Hollowpoint38
Regular Member
imported post
that isn't going to alter the firing is it?
that isn't going to alter the firing is it?
-
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.
-
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.
Permit & Gun Returned Today & Full Incident Details
- Thread starter Dianosis
- Start date
Bill Starks
State Researcher
imported post
Maybe you can get the restaurant to post a sign like the one at my favorite Greek restaurant here in Washington.
Maybe you can get the restaurant to post a sign like the one at my favorite Greek restaurant here in Washington.
Hollowpoint38
Regular Member
imported post
yeah! we need to print off a ton of those and go to every store and ask if we may post it. LOL
yeah! we need to print off a ton of those and go to every store and ask if we may post it. LOL
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
M1Gunr wrote:
Johnnys Greek Cafe?
or the place just called "Greek Cafe"?
I love me a Gyro. Lamb for the win.
M1Gunr wrote:
Maybe you can get the restaurant to post a sign like the one at my favorite Greek restaurant here in Washington.
Johnnys Greek Cafe?
or the place just called "Greek Cafe"?
I love me a Gyro. Lamb for the win.
imported post
I would worry that my gun's forensics is sitting in someone else's hands. You never know if some crooked SOB will get their hand on it and ruin your life.
You really ought to do whatever you can to get thatslug and casing back. If they did take it, they have no right to it at all. You commited no crime with that gun, they don't deserve its fingerprints.
I would worry that my gun's forensics is sitting in someone else's hands. You never know if some crooked SOB will get their hand on it and ruin your life.
You really ought to do whatever you can to get thatslug and casing back. If they did take it, they have no right to it at all. You commited no crime with that gun, they don't deserve its fingerprints.
imported post
MK wrote:
MK wrote:
Yes, you should. How ever, as I was once a cop I have been there and done that, lost the shirt, I would expect they would claim no knowledge and state that all had been lost. Then make every effort to" get you", even going so far as to plant evidence. You do need to cover your self. Changing the marks willdefinitely help. Talk to a lawyer. Watch your back, this Lt. looks like a nut case.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
M1Gunr wrote:
M1Gunr wrote:
I would rather the picture were of a properly holstered handgun.Maybe you can get the restaurant to post a sign like the one at my favorite Greek restaurant here in Washington.
Rush Creek
Regular Member
imported post
This is a clear example of organized criminal activityoperating openly behind the color of law. Unfortunately it's nothing new. "Brotherhood of the Badge & the Gun" - Their adage :"How dare you presume to have a right to wear a holstered sidearmin plain view - like a COP! That's why we became COPS - so we could be granted the priviledge of doing what you claim to have a right to doguaranteed under the State and federal constitutions."
This is a clear example of organized criminal activityoperating openly behind the color of law. Unfortunately it's nothing new. "Brotherhood of the Badge & the Gun" - Their adage :"How dare you presume to have a right to wear a holstered sidearmin plain view - like a COP! That's why we became COPS - so we could be granted the priviledge of doing what you claim to have a right to doguaranteed under the State and federal constitutions."
Kirbinator
Regular Member
imported post
mcdonalk wrote:
I can only imagine what his service record would show if it were accurate. How many times has this guy seriously f***ed up?
mcdonalk wrote:
From the sounds of it, he's just not the man for the job. If the concept of him in a leadership position simply exists because "he did his time," he has no concept of the actual requirements of the job. He should have gotten a job as a highway maintenance technician over at DOT and worked his way up to supervisor and retired.
I can only imagine what his service record would show if it were accurate. How many times has this guy seriously f***ed up?
Kirbinator
Regular Member
imported post
McX wrote:
McX wrote:
Alabama, where the state slogan was changed to "We dare defend our rights."
cowboy67
Regular Member
imported post
Kirbinator wrote:
I can only imagine what his service record would show if it were accurate. How many times has this guy seriously f***ed up?
My uncle is a fireman. He too is a total screw up. The only reason they keep him is to keep from bringing shame to the department. If they fired him, more than likely his mess would come out and cause a lot of changes in the dept. That is probably the case with this LT. It is a shame though. He seems to be causing more problems being employed than what problems it would bring the dept to forcefully retire him.
Kirbinator wrote:
I can only imagine what his service record would show if it were accurate. How many times has this guy seriously f***ed up?
My uncle is a fireman. He too is a total screw up. The only reason they keep him is to keep from bringing shame to the department. If they fired him, more than likely his mess would come out and cause a lot of changes in the dept. That is probably the case with this LT. It is a shame though. He seems to be causing more problems being employed than what problems it would bring the dept to forcefully retire him.
UncleWolfie
New member
imported post
The bullet that's missing was likely fired from your pistol in order to 'finger print' it for future reference. If your pistol is ever used in a crime they have a round fired from it and will be able to match them up.
I would consider selling that firearm, using a different type of ammunition from here forward, or both.
Police reports are public record. Anyone can request a copy of any report for a small copy fee. You were lied to when you were told that because you were listed as a 'suspect' on the report you were not allowed a copy absent a lawyer. Utter B.S.
You really should sue these b******s. You'll have to show damages.
The theft and use of your property (stolen bullet, used your firearm without your consent) absent your consent or a valid search warrant might meet that standard.
They violated your Fourth Amendment Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. This includes the first encounter in the restaurant as well as their subsequent behavior after taking your property without consent.
The bullet that's missing was likely fired from your pistol in order to 'finger print' it for future reference. If your pistol is ever used in a crime they have a round fired from it and will be able to match them up.
I would consider selling that firearm, using a different type of ammunition from here forward, or both.
Police reports are public record. Anyone can request a copy of any report for a small copy fee. You were lied to when you were told that because you were listed as a 'suspect' on the report you were not allowed a copy absent a lawyer. Utter B.S.
You really should sue these b******s. You'll have to show damages.
The theft and use of your property (stolen bullet, used your firearm without your consent) absent your consent or a valid search warrant might meet that standard.
They violated your Fourth Amendment Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. This includes the first encounter in the restaurant as well as their subsequent behavior after taking your property without consent.
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
imported post
Hard part was you waiting to check your property outside, you needed
to check it at the counter so the clerk can witness that all of it isn't there.
Now you need to fight the lies that it all was returned to you as well as show
that the bullet they stole had sentimental value in the $1000's. That round
was a gift from C. Heston himself for donating money to loose your rights one
piece at a time, or the first round your 6 yo son ever made for you just for his
personnel protection. Now he lies awake at night worrying the bad guys will
get him. Mental anguish 6 figures.:shock:
Hard part was you waiting to check your property outside, you needed
to check it at the counter so the clerk can witness that all of it isn't there.
Now you need to fight the lies that it all was returned to you as well as show
that the bullet they stole had sentimental value in the $1000's. That round
was a gift from C. Heston himself for donating money to loose your rights one
piece at a time, or the first round your 6 yo son ever made for you just for his
personnel protection. Now he lies awake at night worrying the bad guys will
get him. Mental anguish 6 figures.:shock:
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
No court is going to award "sentimental value." Mental anguish is almost impossible to recover on.
Any recovery is going to be based on one thing only: violation of rights.
No court is going to award "sentimental value." Mental anguish is almost impossible to recover on.
Any recovery is going to be based on one thing only: violation of rights.
JohnGalt
New member
imported post
SlackwareRobert wrote:
The issue is not whether there is monetary loss in the round. The issue is that your civil rights were violated under color of law, without reason (42 USC 1983 and 4A). The act of firing a round from a pistol for forensic fingerprinting is a search and seizure - the same way that running a serial number on a pistol is a search (so long as it is not in plain view -- COVER UP YOUR SERIALS WITH BLACK TAPE!). This is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights. They cannot hide being a shield of suspicion that you violated a nonexistent law to justify their actions.
I recommend a lawsuit in federal court under 42 USC 1983. Any civil rights attorney should take it on contingency since the latest case law on this subject as I understand the facts, is pretty compelling.
SlackwareRobert wrote:
The issue is not whether there is monetary loss in the round. The issue is that your civil rights were violated under color of law, without reason (42 USC 1983 and 4A). The act of firing a round from a pistol for forensic fingerprinting is a search and seizure - the same way that running a serial number on a pistol is a search (so long as it is not in plain view -- COVER UP YOUR SERIALS WITH BLACK TAPE!). This is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights. They cannot hide being a shield of suspicion that you violated a nonexistent law to justify their actions.
