pretty much anything with a barrell less than 18 inches.
"let's just say I expressed my disbelief that I was being harassed, let alone arrested."
Not a good approach! Seriously, you'll rarely, if ever win an argument with a cop during a stop. Quit! Gather evidence
. Wait until you're both on a level playing field, such as a courtroom, then nail him on violations of the law.
And remember - any
resistance during an arrest is likely to be viewed by a judge as detrimental to society and the rest of your arguments will likely get canned.
I agree that any physical resistance is a bad idea. However, I believe it's a good idea to make it clear you do not consent to what's going on by verbally resisting their actions. That is, make it clear you don't consent to the detention, searches, etc.
"Rodriguez takes the cuffs off and tells me to sit on the sidewalk. Then the scolding starts..."
At that point, you're free to go. Say "thank you for following the law" and walk away. If they arrest you again for refusing to take a scolding, you've got them dead to rights, as they have absolutely no jurisdiction to release an arrestee and harass him afterwords.
Was I free to go? They still had my wallet, firearm, and ID. I couldn't legally drive without my DL, so they had also technically seized my vehicle. Besides that, I was ORDERED to sit on the sidewalk while surrounded by 5 officers. If you're still not convinced, I'll dig up a half dozen or so SCOTUS citations that will agree with me.
"Officer Rodriguez then told me, "My Sergeant says we have to let you go...."
That's your second clue to stand up, thank them for following the law, and walk away.
That's when I did stand up and they handed me some of my property back. No way would I thank them for following the law... that would just be stupid. Just because their abuse could have been worse doesn't mean I should thank them. And again, I couldn't just walk away as I was awaiting the return of my property. (I don't know how CO is, but here in CA if the cops take a firearm it's a bitch to get it back.)
"The officers were all still standing around shooting the breeze, so I asked Rodriguez when they were going to go "so I can retrieve my firearm from the trunk without making you uncomfortable." He replied, "can't you just drive somewhere else to do that."
I can see his point. He made a big mistake. You're hopped. He wants to avoid a situation whereby he and his fellow officers are at increased risk for retaliation, some thing which has indeed happened in CA many times over the years.
At this point, just comply. You're not likely to require armed self-defense within a mile of a recent arrest.
"Due to a back injury from a car accident this time in the back of the car was very painful. Not to mention the pain in my wrists."
Wah. I've got a back injury, nor would I like wrist restraints, either. It's part of the procedure for subduing a suspect.
"Wah?" I'll kindly endure your idiotic opinion of how you think it's sorta-okay for cops to be total pricks. But to belittle my pain... the pain I have had to live with every day of my life for the past 10 years. The pain that keeps me from doing so many things most people my age are able to. The pain that keeps me from even getting out of bed for days at a time?
Kindly go **** yourself. I'm done with you.
Focus on the point where you were unlawfully considered a suspect merely because you were carrying a firearm, and the fact than an hour's detention violates Judge Black's Federal Court ruling against such improper detention/harassment.
Play your cards right, and the reward could be sizable! Whine about the goose-egg on your wrist, though, and you'll get nothing but a goose-egg on your wrist.