Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Non-UOC LEO encounter

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Hello All,

    I had the opportunity to be in a car with a laid-off POST certified patrolman yesterday. He was let-go as a policeman because our state's legislature is so fiscally responsible with tax money (the subordinate clausewas meant as sarcasm).

    The following is a paraphrased account of the conversation:

    The out-of-work copper got us on LE by criticizing a policeman who rolled his cruiser beyond the stop sign without making a complete stop at the line. He also commented on the difference between a MAXIMUM Speed limit sign and a Speed Limit Sign.

    I thought, right-on, I now have a perfect segway into UOC and law-breaking coppers.

    I explained that every year before I start venturing into the woods to hunt and fish, I always do a check of the penal codes and chaptered laws to make sure I don't get entrappedin a gun violation because a legislatorsnuck-in contradictory law into some unrelated legislation. He thought that was a really smart thing to do.

    I asked him for his interpretation of the "locked container" law (12025 and 12026). He stated that if a person could lock-up,or somehow madea paper bag secure, they are complying with the letter of the law. I agreed with him.

    Next, I told him that I happened onto a UOC site. I was amazed at how knowledgable the posters were regarding the law. All posts usually have aPC or case law citation.

    I then asked him how he would respond to a UOC call. He said that he wants to go home at night to his wife and kids; therefore, he would draw his weapon and prone-out the citizen until the situation was controlled and that he would run a panoply of weapons checks and background checks to make sure that the PERP had a clean record.

    I then asked him if he liked writing checks to law-abiding citizens for detaining, committing battery against them, and for embarasing them by violating 4th A rights and decades of state, Circuit court, and SCOTUS rulings. He did not say anything. I explained that in the 10th circuit, a judge ruled on a summary motion that the coppers lost their qualified immunity because they grossly violated Mathew St. Johns civil rights. The coppers, collectively paid St. John $21,000.

    I then told him that case law in California, specifically in DeLong, 1970, and federal case law in J.L. vs. FL, Terry, and Arizona vs. Hicks makes it clear that a policeman needs RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion of crime afoot) or PC for arrest, to inspect the gun thoroughly and demand ID beyond an (e) check.

    I also asked him if he thought the Ninth Circuit would rule in a copper's favor after the copper had violated old and clearcut case law while detaining, embarassing, and committing battery against a law-abiding citizen? Heslightly grimaced and shook his head horizontally (I took that response as a definate NO).

    I also mentioned Heller and McDonald. I mentioned that a case was before aSan Diego Judge whose ruling on summary motions seems to indicate that she is contemplating the wording of Heller to indicate that if the SD Sheriff does not allow a retired LEO and currenct NRA advanced weapons trainer a CCW, thenthe plaintiff must be allowed to LOC because Heller states that 2nd A states ...to bear arms... which means to carry, bear, and posses.

    Ifinished by stating that federal case law makes it clear that the mere act of bearing a firearm does not negate 4th A rights, which includes the requirement for RAS and PC.

    Surprisingly, we ended our conversation by him saying that my point of view was informative. I got the feeling that he was thinking about the contradictions that he was taught about RAS, PC, and MAWG calls. My impression of him was that he was a logical and analyitical guy who was caught in a "group-think" paradigm on this issue.

    markm



  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    Excellent! Sounds like we have a convert.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Perhaps he'll show up here soon.

    It's not that uncommon of a viewpoint among CA cops. If you get the chance to hear cops fromreal OC states (loaded oc) talk about responding to a man-with-a-gun call that's just someone OC, it's a real eye opener. Much more laid back attitude, no talk of putting the person on the ground, etc etc. It's like night and day. Plus it seems like the dispatchers get the right information from the call, like if the gun is holstered, the person is drinking coffee and reading a paper, so the responding officers don't feel the need to race across town to a possible life or death situation.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Even with all the "I'll just prone him out!" talk, I have YET to hear of anyone getting proned out.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Even with all the "I'll just prone him out!" talk, I have YET to hear of anyone getting proned out.
    +1

    Worst so far is the backwards perp walk, kneel & cuff... which isn't too far off from being proned out, i guess...
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •