Livermore Police Department - 12031(e) check W/weapons drawn

haha i loved how he asked if you needed anything else and you didnt reply and he said "ok" haha it was like there was a big a$$ middle finger being directed and poo being flung at him.

It really bothered me to see the police not leave afterward and essentially intimidate him into leaving. I was thinking too he might have stayed there and waited them out, but I'd be worried if there would be some obscure loitering law?

Gundude said:

I don't see them having a problem shooting you if you break leather with them at a low ready.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but officers are supposed to act better than citizens. They not only swore an oath to uphold the constitution, but go through rigorous training and mental screening. Being threatened, and threatening in return, a civilian who has done nothing but exercise a fundamental right (legally) makes their behavior even more deplorable.

So you're okay with the police threatening citizens, but think homicide is justified when the same positions are reversed?

Does "proning out" UOC'rs seem like a legitimate exercise?

Do you believe police breaking leather to do a check w/o a reasonable suspicion a crime had, or will be committed is okay?

It really does seem like you're okay with two standards, one for citizens and another for agents of the government.

merle said:

I'm sorry, but officers are supposed to act better than citizens. They not only swore an oath to uphold the constitution, but go through rigorous training and mental screening. Being threatened, and threatening in return, a civilian who has done nothing but exercise a fundamental right (legally) makes their behavior even more deplorable.

So you're okay with the police threatening citizens, but think homicide is justified when the same positions are reversed?

Does "proning out" UOC'rs seem like a legitimate exercise?

Do you believe police breaking leather to do a check w/o a reasonable suspicion a crime had, or will be committed is okay?

It really does seem like you're okay with two standards, one for citizens and another for agents of the government.

Click to expand...

I didn't say I was ok with anything in your post.
All I said was, I think breaking leather when an LEO is watching at low ready is asking to get shot. I would let the LEO pull my weapon and check it and return it. I absolutly refuse to touch my weapon with LEO's around.
Refusal of an (e) check gets you locked up and loss of gunrights for 10 yrs.

I don't know of any UOC'ers that have been "proned out" but many have looked down an LEO's gun barrel.

I'm not ok with any anti gun laws, but they are here and we have to live with them till they are changed. We are workin on it.

wildhawker said:

It's anyone's guess for a reason. I'm not sure why you'd want or expect us to broadcast our tactics or specifics other than impatience.

-Brandon

Click to expand...

Tick-tock-tick-tock. Every day that goes by with rights violations going unanswered are rights lost. What you call impatient, I call a sense of urgency.

Reality

merle said:

I'm sorry, but officers are supposed to act better than citizens. They not only swore an oath to uphold the constitution, but go through rigorous training and mental screening. Being threatened, and threatening in return, a civilian who has done nothing but exercise a fundamental right (legally) makes their behavior even more deplorable.

So you're okay with the police threatening citizens, but think homicide is justified when the same positions are reversed?

Does "proning out" UOC'rs seem like a legitimate exercise?

Do you believe police breaking leather to do a check w/o a reasonable suspicion a crime had, or will be committed is okay?

It really does seem like you're okay with two standards, one for citizens and another for agents of the government.

Click to expand...

Fact: No one carrying a gun likes to be e checked or thinks it's ok

Fact: You touch your gun while in the presence of an officer and you chance getting shot

Fact: Gundude was just stating a fact when he said "I don't see them having a problem shooting you if you break leather with them at a low ready."

Fact: If the above happened, it would more than likely be deemed justifiable

Fact: If you touch your gun in the presence of an officer you're not very smart

So lets understand WHY we accept these as facts.

JJ said:

Fact: No one carrying a gun likes to be e checked or thinks it's ok

Click to expand...

Why? Common knowledge around here is it is believed unconstitutional and a violation of their 4A rights. Rights officers have sworn to uphold but obviously choose to ignore. Do we trust officers who willingly break their oaths?

Fact: You touch your gun while in the presence of an officer and you chance getting shot

Click to expand...

Why? Are the officers terrified of being shot and would rather shoot a person doing nothing illegal? Is the potential "threat" so great as to inspire fear and a pre-emptive assault?

If the answer is yes to the fear portion, then why shouldn't the people of CA fear any OC'r as the weapons *may* be loaded and *may* be used in the comission of a crime and they are justified in outlawing OC?

You go to Starbucks and reach to adjust your gun. You get shot. That is not right. The same should not be right in the presence of a police officer.

Open carry does not require a holster nor the gun maintained in a holster as one can openly carry a firearm simply by holding it.

Fact: Gundude was just stating a fact when he said "I don't see them having a problem shooting you if you break leather with them at a low ready."

Click to expand...

And my response was to try and understand "why" he believed that.

Fact: If the above happened, it would more than likely be deemed justifiable

Click to expand...

We have the same issue with the Costco shooting in Las Vegas. People are claiming the coroners inquest is not fair and the CCW carrier did nothing to incite the shooting. A shooting deemed justified does not mean the shooting is/was justified.

Fact: If you touch your gun in the presence of an officer you're not very smart

Click to expand...

Why? You cannot envision any reason why you'd need to touch your gun in the presence of an officer?

Again, I'll allude to the shooting at Costco. Witnesses are telling of conflicting commands by the officers on the scene ("freeze", "take your gun out and place it on the ground").

