Fellow CA UOCer arrested.

Benjamin was NOT arrested on gun charges!

Benjamin has done a good vid on UOC here


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b49gXxcgbHc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I'd like to bring this to people's attention. We can learn from every police encounter and add the knowledge to our tool box.

His arrest video is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TV-txAxNJ0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

News coverage here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reHdjKIqNlg&feature=youtube_gdata_player


"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

That's too bad. I've never met Ben before but he seemed like a nice guy from his videos. It's good that they weren't open carrying at least, since otherwise they'd get hit with the mask + gun = illegal law. Thanks for the link Ryan.

can someone summarize? i cant see the vids right now

2 brothers hung signs on a freeway overpass. inside the fence so no chance of dropping them on cars below.
They had on goofy mask.
They were asked to leave, and when they did not ID themselves, got busted.

Iopencarry said:

2 brothers hung signs on a freeway overpass. inside the fence so no chance of dropping them on cars below.
They had on goofy mask.
They were asked to leave, and when they did not ID themselves, got busted.

Click to expand...

I saw that video a week or so back. We are quite supportive of people's 1st amendment rights, but there are some restrictions that apply, and make sense. Hanging a sign from public property is restricted pretty much everywhere unless you get a permit first. What do you think that freeway crossing would look like if there was no restriction? It's be a mess of deteriorating media, blowing and falling. There would also be constant competitive battles for dominance, and not just from guerilla media. Clear channel would be on there with ads for beer or whatever. From what I understand, as long as you are moving and carrying your sign, you won't be arrested.
So they were in violation, clear and simple. After that, the police can arrest or cite, and the cite is going to require ID. If you refuse ID, then arrest is the only option short of ignoring the violation. The police were basically given little choice

I concur.

Save Our State said:

I saw that video a week or so back. We are quite supportive of people's 1st amendment rights, but there are some restrictions that apply, and make sense. Hanging a sign from public property is restricted pretty much everywhere unless you get a permit first. What do you think that freeway crossing would look like if there was no restriction? It's be a mess of deteriorating media, blowing and falling. There would also be constant competitive battles for dominance, and not just from guerilla media. Clear channel would be on there with ads for beer or whatever. From what I understand, as long as you are moving and carrying your sign, you won't be arrested.
So they were in violation, clear and simple. After that, the police can arrest or cite, and the cite is going to require ID. If you refuse ID, then arrest is the only option short of ignoring the violation. The police were basically given little choice

Click to expand...

Hey Save Our State,

I agree with your opinion.

Furthermore, it SEEMS apparent that Benjamin did not know the "ins and outs" of applying posters to public structures or for wearing masks in public. I don't know what the law is regarding those issues.

Because OCers have paved the way for years now, and because a few have paid the price by being unlawfully arrested or illegally detained, we have a body of legal knowledge that includes federal constitutional law, federal case law, state law, state case law, and settlement agreements that clearly define what constitutes illegal activity by LEO while we OC or UOC. I read an old post that was resurected a few days ago--this movement has made huge progress. LEO has been forced to learn 4A case law and we have learned of many existing SCOTUS and inferior court rulings that enforce 4A and 2A. We also have new rulings that protect us.

Here is my point:

If you don't have case law and the penal code memorized for a situation like Benjamin faced, it is probably best to take the mask off, give your name, and cooperate with LEO.

After the incident, you can use a legal or political venue to prove that LEO acted illegally. And, you won't have an arrest on your record which could jeopardize other rights that you have.

The arresting LEO may have allowed Benjamin to leave with a warning had he cooperated (speculation on my part). Don't escalate a situation where you may be violating the law if you don't have your facts straight.

markm

PS: Thanks to all who have been illegally detained or arrested, thanks to those who have worked to educate LEO, thanks to all who have supported law suites against LEO, and thanks for this forum. Thanks to Jason Davis, Alan Gura and CalGuns.

MarkBofRAdvocate said:

Hey Save Our State,

I agree with your opinion.

Furthermore, it SEEMS apparent that Benjamin did not know the "ins and outs" of applying posters to public structures or for wearing masks in public. I don't know what the law is regarding those issues.

Because OCers have paved the way for years now, and because a few have paid the price by being unlawfully arrested or illegally detained, we have a body of legal knowledge that includes federal constitutional law, federal case law, state law, state case law, and settlement agreements that clearly define what constitutes illegal activity by LEO while we OC or UOC. I read an old post that was resurected a few days ago--this movement has made huge progress. LEO has been forced to learn 4A case law and we have learned of many existing SCOTUS and inferior court rulings that enforce 4A and 2A. We also have new rulings that protect us.

Here is my point:

If you don't have case law and the penal code memorized for a situation like Benjamin faced, it is probably best to take the mask off, give your name, and cooperate with LEO.

After the incident, you can use a legal or political venue to prove that LEO acted illegally. And, you won't have an arrest on your record which could jeopardize other rights that you have.