I recommend a lawsuit in federal court under 42 USC 1983. Any civil rights attorney should take it on contingency since the latest case law on this subject as I understand the facts, is pretty compelling.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
GunTotingLawyer wrote:
GunTotingLawyer wrote:
St. John v. Alamogordo is about police doing an illegal search and seizure just because a person was legally OCing. How would that case affect a case in Alabama? Some have said that, since Alabama and New Mexico are in different federal appeals circuits, that St. John would be of no significance.
JohnGalt
New member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
DISCLAIMER: I write all of this under the assumption that the story as presented by the OP is the total truth and comprises all operative facts of this case. Also, I apologize for the length of this post. I am on fire about law enforcement officials respecting civil rights and firmly believe that as with open carry, our civil rights are only as strong as our appetite to protect them zealously. Also, as an attorney, I cannot help myself
Eye95 - That is the exact case that I was thinking about (St. John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (D.N.M. 2009)). That case took place in New Mexico district court which is in the 11th Circuit while Alabama is in the 5th Circuit. So while it is true that the case would not be controlling authority in any case brought before a federal court in Alabama, it would certainly be persuasive authority based on the similarity of the facts. So we cannot say that it "would be of no significance."
The facts are closely aligned with those here. The plaintiff in that case was sitting in a movie theater with an openly carried pistol when he was accosted by police officers, was searched, and detained. The court held, noting that open carry was legal in the state without permit, that "Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
The only citation to that case happens to be a district court case in the 5th Circuit (Georgia). In GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. MARTA, the plaintiff was detained, had his concealed pistol removed, and was subject to an identification check when a transit officer observed him retrieve a pistol from his trunk and conceal it on his person while he was in the parking lot of the MARTA train. The state of Georgia had recently passed a law making legal, the possession of a concealed pistol on public transportation.
The plaintiff claimed 4th amendment and 1983 violations. The court held that he could not make those claims because the officer has a reasonable suspicion that there was a crime afoot. Why? Because, according to the court, "possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon." Accordingly, "it does not matter if there was no reason to suspect that Raissi did not have a Georgia firearms license. After Raissi concealed his handgun and started walking toward the MARTA station, he had committed all of the acts required for the crime of boarding with a concealed weapon and the crime of carrying a concealed weapon."
The court even distinguished the facts there from those in the St. John case:
"St. John is a case from New Mexico and, under New Mexico law, it is not a crime to carry a firearm without a license so long as the firearm is carried openly, which the plaintiff in St. John did." (emphasis added)
So the facts of the two cases are distinguishable, as the court noted. Furthermore, the laws of Alabama, with regard to open carry, are more closely aligned with those of New Mexico than of Georgia (i.e. - there is no permit required to carry openly as the OP was doing).
There is another case that is informative here that was cited in St. John from the 3rd Circuit. That case, United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), established the priciple that an individual's lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
The St. John court described the case as:
"In Ubiles, officers seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip that he was carrying a gun. Officers did so even though no applicable law prohibited Ubiles from carrying a firearm during the celebration. Holding that the search violated Ubiles' Fourth Amendment rights, the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers 'that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason.' Nor, the court continued, could the officers rely on the fact that Ubiles possessed the weapon while in a crowd. '[Otherwise], citizens farming under the open skies of Washington or Vermont would generally have greater Fourth Amendment protections than their compatriots bustling to work in Manhattan or Boston. As a general proposition of constitutional law, this cannot be so . . . . '
Accordingly, I believe that there is compelling persuasive authority available to an Alabama federal court to hold that there was a fourth amendment violation here.
The officers' actions also likely violate multiple sections of the Alabama Constitution.
It's preamble reads:
"That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:"
It continues in relevant part:
Section 5
"That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions from unreasonable seizure or searches, and that no warrants shall issue to search any place or to seize any person or thing without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."
