Nice. She's a smart girl.
I got a call from my little sister who is 16 years old who many of you guys have met at open carry meet ups. She called me and her parents informing us that she was being detained right outside of school in front of the Sam's club store. Myself and her parents went to the scene. I of course was OC'ing wearing my Nevada open carry shirt.. We arrived on the scene and my father walked up to her with me right behind him. The metro officer then saw my gun and informed me for his safety I would need to leave the gun in my car. I told him that was not an option. He then said I would have to stay back for "officer safety". I complied and stood about 15 feet away. My sister was being detained for jay walking.
I had taught her whenever she encountered the police to shut the f@ck up and ask for her parents which she did. She refused to answer all of the cops questions including, what kind of grades she gets, who her friends are, and multiple questions like that. The cop did not like that at all and threatened her with everything from school expulsion to juvy hall. All she would tell him was her name and her student ID number. She was released to my parents and started crying at that point. The cop came over and started talking to me. The funny part was like a criminal who had done something wrong, he started telling me all about his point of view. I simply nodded and smiled. He went as far as stating which church he goes to, how many kids he has, and what church programs he runs for troubled children. The funny part was I felt like I was the cop interogating a suspect. I will post more details about this later but before we left he agreed to rip up the jay walking infraction and invite us to church. Bottom line is I remained calm, treated him like an adult, listened to him and we got what we wanted and my sister got a life lesson in police encounters. I treated the cop like a detective treats a criminal by just letting him tell me his story. In case they do skim these forums I will not post the officers name.
Nice. She's a smart girl.
But Thought guns were not allowed within 1000 feet of a school?
Good job! You taught her well.
So, if he was either on private property or has a concealed carry permit, the 1000ft school zone prohibition does not apply.The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 States:
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
Good job though on standing your ground and teaching sis about her rights.
Last edited by Vegassteve; 10-14-2010 at 12:44 PM.
I wish my oldest son would have done the same thing. I won't get into it here but my wife started a blog about it. Trust me, I DO NOT CONDONE WHAT MY SON DID, I just don't like how he was singled out and try and make an example out of.
I can't see how it is constitutional after U.S. vs. Lopez. The congress changed the wording slightly afterwards, but I believe it is still unconstitutional for the same reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 10-15-2010 at 11:26 AM.
Good on your sister bro! and that had to have been an awesome sight seeing you come up with your NV OC shirt and your firearm, can you stand away for officer safety? hahhaha okay so 3 to 5 feet turns into 15 to 20 feet yes thats soooo much more safe!
On a side note its good to see you post again!!
4/103.14 PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS A.S.26.1.1 While on duty or under "color of law" members shall not publicly express an opinion on racial, religious, political, or controversial subjects, and shall refrain from public discussion of the demerits of any law, unless it is the expressed opinion of the department. Members shall not engage in political or religious discussions to the detriment of good discipline and shall not speak disparingly of the nationality, color, creed or belief of any person. (7/73)
Last edited by DON`T TREAD ON ME; 10-15-2010 at 11:54 PM. Reason: sp of course
I forgot to mention, I have a PDF formatted METRO IA complaint form in case any one would care to participate. PM me
That would qualify as "threatening or intimidating speech," and would probably win you an all-expenses-paid (by you) tour of the local law enforcement facility.
In addition, it would be needlessly escalating tension between two guys with guns. This ranks real high on the "Stupid-O-Meter."
Well done by your sister for exercising her rights.
What a coward for a cop, intimidating a minor female with lies. A great example of a police officer trying to intimidate someone into waiving a right they've already invoked. I would make this a central point in any formal complaint. Utter lack of respect for rights, even unto lying (or threatening to do something underhanded) simply to get unnecessary information. Oh! Isn't there some case law around that says the questions must remain reasonably related to the reason for the stop?
And, all that for jaywalking.
I'm sorry to hear she was a bit traumatized by the experience. But, since she won, I'll bet the next cop that pulls some illegal stunt like this gets a cool, steady gaze from someone who is certain of her rights and his limits.
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located
You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC
Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.
If he hadn't been armed, he would still have been told to move away -- and, if he hadn't been armed, he might have argued with the cop about it, which wouldn't help anyone.
One thing to keep in mind is that the cop will KILL YOU if he thinks that's what has to happen so that he can go home safely at the end of watch. Those of us who OC put the cops into Condition Orange, the same as a guy who looks like a gangbanger puts US into Orange. Until we give the cop some reason to trust us, we are "likely targets."
By showing up armed, Green turned a simple jaywalking issue into something more dangerous. By refusing the cop's first request, but going along with the second one, he showed himself as reasonable and willing to accept a certain amount of direction, but not willing to just roll over for anything the cop said.
if he indeed did make that command, the officer was breaking the law, and had zero authority to attempt to deprive Green of his weapon. Same goes for the second request, I do not know the law regarding the distance required between an officer doing his job , and the public. Yet as I understand it, unless Green was "hindering" in some manner he was lawfull and needed no correction from the officer. Given the description of how it all went down, I think Green did awsome and so did lil sis.
Terry only speaks to the admissibility of evidence from a pat-down during a stop-and-frisk. It does not specifically exclude other kinds of encounters that I recall.
Also, remember that the crux of Terry, as regards the gun, was the reasonableness of the search for the gun. A gun that is already in view doesn't require searching for. No intrusion at all.
I'm willing to bet courts would, or maybe have already ruled, that disarming even non-suspects under certain circumstances is reasonable under the 4th Amendment reasonableness doctrine.
Think about a domestic disturbance where the husband has slugged the wife. The cops get there and the wife is holding a gun. She's not the suspect, the husband is. Would a reasonable and prudent person disarm the wife temporarily so an argument does not turn into gunfire?
I think "officer safety" is too often a substitute for using judgement; but, I'll bet the courts would side liberally with police on this.
Last edited by Citizen; 10-17-2010 at 07:46 PM.
Good for you to think to educate her before something happened, and good for her for remembering.
Oh, yeah. If there is a next time, it will be quite different.I'll bet the next cop that pulls some illegal stunt like this gets a cool, steady gaze
from someone who is certain of her rights and his limits.
Also I doubt that Greengum was effecting interstate or international commerce walking to the scene of his sisters detention, unless he arrived there by way of a loaded commercial vehicle with goods bound for a destination out of state.
If the cop can't articulate valid reasonable suspicion for the detention the detention is illegal. Florida v. J.L. goes into this, there is also no exception in the Fourth Amendment for firearms. Absent other activity the mere presence of a firearm is not reasonable suspicion. Racine WI, Alamogordo NM, and who knows how many cities have paid out $$$ because their cops illegaly detain/arrest people.
"Firearms are dangerous, and extraordinary dangers sometimes justify unusual precautions. Our decisions recognize the serious threat that armed criminals pose to public safety; Terry's rule, which permits protective police searches on the basis of reasonable suspicion rather than demanding that officers meet the higher standard of probable cause, responds to this very concern. See 392 U.S., at 30. But an automatic firearm exception to our established reliability analysis would rove too far. Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun. Nor could one securely confine such an exception to allegations involving firearms." Florida v. J.L.
My point is that the universe is bigger. I know of no case law that prevents a police officer disarming a non-suspect third party who is involved. Just because Terry and subsequent detention/frisk cases focus on the reasonableness of searching for a weapon for officer safety, and temporarily seizing any found, and making them admissible, does not mean Terry, et seq. excluded thereby all other situations.
You have to think your way through it carefully. The judges will; and they will come up with the finest distinctions.
Last edited by Citizen; 10-17-2010 at 10:39 PM.