• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

False Arrest by the LAPD

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

They violated People vs DeLong right off the bat. They made it a detention (hands over head then cuffs) rather then an unintrusive "inspection". Still a 4th A (Terry vs Ohio) violation but DeLong and 12031 (e) stand 'for now' in Ca statecourts.

12031e's days are numbered!!!;) :celebrate
 

Mike Hawk

New member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
301
Location
San Pedro, CA, ,
imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:
Damn Mike, you weren't kidding about this. I cannot believe that these people are trusted with a spoon, much less a gun.
Yeah it boggles the mind as to how people like that can get ahold of a badge.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Guys in their defense (which is very hard to do)...This could have been me when I started out. Glad it wasn't but this is a HUGE training issue the dept should have handled a long time ago. The department hasfailed them and hung themand LACs out to dry by fostering an unfounded fear of lawful gun carry. If there was justice I could see prison time for the offenders.

Yes they broke the law but I don't relish a victory here when this was avoidable with proper training and attitude by that dept. But since it happened let the chips fall if they will.
 

wewd

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
664
Location
Oregon
imported post

Given the history of the LAPD in regards to their general disregard for civil rights and the boundaries of the law, I have very good reason to believe that the behavior of the officers was not only deliberate, but in fact it was most likely within their departmental training and policy. I would love nothing more than a federal 1983 suit to discover just how deep the rabbit hole goes. I sense another consent decree in their future.
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike Hunt wrote:
bogeyx5 wrote:
I don't understand why you just don't identify yourself and just take civil action later. I guess it's principle and the "Us Vs Them" mentality at work that I've heard so much about. Or maybe it's because we would rather go to jail and have our nights ruined just to try to make a point.

If I were OC'ing, I'd do everything the same but give up the information after realizing they're not going to bend. It's not worth my freedom, there are other ways of dealing with it. But that's just me.

Sucks that this happened to you though.
Not to re-hash too much here, but you'll notice this guy had already claimed he knew who I was. When he started hounding me for I.D. and claiming he DIDN'T know who I was only moments later, I got a strong suspicion that he was lying to me. On top of that, the whole thing kicks off with them brandishing their guns to me and throwing me in cuffs. So it was not I who set the hostile mood of this encounter, nor was it I who was in the "us vs. them" mentality to begin with.
Mike, don't take this as in any way diminishing what you went through. I think that you handled it well and that you are going to come out fine in the end.

However, in your post, you assigned less than flattering names to all of the officers involved, you made accusations about their character and honesty and you came across as being very angry, even though you DID have a right to be angry.

When the officer stated that he knew who you were, you and I probably know he meant that he knew you were an “open carry” guy. I don't really think that puttinga hand on a holstered weapon can be considered brandishing in that situation. That can possibly bee seen as an accusation without merit, which could weaken your position in future accusations that you make, even if future accusations are completely valid.

What I am saying is that even thought you have aright to be angry and really pissed off at these guys, injecting emotion into the situation (post) does nothing.

The facts of this situation stand by themselves. They facts are well documented by your recording device and your witness. Emotion weakens, rather than strengthens your argument and a strong show of emotioncan make you appear less credible.

I'm sure I'm gonna take heat for this opinion, but that's fine,,,,,,Flame on.......

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
 

SunkenShadow

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
6
Location
Pasadena, CA, ,
imported post

Props to Mike for handling the situation so well. How LAPD treated you was disgusting and you do have every right and every reason to be angry. I guess eventually and hopefully, what goes around comes around.

Eh, the only thing I probably would've done differently was when they 'told' you to go walk over to them, I would have asked, "Are you asking or demanding?" Then if they said demand, I would have said, then get a warrant and I'll sit and wait here all day. But then again, this is coming from a noob and someone's gonna hopefully correct me or will end up flaming me >.>. But oh well.

Waiting takes too long to get all our rights 'properly' sorted and recognized by the government and LEOs. This shouldn't be happening in the first place if they knew their laws. :(
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

You are right Greg, but .........

as humans we are emotional creatures and the officers didn't seem to be in control of their emotions during this incident.

I can't tell you how many times I have been labeled as "uncooperative" when I was only trying to resist 4th A intrusions, and how quickly biases a judges opinion of you in a courtroom. So it seems a bit unfair that police aggressiveness can't be labeled but the LEO have a litany of labels to use against people they encounter.

"Uncooperative" (for not wanting 4th to be violated)
"Agitated" (because now you are stuck in a situation you shouldn't be)
comments about "demeanor" ( too many reasons to list)
"emotional" ( again huh?)
"angry" (often exaggerated because of your irritation of being unlawfully detained)
"suspicious" ( catch phrase)
"animated" (yes I am animated, and when I can't gesture with my hands because you locked them behind my back, my head will bob)
"confrontational" (for resisting attempts to violate 4th)

All these are listed and many more are listed on LEO reports to pre-bias higher authority against you.
 

DEFENSOR

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
184
Location
Utah, USA
imported post

Mike,

Glad to here from you again. Tis an intriguing tale you tell. I hope all else is going well.

