WOW. I jsut spent the better part of an evening reading the forum thread (linked in the OP) and I am absolutely flabberghasted at the attitudes displayed by some of the posters (mostly those claiming to be LEO's) over there.
One thing that really gets to me is the idea that, and I'm paraphrasing and combining here......"citizens can't just go around carrying firearms and not expect to be hassled by police"........ This attitude that the people are "citizens" but somehow they are above that "status".......SCARY.
It's the same with the term "civillians"......For many police (most?) don't consider themselves civillians.....yet the only non civillian US citizens are MILITARY and while our police forces have been highly militarized, they are NOT the military, they are civillians!
To be fair, it's not all of them and there were several officers, as well as a....can you believe it....San Francisco ADA (if we believe peoples statements as to their credentials) who atempted to point out the fourth amendment issues involved.
What also amazed me was the apparent inability of the posters (on both sides) to correctly identify the way the incident in question "went down" and then how the fourth amendment issue kept reverting to second amendment arguments.
There is ample evidence easily available to completely explain how it all went down, including whether a REASONABLE PERSON would believe they were detained.
The incident in question happend prior to Sept 2007 (it was posted in August 2007 and I would assume that it occured shortly before that though it's possible it was a "recycled" vid and happened even earlier).
Per the OCer (statement at the end of the video) he was walking from his car to a meeting that was nearby. The distance he gives is 40 yards, when the first officer "contacted" him. Being a Freestater he immediately dialed PORC411 which is their (Freestaters) well established system for documenting interactions with government agents (interactions of of all types). This explains the audio only initial portion of the clip as it was from the PORC411 recording until a video camera showed up.
The Freestaters at the meeting he was walking to were notified through the PORC411 system and immediately exited their meeting to support their fellow Freestater. One of those began video taping and that is why the audio only beginning then goes to audio video.
The police contact was an officer initiated contact, not a MWAG call. This is obvious from the officers statements and those of Ridley.
There were no "complainants" present, only fellow Freestaters.
The OCer (Dave Ridley) was initially asked by the officer if he had ID and Ridley replied that he did but he wasn't required to give it to him (the officer). The officers reply "no but I like to know who I'm talking to". This implies though it doesn't state it clearly (a word trick used by LE) that Ridley is not detained but the officer is making a "consensual contact". Ridley then says "Dave Ridley" and something about a website so the officer now "knows who he's talking to" at least as far as having a name to call him by, knowing who Ridley is simply isn't a requirement but Ridley gave him a name.....which he did not have to do if not being detained.
Here's a "quick" timeline from there.......
0:34 sec Then the officer wants "something to back that up". He is again attempting to "trick" the law abiding OCer into producing ID without actually demanding it (as he has no legal grounds on which to do so).
My father, retired CHP, used such tactics quite effectively for his entire career. He also however, knew that if he was trying to use a consensual contact that he might be twarted by being told "no thanks, bye".
I myself have used the tactics when employed as a security guard. "Let's see your license and registration please" when stopping a trespassing vehicle (who pulled over for the YELLOW light which was legal to have on my vehicle but had no authority to stop behind it). 99.9% of the time compliance is automatic, when they say "NO" they were told they were trespassing and to leave of the police would be called to arrest them.
Appx 0:45 Officer instructs Ridley to hang up the phone. When Ridley asks why the officers says "cause you've got to talk to me so I can [either CHECK or HELP] you out" (I am going to go with "Check")
If Ridley HAS to talk to him then is the officer excalating this consensual stop to a detainment for a lowful activity? NO, he's merely using word games to attempt to get compliance in a situation for which he has no lawful authority to detain the individual.
1:28 Officer says "I just want to make sure you are who you say you are".
The officer has no lawful right in an OC legal jurisdiction to "make sure you are who you say you are" when there is no RAS. Still, he's playing word games, neither detaining the individual nor admitting that his only authority at this point is a consensual stop.
1:29 Video begins as the Freestaters from Murphy's tavern arrive after receiving PORC411 notification that Ridley has been detained nearby.
2:13 Officer states "identify yourself [garbled] and determine that you're not prohibited from having a weapon"
FAIL absent RAS he has no right yet he still has not said that Ridely is being detained or not so is this just a forceful "request" during a consensual contact? Take a look at the officers physical stance and position, as well as the officer behind Ridley (blocking him from going in the direction he was originally travelling). The REASONABLE PERSON at this point is going to think they were being detained and THAT is the legal standard that determines whether a detention has occured.
The officer then asks for a license to drive, again so he can verify Ridley's identification.
3:25 There is then a brief amount of dialog between the striped shirt guy (who was out of line at several points during the detainment) and some bystanders about why Ridley was stopped. The man talking to "striped shirt" was apparently not a Freestater but there to find out why the cops had stopped Ridley.....now that's a bit strange
5:25 A third officer arrives and is seen approaching on foot from his car across the street. From later video this is apparently a Manchesteer PD supervisor.
6:25 Ridley states (talking for the record, not to any officers) there are multiple cars and officers (apparently not in view of teh video at this point)
6:35 Video shows TWO Manchester officers conferring with the state officer with a third Manchester officer standing between Ridley and his destination.
7:15 Now the Manchester officer (apparently suppervisor) starts in on........ if you're doing an informational thing you have to keep walking......Clueless as to the fact that he WAS walking when he was STOPPED by the state officer. Clueless that the "group" had only accumulated after Ridley was stopped.
Also apparent is that the state officer is now a "non player" in the "drama" and he is not seen again.
7:30 Manchester supervisor "are these your signs here" then proceeds to go over to take down what he apparently thinks are some sort of protest signs put up by Ridley and his "group"......
7:35 Manchester Supervisor "You can't post signs...."
7:50 Manchester supervisor shakes hands with the non Freestater who has just said "you should leave the girl scouts alone"......EPIC FAIL and "common citizen" sees the rediculousness of the government agents.
8:25 Manchester PD supervisor "...you're video taping me I don't want that anymore"
AGAIN the police are playing word games. Attempting to intimidate citizens into stopping lawful activity by making statements of authority to which they have no authority.
8:40 Ridley is no longer detained (or whatever you want to call it) and explains that he was walking from his car to Murphy's tap room estimating the distance as "a 40 yard hike".
The posters on the officer.com site repeatedly say he was out looking for a conflict. Yet according to Ridley, which seems to bebacked by the progression of the video, he was merely walking from his car to the meeting. This seems to be supported by the appearance of the people who were at the meeting site AFTER he was detained and called the PORC411 system which alerted them. Had he been looking for a conflict he'd have parked much further away and would also have had video equipment on him to document the entire incident from prior to police arrival.
I've watched a lot of Ridley's videos. I've also watched a lot of videos where there was baiting going on. Ridley's video doesn't fit the "profile" of a baiting video or it would have had video documentation of his actions prior to police arrival to "show he was lawful" and "striped shirt" guy would be unlikely to have been "invited" as he seemed to be an unpredictable variable throughout the incident. Not something wanted in a planned activity unless the idea is to provoke his arrest, which would have (in his case) been easily articulated as legitimate...though the police would have had to admit that Ridley was being detained, which would have been an unlawful detention.
Anyway, it was kind of scary to hear the attitudes of so many on the police site. Glad OC here in Southern Oregon is pretty non eventful. Aside from the "are you a cop" and "is that legal" questions it's pretty boring.....AS IT SHOULD BE.