Ultimately, are Californian's so afraid of being shot that they're willing to give up on fundamental rights?

You ask why I won't pull my gun in front of a cop?
You cited the exact reason.
The guy at costco apparently was told to drop his weapon and then they killed him when he reached for it.
I have no intentions of becoming a martyr.

GunDude, To clarify about Erik Scott, He was given conflicting instructions from Officers according to multiple witnesses. One of the instructions was to drop his gun even though he didn't have it out of the holster. When he tried to comply with that demand he was executed by "law enforcement". he was CC'ing at the time. I agree with you though I don't want to get shot or harmed by either Criminals or Law Enforcement.

Merle, The answer to your final question is yes. Plain and simple. Your rights are fairly useless when your dead. They are not giving up their rights. They are fighting for them in the ways they can without getting shot. I am positive Erik Scott wasn't trying to get shot but he had some extremely agressive officers confront him based on horrific and false information provided by Costco employees.

The efforts of OC'ing in California are to bring the gun restrictions out in the open and to educate the population. I am fairly certain that no one truly wants to UOC. I am certain the preferance would be to OC loaded or get a Conceal weapons licence. Those options are currenlty not available to them so they do what they can. If you feel like UOC'ing then by all means do so. You are very close to the boarder so make sure you mags are 10 rounds or less when you go and stay away from schools... 1000' from their property line as the crow flys.

Edit to add: Something else to consider... Law Enforcement Officials enjoy almost complete immunity. Judges have total immunity. While you as a law abiding citizen must know and understand all laws on the books because ingnorance of the law is not a defense.

Over reaction by LE big time. In video I saw minimum four cars with minimum 5 cops. A little much methinks. go protect and serve not harass and annoy

Mike said:

Just because the Cal statute strangely provides police the power to inspect gun load conditions in incorporated areas does not mean that the police must or even should do this.

I think the statutory power of police to inspect guns like this should be challenged as a 4th amendment violation in federal court - makes no sense under our constitutinal traditions, abset reasonable suspicion, See Delaware v. Prouse (no stopiing drivers to check for driver's licenses abset reasonable suspicion of crime afoot) to allow p[olice the power to detain people like this.

The best plaintiff might be somebody who is serially being checked by police even though the police have no RAS of any crime and the police already know the citizen by name and sight and know that they are not a prohibited person or have any history of carrying loaded - hmmm, who might that be??

Click to expand...

Would I fit the bill?

First echeck was me in cuffs for two hours. With audio.
Second was about half an hour. Two minutes into the video One of the LE from the first detainment IDs me to the other police that had me in cuffs. They still kept me for 26 minuets.

Here is the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbhqsZED0sY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

ryanburbridge said:

Would I fit the bill?

First echeck was me in cuffs for two hours. With audio.
Second was about half an hour. Two minutes into the video One of the LE from the first detainment IDs me to the other police that had me in cuffs. They still kept me for 26 minuets.

Here is the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbhqsZED0sY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Click to expand...

That little escapade should be good for $20 or $30 grand.

JJ said:

Fact: If you touch your gun in the presence of an officer you're not very smart

Click to expand...

I disagree. I have handled my gun in the presence of an officer. I have seen other OC'ers do the same. Our expectation is that we would not be shot. We were not shot. This seems very reasonable and I think is the norm, based on the lack of officer shootings during e-checks.

Not the norm and not to be expected is to be shot for simply handling your weapon during an e-check. When people start to be shot on a regular basis during an e-check and I continue to handle my weapon, then maybe you can characterize me as not very smart.

e check

Sons of Liberty said:

I disagree. I have handled my gun in the presence of an officer. I have seen other OC'ers do the same. Our expectation is that we would not be shot. We were not shot. This seems very reasonable and I think is the norm, based on the lack of officer shootings during e-checks.

Not the norm and not to be expected is to be shot for simply handling your weapon during an e-check. When people start to be shot on a regular basis during an e-check and I continue to handle my weapon, then maybe you can characterize me as not very smart.

Click to expand...

When I said in the presence of an officer I didn't mean during an e check. However, all the people I know that OC regularly, will insist the officer remove and replace their weapon for an e check, so as to avoid having to handle their weapon.

$1,000 a minute?

I think about $1,000 a minute the police illegally detained, restrained, removed property, kidnapped you (moving from one place to another by force) . Until they learn the training of civil rights, and California Law, the officers and the LB City should pay a "Fine" like anybody else that violates the law and gets caught at it. This was a "contempt of cop" violation, the only problem for LBPD is there is no such thing, and your wife got it all on video. How disgraceful LBPD, jerking people around like this is a tactic of the old ways. Train your employees correctly, or suffer many lawsuits. This is a very clearcut violation. I am seeing a pattern here, wasn't this your second trip to the back seat of a LB police vehicle that ultimately your were released from? Most handcuffed folks only get a one way ride to the gray bar hotel. So did the police write reports about these fun adventures. They would make some great fairy tales trying tojustify those actions observed!!!

oc4ever,

I think you may have posted this in the wrong thread. It appears that you are ref to Long Beach?

This is about events that take place in Livermore.

was a reference to post 31 and 32

This was a reference to the above two (31 + 32) directly above post. I understand the difference between Livermore and Long Beach. One city already knows it is a sh@#hole, the other city wrongly thinks OC'ers are going to turn it into one.