Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 74

Thread: Detained and disarmed while OC (Video)

  1. #1
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    Post imported post

    This is a video taken after meeting a couple of Friends for lunch. I was open carrying and walking down the sidewalkon main street St Charles Mo. I was detained and disarmedby St Charles police.

    1st half http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkUj7CdOpTI

    2nd half http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0EcFcFdZJc

    Doc

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292

    Post imported post

    well having watched both parts....

    ...wow for one....

    ...was kinda sad that the 1st officer wasn't receptive at all to being educated or even admitting he was in the wrong...who is these days?

    ....was nice that the 2nd officer was allot more civil and open? maybe i'm wrong?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Kind of sucks that a citizen who isn't even doing that kind of employment has to help educate and train someone already working in the field. The officer should at least tip you 20 bucks for your service.

    You guys did really well in keeping it together and explaining how it is.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    At least the one officer that detained you was being pretty civil. He was wrong but he showed a little humility and was civil. The second one that stayed present the whole time seemed to be a very nice guy and not too judgemental and didn't try to lecture you.



  5. #5
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Post imported post

    You have a case for violation of your Fouth Admendment rights...

    CASE LAW

    They had to pay $21,000

    Good Job..


    I am glad that you informed the officer of the law, but to "inform" the city...I would sue....


    Just a quote from the actual case..

    Relying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts
    have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific,
    legitimate reason. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; Fuerschbach,439 F.3d at 1204-6 (holding that a
    seizure without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity "would violate the most minimal
    Fourth Amendment standard"); Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d at 1228 ("Where no legitimate basis
    exists for detaining [an individual], a seizure is plainly unreasonable."); Duran, 904 F.2d at 1378
    ("If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police
    officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how
    peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person's conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop
    unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed or that there is
    an imminent danger to persons or property
    ."); see also Lawrence Rosenthal, Second Amendment
    Plumbing after Heller: Standards of Scrutiny, Incorporation, Well-Regulated Militias, and
    Criminal Street Gangs, 41 Urb. Law. 1, 37 (2009) (“When applicable law does not ban carrying a
    firearm, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk regardless of any
    indication that a suspect is armed or potentially dangerous because there is no indication that the
    suspect is violating the law
    .”). For example, in Sorrel v. McGuigan, 38 Fed.Appx. 970, 973 (4th
    Cir. 2002) (unpublished) the Fourth Circuit denied qualified immunity to an officer who seized
    an individual for lawfully carrying weapon
    . Noting that a state statute made the plaintiff's
    Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 12 of 16
    13
    concealed carrying of the weapon legal, the court found that, though "[q]ualified immunity
    protects law enforcement officers from bad guesses in gray areas," the fact that the plaintiff's
    actions were clearly permissible under the statute meant that the officer "was not in a gray area
    ."
    Id. at 974.
    The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited
    Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. See N.M. Stat. § 30-7 et seq.
    Because both New Mexico law and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unjustified seizure
    were clearly established, and a reasonable officer is presumed to know clearly established law,
    see, e.g., Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-9, qualified immunity does not protect Defendants.
    Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
    Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment
    is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity.


    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    The first officer that was so cock sure that he was right needs some additional training as he did not even know that the was looking at the CCW permit. He thought it was merely a ID card and had to have the CCW endorsement pointed out to him. I believe that he did receive some education that day. He was trying real hard to invoke his personal beliefs on you.

    The second officer stated that they hadn't violated your 4th amendment rights and your weapon was being taken only for officer safety but as soon as he found out that you were doing nothing illegal he forgot all about officer safety and returned the weapons.

    This for officer safety bull @#$% is being overly abused by LEO everywhere.

    This quote is from the defense lawyer in the above case.


    [i]"t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."


  7. #7
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    I don't think the senior officer will change his mind. He seems to have the opinion that OC scares the sheeple, therefore you shouldn't do it. He don't likes it...it be bad juju.

    However, I think you handled the situation in an excellent manner, and in the second half, when you said, (paraphrasing) "The only people the public sees with firearms are cops and criminals. How can the public be educated unless they see law abiding citizens that are armed?"

    ...you can see the "backup cop" (the one that hands Mike and youyour firearms back) nod his head in the AFFIRMATIVE.