The arresting LEO may have allowed Benjamin to leave with a warning had he cooperated (speculation on my part). Don't escalate a situation where you may be violating the law if you don't have your facts straight.

markm

PS: Thanks to all who have been illegally detained or arrested, thanks to those who have worked to educate LEO, thanks to all who have supported law suites against LEO, and thanks for this forum. Thanks to Jason Davis, Alan Gura and CalGuns.

Click to expand...

CA PC 185: It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of:
One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense.
Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

The mask portion is absolute BS. They did not try to get away without being recognized. They stated clearly in the video that the mask were for "political theater" and their choice of masks support that (Guy Fawkes mask).

They even went so far as to voluntarily remove the masks.

I would like to know the exact PC or CVC (dealing with highway overpass) that they were charged with for "hanging a sign from a freeway overpass.

Sorry for not adding enough detail to the original post. I was on my phone and in a hurry.

What I saw in the arrest video was the police mindset. Everything is ok until you challenge LEO.

In the vid you can hear the cop say he did nit have an issue with the sign. BUT invoke your right to not give up your papers and they are going to stick it to you!

Keep an eye out for a Cal Guns press release this weekend.
Hint hint.

I have first hand experience with what happens when LEO don't like your LEGAL activity.





"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

Save Our State said:

The police were basically given little choice

Click to expand...

This is a bit of a hyperbole, right? The officers, had they any respect for individuals' rights, would have showed the two men the penal code and respectfully asked them to remove their signs (which they likely would have done). Then the tax payer wouldn't have had to pay for five cops to show up, take the time to file paperwork associated with their arrest, the time to prosecute them, and the time to punish them.

Instead the police officers intentionally cited the mask code incorrectly, unlawfully detained them for failure to produce ID, and failed to inform the men that hanging signs from state property was unlawful. Nobody wins from the result aside from the cops who asserted their authority and showed that contempt of cop is still an arrestable offense.

ryanburbridge said:

In the vid you can hear the cop say he did nit have an issue with the sign. BUT invoke your right to not give up your papers and they are going to stick it to you!

Click to expand...

I gathered from that video that the cop meant he didn't have issue with the message on the sign; But he did have an issue with the attachment of it. Had you just been out walking down the street and not breaking a law, I'd say you were pretty much within your right to wear any mask and not present ID on demand. Instead, there was an argument over your rights, and that's not up to the cops to decide. That's for the court. A cite would have been issued had there been ID presented, and then you get your day in court. No ID, then arrest may be imminent. I'm not at all discouraging your incentive and attempt at being resourceful in excercizing your 1st amendment rights. That was, and continues to be a large tool in our box. But arguing with cops on the roadside is an improper venue. Courts are for arguments.
I can tell you I personally have spent more hours than I can remember displaying signs in public, and specifically did many tours on the freeway and parking spots. I've been down this path, and have learned how to cope with the public rights of way. If the sign was and remains your main intent, then you can learn to cope with it too.

I stand corrected!

bigtoe416 said:

This is a bit of a hyperbole, right? The officers, had they any respect for individuals' rights, would have showed the two men the penal code and respectfully asked them to remove their signs (which they likely would have done). Then the tax payer wouldn't have had to pay for five cops to show up, take the time to file paperwork associated with their arrest, the time to prosecute them, and the time to punish them.

Instead the police officers intentionally cited the mask code incorrectly, unlawfully detained them for failure to produce ID, and failed to inform the men that hanging signs from state property was unlawful. Nobody wins from the result aside from the cops who asserted their authority and showed that contempt of cop is still an arrestable offense.

Click to expand...

Thanks Decoligny, Ryanburbridge, and Bigtoe:

Thanks for clarifying this situation.

What is the penalty for hanging a sign from a public place or overpass? Is it a citation or can LEO arrest someone? Again, I don't know the law.

I am now thinking that we have another rogue copper who arrests a person first and then tries to find a PC section to hang the person with.

Benjamin and his brother may have a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit. I hope they persue this and put forth a motion to lift qualified immunity protection from the LEO.

First impressions are usually wrong; and most of us assume that LEO is here to protect and serve the law-abiding. More and more I learn that LEO is rogue and contemptable.

This last weekend, I spoke with an on-duty Placer County Deputy Sherriff. He was at the China Wall snow machine parking lot on Forest Hill Divide Road. I was searching for a good spot to plink. I told him that I had first stopped at the Forest Service Ranger station to ask for a good plinking spot, but it was closed. The Deputy Sherrif first gave me the usuall speal about being 150 yards from buildings, campsites, parking lots, and the like. He then told me that I had to be 150 yards from any road.

I stopped him and asked what Placer County ordinance makes that last point law. He could not answer. He stated that the Forest service rule does not have a prohibition of 150 yards from a road or body or water. He then said that he follows the "knuckle-head" rule. If a person is acting like a knuckle-head with guns he stops them. If they are acting responsibly, he does not care if the gun is loaded while on a road or not. (conversation paraphrased).

I repied that he needs RAS to stop somebody. He nodded.