Section 26
"That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
I recommend a lawsuit alleging violations of these rights as well. If I was on the bar in Alabama, I would jump at the chance to bring this case (if the facts, indeed, are as they were represented).
eye95 wrote:
DISCLAIMER: I write all of this under the assumption that the story as presented by the OP is the total truth and comprises all operative facts of this case. Also, I apologize for the length of this post. I am on fire about law enforcement officials respecting civil rights and firmly believe that as with open carry, our civil rights are only as strong as our appetite to protect them zealously. Also, as an attorney, I cannot help myself
Eye95 - That is the exact case that I was thinking about (St. John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (D.N.M. 2009)). That case took place in New Mexico district court which is in the 11th Circuit while Alabama is in the 5th Circuit. So while it is true that the case would not be controlling authority in any case brought before a federal court in Alabama, it would certainly be persuasive authority based on the similarity of the facts. So we cannot say that it "would be of no significance."
The facts are closely aligned with those here. The plaintiff in that case was sitting in a movie theater with an openly carried pistol when he was accosted by police officers, was searched, and detained. The court held, noting that open carry was legal in the state without permit, that "Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
The only citation to that case happens to be a district court case in the 5th Circuit (Georgia). In GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. MARTA, the plaintiff was detained, had his concealed pistol removed, and was subject to an identification check when a transit officer observed him retrieve a pistol from his trunk and conceal it on his person while he was in the parking lot of the MARTA train. The state of Georgia had recently passed a law making legal, the possession of a concealed pistol on public transportation.
The plaintiff claimed 4th amendment and 1983 violations. The court held that he could not make those claims because the officer has a reasonable suspicion that there was a crime afoot. Why? Because, according to the court, "possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon." Accordingly, "it does not matter if there was no reason to suspect that Raissi did not have a Georgia firearms license. After Raissi concealed his handgun and started walking toward the MARTA station, he had committed all of the acts required for the crime of boarding with a concealed weapon and the crime of carrying a concealed weapon."
The court even distinguished the facts there from those in the St. John case:
"St. John is a case from New Mexico and, under New Mexico law, it is not a crime to carry a firearm without a license so long as the firearm is carried openly, which the plaintiff in St. John did." (emphasis added)
So the facts of the two cases are distinguishable, as the court noted. Furthermore, the laws of Alabama, with regard to open carry, are more closely aligned with those of New Mexico than of Georgia (i.e. - there is no permit required to carry openly as the OP was doing).
There is another case that is informative here that was cited in St. John from the 3rd Circuit. That case, United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), established the priciple that an individual's lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
The St. John court described the case as:
"In Ubiles, officers seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip that he was carrying a gun. Officers did so even though no applicable law prohibited Ubiles from carrying a firearm during the celebration. Holding that the search violated Ubiles' Fourth Amendment rights, the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers 'that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason.' Nor, the court continued, could the officers rely on the fact that Ubiles possessed the weapon while in a crowd. '[Otherwise], citizens farming under the open skies of Washington or Vermont would generally have greater Fourth Amendment protections than their compatriots bustling to work in Manhattan or Boston. As a general proposition of constitutional law, this cannot be so . . . . '
Accordingly, I believe that there is compelling persuasive authority available to an Alabama federal court to hold that there was a fourth amendment violation here.
The officers' actions also likely violate multiple sections of the Alabama Constitution.
It's preamble reads:
"That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:"
It continues in relevant part:
Section 5
"That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions from unreasonable seizure or searches, and that no warrants shall issue to search any place or to seize any person or thing without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."
Section 26
"That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
I recommend a lawsuit alleging violations of these rights as well. If I was on the bar in Alabama, I would jump at the chance to bring this case (if the facts, indeed, are as they were represented).
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
GTL: Have you read the details of my encounter? (Holy ****, here in the Alabama forum) Short of the detaining officer not physically assaulting me, I think the particulars of my case parallel St. John pretty closely also.
The city seemed to be willing to change its policy and practice, so I am disinclined to sue. However, I am keeping my options open.
Do you think I'd have a case?
GTL: Have you read the details of my encounter? (Holy ****, here in the Alabama forum) Short of the detaining officer not physically assaulting me, I think the particulars of my case parallel St. John pretty closely also.
The city seemed to be willing to change its policy and practice, so I am disinclined to sue. However, I am keeping my options open.
Do you think I'd have a case?