    So, excellent interaction. You appeared calm and reasonable.

    You didn't seem nervous at all......

    ...were you?

  8. #8
    Regular Member YuppieDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St Charles, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    Well, the cop said he was wrong and apologized for being wrong. I understand that you feel you where wronged. But isn't this the reason for going out andOC ing, to teach the LEO's and the John Q public. He was very polite and calm. He didn't felony stop you (guns drawn - you spread eagle) and threw your pistol across the ground.

    You taught the LEO's a lesson and learned how to act civil when faced with a police-OC situation. That was the whole reason for the video (right?). No need to push the subject with a waste of time lawsuit.

    JMO
    I will not agree with you all the time, deal with it. CASE CLOSED.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Broondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
    Posts
    369

    Post imported post

    i must echo the "you guys handled yourselves well" sentiment. by being calm and civil yet educational you may have put other OC'ers in a positive light....well at least with Officer Howe. he at least was receptive to the idea. let us know if you get that letter of apology from officer #1.


    BTW, was that a Tok you were carrying?


    I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
    Jimi Hendrix

    NRA Benefactor Member & 03 FFL

  10. #10
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443

    Post imported post

    I agree, a lawsuit is pointless, even if you could win.

    The first officer had an attitude. Always wanting to raise his voice above the detained so that he was heard. His attitude was definitely way better than a lot of videos we've seen, but he was still rather adamant about stating his opinions afterwords.

    The second officer seemed very polite, and his head nod was noticed. Even if someone doesn't agree they should at least be able to accept the logic of it. Officer Howe saw that it was a right, and a personal choice to carry open or to conceal. He chooses to conceal, that's his choice.

    Do let us know if you get that letter of apology

    You guys handled yourselves pretty well. I might have informed them that even if you didn't have a CCW you could still OC. (dunno if that's true in St. Charles or not but it is pretty much every where else)

  11. #11
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Post imported post

    YuppieDog wrote:
    Well, the cop said he was wrong and apologized for being wrong. I understand that you feel you where wronged. But isn't this the reason for going out andOC ing, to teach the LEO's and the John Q public. He was very polite and calm. He didn't felony stop you (guns drawn - you spread eagle) and threw your pistol across the ground.

    You taught the LEO's a lesson and learned how to act civil when faced with a police-OC situation. That was the whole reason for the video (right?). No need to push the subject with a waste of time lawsuit.

    JMO





    Although I agree in principle with your statement, the fact is, that his 4th Amendment rights were indeed violated.

    Duran, 904 F.2d at 1378
    ("If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police
    officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how
    peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person's conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop
    unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed or that there is
    an imminent danger to persons or property
    .")

    He may not to decide to sue, but if it were me I would.

    This is not about money, this is about the RIGHT you have under the constitution, Federal and State.

    I am sure you have heard, "Give them an inch and they will take a yard", police and government officials will do that until we stand up to them and tell them they cannot trump the law.

    A lawsuit against the City of St Charles would show the "officials" that is not ok to walk all overour rights based on assumptions and "out of the air suspicions".

    Now...the LEO can say that everything was done for the "safety of the officers", but it is still a clear violation of the law.

    Fourth Amendment prohibition on unjustified seizure
    were clearly established, and a reasonable officer is presumed to know clearly established law,
    see, e.g., Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-9

    The "LAW" is written with the "public" safety in mind, it is not written for the LEO or any other government officials to interpret as they see fit.

    All this said, ifYOU would like for the LEO's to circumvent the law onYOUR behalf, this again isYOUR choice. I for one will not allow my rights of an American citizen and the rights of a Missouri citizen be dictated by those who think they know better.

    Of course this is only my opinion, and each should fight their own battle. I just would hope that you realize, that the minute you give up even the least of your rights, they will take more and change the law to take more. Before you know it YOU WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS AT ALL.....

    sohighlyunlikely.....should be commended for his actions and the fact that he informed the police officers and now the public in regards to OC...I myself would have handled it a bit different, but I think he did a great job.

    Before everyone gets their panties in an uproar, the taking of the weapon was way out of bounds. Especially for the person that was not carrying openly and had a valid CCW.