The Deputy tried to put forth false information to me (He either miss-spoke or intentionally miss-quoted the law, I don't know which).

He also told me where a good plinking spot was. I went there and had a good time.

markm

Considering that this occurred in a police state, the most interesting part was the ******* cop broad saying you had to have your "papers" at 'all' times--just in case the NKVD stopped you. I wonder when they'll get around to passing out yellow Stars of David as the next step in 'serving and protecting' the power structure. Maybe they can pin some violation, like an offshoot of littering, for the sign. They can shove the mask "law" up their asses. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show their intent to mislead or evade pursuant to a crime being or about to be committed, per the statute, and it doesn't exist. My bet is nol prossed. And they drop whatever other charge they try and cook up if the guys make lawsuit noise, as well. The PDR at its best.

Save Our State said:

1 Instead, there was an argument over your rights, and that's not up to the cops to decide.

2 That's for the court. A cite would have been issued had there been ID presented, and then you get your day in court.

3 But arguing with cops on the roadside is an improper venue.

4 Courts are for arguments.

Click to expand...

1 LEO have taken an oath to uphold the constitution. They should know the constitution like everyone els in this country. They make decisions everyday and could have seen this for what it was a protest. There power was challenged so they took away someones liberty and freedom (even if just temporarily)

2 should we all have to spend 10,000 plus in legal fees just to exercise ones rights? Our servants in the courts and law have a DUTY not to bring undue charges against citizens just because they challenge ones authority.

3 SHEEP and SUBJECTS! A free man will always question and argue if need be the over step of governments authority in our lives. Why should free men wait until they are behind bars before they stand up for ones rights.

4 courts are for convicting people and sending people to jail for breaking laws (many unjust). Not to scare people into becoming subjects not willing to assert their freedoms. If you have been to court you know "Innocent until proven guilty" is a LIE. Once in court you must prove your innocents if you have enough money.


IMO there was NO need for a arrest and unless we start defending one another from our servants in government NOW we will see our freedoms and liberties continue to be flushed away.


"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

Decoligny said:

The mask portion is absolute BS. They did not try to get away without being recognized. They stated clearly in the video that the mask were for "political theater" and their choice of masks support that (Guy Fawkes mask).

They even went so far as to voluntarily remove the masks.

I would like to know the exact PC or CVC (dealing with highway overpass) that they were charged with for "hanging a sign from a freeway overpass.

Click to expand...

You are correct. The Yuba Sheriff's Deputies have failed to establish intent as an element to the crime they are charging the brothers with. The PC185 charge should be dismissed.

ConditionThree said:

You are correct. The Yuba Sheriff's Deputies have failed to establish intent as an element to the crime they are charging the brothers with. The PC185 charge should be dismissed.

Click to expand...

The law reads:
Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful
for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal
disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of:
One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification
in the commission of any public offense.

They were evading identification in the commission of the public offense, no?

Save Our State said:

The law reads:
Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful
for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal
disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of:
One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification
in the commission of any public offense.

They were evading identification in the commission of the public offense, no?

Click to expand...

Can you ascertain by the video that their purpose of wearing masks was to evade or escape discovery, recognition, or identification?
How does the fact that they removed their masks while voluntarily talking with the Sheriff Deputies support an alleged attempt to evade or escape identification?
Does their refusal to provide photo ID have any bearing on PC185 once they removed their masks as so their faces could be seen by the deputies?

The deputies in my opinion, were blending the refusal to provide photo ID (which is not a crime) with a statutory violation of PC185 without establishing the intent, which is an essential element of the crime.

ConditionThree said:

Can you ascertain by the video that their purpose of wearing masks was to evade or escape discovery, recognition, or identification?
How does the fact that they removed their masks while voluntarily talking with the Sheriff Deputies support an alleged attempt to evade or escape identification?
Does their refusal to provide photo ID have any bearing on PC185 once they removed their masks as so their faces could be seen by the deputies?

The deputies in my opinion, were blending the refusal to provide photo ID (which is not a crime) with a statutory violation of PC185 without establishing the intent, which is an essential element of the crime.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was a good collar for them at all, but I also don't think it was terribly unreasonable for them to believe that the law was violated.

Save Our State said:

I don't think it was a good collar for them at all, but I also don't think it was terribly unreasonable for them to believe that the law was violated.

Click to expand...

I know when I'm attempting to hide my identity by wearing a mask, I usually show people my face voluntarily. But that's just me.

bigtoe416 said:

I know when I'm attempting to hide my identity by wearing a mask, I usually show people my face voluntarily. But that's just me.

Click to expand...

At one point, there was a refusal to ID, and a refusal to unmask. I don't know that a prosecutor will proceed knowing that they later unmasked. Probably not. But the cops saw it differently at the time.

Save Our State said:

I don't think it was a good collar for them at all, but I also don't think it was terribly unreasonable for them to believe that the law was violated.

Click to expand...

Where's the "mens rea"? Did they purposefully know what they were doing was illegal? If so nothing illegal was done.