Best wishes

Defensor + Mrs."D"
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
You are right Greg, but .........

as humans we are emotional creatures and the officers didn't seem to be in control of their emotions during this incident.

I can't tell you how many times I have been labeled as "uncooperative" when I was only trying to resist 4th A intrusions, and how quickly biases a judges opinion of you in a courtroom. So it seems a bit unfair that police aggressiveness can't be labeled but the LEO have a litany of labels to use against people they encounter.

"Uncooperative" (for not wanting 4th to be violated)
"Agitated" (because now you are stuck in a situation you shouldn't be)
comments about "demeanor" ( too many reasons to list)
"emotional" ( again huh?)
"angry" (often exaggerated because of your irritation of being unlawfully detained)
"suspicious" ( catch phrase)
"animated" (yes I am animated, and when I can't gesture with my hands because you locked them behind my back, my head will bob)
"confrontational" (for resisting attempts to violate 4th)

All these are listed and many more are listed on LEO reports to pre-bias higher authority against you.
I agree with everything you have said here. My point is just that a display of emotion either verbally or (as in this case) in writing, can cloud and dilute the perfectly clear facts.....

As you stated above (hopefully I am not misinterpreting your statement) words, demeanor and emotion can provoke bias.

When an officer or an emergencys responder arrives on scene and everyone is emotional and screaming, the cool, calm collected person will get the most respect and attention.
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
imported post

greg36f wrote:
However, in your post, you assigned less than flattering names to all of the officers involved, you made accusations about their character and honesty and you came across as being very angry, even though you DID have a right to be angry....
So what, the post is nearly 2 months after the incident. He can call them every thing but a child of God. Their names weren't used or even needed in the post. He knows who they are and they will have to use their names in court when or if they perjure themselves. They can embarrass themselves then, as they probably already have by now, if the Division Commander has gotten word of what went down. The 1st one to get an ear full would be the watch commander and it rolls down hill from there.
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

yelohamr wrote:
greg36f wrote:
However, in your post, you assigned less than flattering names to all of the officers involved, you made accusations about their character and honesty and you came across as being very angry, even though you DID have a right to be angry....
So what, the post is nearly 2 months after the incident. He can call them every thing but a child of God. Their names weren't used or even needed in the post. He knows who they are and they will have to use their names in court when or if they perjure themselves. They can embarrass themselves then, as they probably already have by now, if the Division Commander has gotten word of what went down. The 1st one to get an ear full would be the watch commander and it rolls down hill from there.
he has a right to call them anything he wants to,,,,BUT, is doing so to his advantage in the long run..........? I assume that this is not over.....
 

leoffensive

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
309
Location
San Diego, California, USA
imported post

Wow. Interesting reading about what happened there. Damn lapd. Well i was glad to hear your update in passadena. Id gladly go out and support ya a million times.

When you get your pistol back we should go out for a shoot
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
imported post

greg36f wrote:
he has a right to call them anything he wants to,,,,BUT, is doing so to his advantage in the long run..........? I assume that this is not over.....

If anything happens because of what he posted, will be a violation ofhis 1st Amend. rights and will be viewed as retaliation for posting his side of the story on a public forum.
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

yelohamr wrote:
greg36f wrote:
he has a right to call them anything he wants to,,,,BUT, is doing so to his advantage in the long run..........? I assume that this is not over.....

If anything happens because of what he posted, will be a violation ofhis 1st Amend. rights and will be viewed as retaliation for posting his side of the story on a public forum.
This is a public forum. Anything said here is fair game to be used against you.......
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

What a weird story, which is why yuo guys need to go with tape recorders, videos etc. I'm flabbergasted.
 

Army

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
289
Location
San Luis Obispo, California, USA
imported post

Then, three days later...........

....The Dirty almost-half Dozen!!
moz-screenshot.png

IMG_3099.jpg


That's the evil law-abider in the middle.
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
imported post

greg36f wrote:
yelohamr wrote:
greg36f wrote:
he has a right to call them anything he wants to,,,,BUT, is doing so to his advantage in the long run..........? I assume that this is not over.....

If anything happens because of what he posted, will be a violation ofhis 1st Amend. rights and will be viewed as retaliation for posting his side of the story on a public forum.
This is a public forum. Anything said here is fair game to be used against you.......
...unless your name is Tuason.
 

greg36f

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
71
Location
, ,
imported post

yelohamr wrote:
greg36f wrote:
yelohamr wrote:
greg36f wrote:
he has a right to call them anything he wants to,,,,BUT, is doing so to his advantage in the long run..........? I assume that this is not over.....

If anything happens because of what he posted, will be a violation ofhis 1st Amend. rights and will be viewed as retaliation for posting his side of the story on a public forum.
This is a public forum. Anything said here is fair game to be used against you.......
...unless your name is Tuason.


Not sure where you are going with that. You seem to see that case proving your point, and I see it as proving my point. The guy has been crucified about that post and is probably facing penalties at his work. We have no idea how that is going to turn out yet. He posted something and felt the backlash, same can go for anyone else on this or any other post.
 
Top