    This is not about the right to OC....this is not even aboutthe right to carry a gun....This is about OUR rights as citizens.

    bigboy.....I am a bit perplexed why a lawsuit would be "pointlesseven if he won"...

    OK....I am done....LOL




    Zeke






    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  12. #12
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    A lawsuit in this case would not be pointless. It would actually give us some good case law. The timing is about right also. McDonald will be handed down next month and I would be talking with counsel and getting a FOIA going.

    This case could finally give us some (additional) new case law on OC. I think this case could over turn the precedent of Joyce vs Cape Girardeau,In so far as, a person can be questioned about the open carrying of a firearm for self defense.

    What Doc said on the recordings, as well as what the officer was saying, is exactly what the courts are going to want to hear. If Doc wants to pursue this, I would be willing to help him with how I would proceed...his dime.

    Based upon this incident (and the two officers comments), its possible that St. Charles city councilmight now or perhaps already has prohibited OC, so I think a lawsuit is advised.

    Looks like St. Charles has a very old code that does need to be updated.

    § 134.03 DANGEROUS AND CONCEALED WEAPONS.
    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed upon or about his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description, or to go into any church or place where people have assembled for religious worship, or into any school room or place where people are assembled for educational, political, literary or social purposes, or to any election precinct on any election day, or into any courtroom during the sitting of court, or into any other public assemblage of persons met for any lawful purpose other than for militia drill, or meetings called under militia law of this state, having upon or about his person, concealed or exposed, any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons or to, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit any such weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner, or to have any such weapon in his possession when intoxicated, or, directly or indirectly, sell or deliver, loan or barter to any minor any such weapon, without the consent of the parent or guardian of such minor; but nothing contained in this section shall apply to legally qualified sheriffs, police officers and other persons whose bona fide duty is to execute process, civil or criminal, make arrests, or aid in conserving the public peace, nor to persons traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state.

    http://www.amlegal.com/stcharles_mo/


  13. #13
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Post imported post

    I think is time to set up a St. Louis chapter of Opencarry.org....

    If that is done, then as a group we can fight (sue) any of these.

    I am willing to talk to a Lawyer friend of mine and see if will take it on, but of course it will take money.

    If the lawyer and I set up a non-profit organization to take care of this....will anyone be willing to donate?

    All donations will be for the defense of "legal" issues in regards to open carry and the defense of the Constitution....State or Federal.

    I have not talked to the lawyer as of yet, and he may say NO....

    I am just askingif anyone is interested.

    I do not want to take over the Crestwood Starbucks this weekend, but it may be a good opportunity to discuss it.

    Let me know what you think

    Zeke
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  14. #14
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    zekester wrote:
    I think is time to set up a St. Louis chapter of Opencarry.org....

    If that is done, then as a group we can fight (sue) any of these.

    I am willing to talk to a Lawyer friend of mine and see if will take it on, but of course it will take money.

    If the lawyer and I set up a non-profit organization to take care of this....will anyone be willing to donate?

    All donations will be for the defense of "legal" issues in regards to open carry and the defense of the Constitution....State or Federal.

    I have not talked to the lawyer as of yet, and he may say NO....

    I am just askingif anyone is interested.

    I do not want to take over the Crestwood Starbucks this weekend, but it may be a good opportunity to discuss it.

    Let me know what you think

    Zeke
    I think a MoCDL group, pushing for constitutional carry would be better. Not knowing anything about your friend, attorney's need to be scrutinized. Look what happened to Joyce. I went and talked to his attorney and looked over his brief (after the case)...all I can say, is again, looked what happened to Joyce.

    The Joyce case had an effect on all of us in the State and both Federal and State courtshave cited Joyce as precedent on restricting RKBA.

    So if Doc wants to pursue this, it is paramount thatit be done right.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    Post imported post

    Broondog wrote:
    BTW, was that a Tok you were carrying?
    You know your guns Broondog. My current OC gun is a chromed out Tokarev Model 213,carried in a Russian military surplusleather skeleton holster.

    I want to thank everyone for there input and support.

    Doc



  16. #16
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    sohighlyunlikely wrote:
    chromed out Tokarev Model 213
    Emphasis should be on chromed out Tokarev Model 213......

    ......as the thing can be seen from space.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292

    Post imported post

    ...i think i tanned some more bein around doc and that thing...and...well....IM ALREADY TAN....

  18. #18
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    Post imported post

    The firearm in question



  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Someone call the mods, there is

    GUN PORN on this site!!


    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman Universitys School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  20. #20
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Post imported post

    We have so many 2nd amendment groups it weaken the effort. Shawn wrote:
    zekester wrote:
    I think is time to set up a St. Louis chapter of Opencarry.org....

    If that is done, then as a group we can fight (sue) any of these.

    I am willing to talk to a Lawyer friend of mine and see if will take it on, but of course it will take money.

    If the lawyer and I set up a non-profit organization to take care of this....will anyone be willing to donate?

    All donations will be for the defense of "legal" issues in regards to open carry and the defense of the Constitution....State or Federal.

    I have not talked to the lawyer as of yet, and he may say NO....

    I am just askingif anyone is interested.

    I do not want to take over the Crestwood Starbucks this weekend, but it may be a good opportunity to discuss it.

    Let me know what you think

    Zeke
    I think a MoCDL group, pushing for constitutional carry would be better. Not knowing anything about your friend, attorney's need to be scrutinized. Look what happened to Joyce. I went and talked to his attorney and looked over his brief (after the case)...all I can say, is again, looked what happened to Joyce.

    The Joyce case had an effect on all of us in the State and both Federal and State courtshave cited Joyce as precedent on restricting RKBA.

    So if Doc wants to pursue this, it is paramount thatit be done right.
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  21. #21
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Post imported post

    We have so many 2nd amendment groups it weaken the effort. Shawn wrote:
    zekester wrote:
    I think is time to set up a St. Louis chapter of Opencarry.org....

    If that is done, then as a group we can fight (sue) any of these.

    I am willing to talk to a Lawyer friend of mine and see if will take it on, but of course it will take money.

    If the lawyer and I set up a non-profit organization to take care of this....will anyone be willing to donate?

    All donations will be for the defense of "legal" issues in regards to open carry and the defense of the Constitution....State or Federal.

    I have not talked to the lawyer as of yet, and he may say NO....

    I am just askingif anyone is interested.

    I do not want to take over the Crestwood Starbucks this weekend, but it may be a good opportunity to discuss it.

    Let me know what you think

    Zeke
    I think a MoCDL group, pushing for constitutional carry would be better. Not knowing anything about your friend, attorney's need to be scrutinized. Look what happened to Joyce. I went and talked to his attorney and looked over his brief (after the case)...all I can say, is again, looked what happened to Joyce.

    The Joyce case had an effect on all of us in the State and both Federal and State courtshave cited Joyce as precedent on restricting RKBA.

    So if Doc wants to pursue this, it is paramount thatit be done right.
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  22. #22
    Regular Member Broondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
    Posts
    369

    Post imported post

    sohighlyunlikely wrote:
    Broondog wrote:
    BTW, was that a Tok you were carrying?
    You know your guns Broondog. My current OC gun is a chromed out Tokarev Model 213,carried in a Russian military surplusleather skeleton holster.

    I want to thank everyone for there input and support.

    Doc

    i thought so. i picked up one of the TTC's when they hit the market in force a few years back. i've since sold it but it wasn't a bad gun. and the 7.62x25 round is a hot little round.

    though chrome says "hey look at me. i have a gun!". not my personal choice but hey, who am i?


    I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
    Jimi Hendrix

    NRA Benefactor Member & 03 FFL

  23. #23
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Doc...wow how did you stay so calm??



    I can't take it when cops ask for ID when you've done nothing wrong.

    I also can't stand when cops interject their opinions into stuff, you aren't on the farm...duh...you're in "downtown" St. Charles. You can't open carry here, you'll scare somebody. This is a progressive area full of diverse cultures and ideas and... oh wait, nevermind I was thinking of some place else.

    What is it with everyone's obsession with CCW?? CCW---you must pay money to exercise a right...derf.

    It was nice of the guy to apologize. But still if you weren't super polite with them violating your rights then they would have pissed all over you.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    Post imported post

    I received my apology

    Doc

  25. #25
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Post imported post

    Oh please elaborate....
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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