Harassed By St. Joe PD

Richieg150 said:

Now I dont know the gun laws in Arizona, because I dont live there, I havent felt the need or desire to research them all out. But I know know there are places ,like Philedelphia, where you have to have papers to carry a firearm, have them on your person, and produce them when asked. I found that out by reading it on this site. The original reference to Nazi's demanding papers was I sure meant, as no disrespect to Arizona, but along the same line of thought as having to produce papers, or ID, without RES. It really amazes me how supposedly grown adults, will take offence to any remark, that isnt technically & grammicly perfect, taking it word for word, acting like it was written in stone.There used to be a phrase, "Sticks and Stones will break my Bones but Words will Never hurt Me". By reading some of the replies on this post, and on others, if some get riled by the use of a word , on the internet, how much more do they get riled in public or real life. People who know NOTHING about this movement of Opencarry, will read this stuff some rant on here about, and get an apinion, that I cant disagree about. Guys, and Gals, sometimes by our actions we are our own worst enemies.It time to sit back take a DEEP LONG BREATH, and battle the things that we are trying to battle together........

Click to expand...

Pennsylvania, that includes Philadelphia, does NOT require that one show papers on demand absenting RAS or PC. In all of the state, Philly is the only city where a permit is needed to legally OC other than when in a vehicle.

The case to which you refer started with the illegal/color of law demands made by a LEO of an OCer who was breaking no laws.

See how constructive education works better than rude "suck my d**k" comments? We're all working together to further a cause, let's try to act more like adults, myself included.

Here's the big problem with these kinds of contact. We all know they'll write a report on the matter and that begins what.....

A pattern of behavior documented in public records!

So, if you're one that carries religiously, especially you CCW folks, you need to understand that these constitute an attempt to gain information that will be able to be posed as evidence against you in a court of law at a later date, even if it's accompanying a completely unrelated case.

Does a LEO have the authority to "check" every individual that's carrying a firearm just because some idiot called it in? I've yet to find anything saying they can and likely others have reached the same conclusion, so if anyone finds something to the contrary please post it up pronto.

What bothered me the most about the Sgt's response is that he thanked you for your concern instead of apologizing to you for the way you were treated. Not only was the officer ignorant and threatening, but he was intentionally rude as well.

MK said:

What bothered me the most about the Sgt's response is that he thanked you for your concern instead of apologizing to you for the way you were treated. Not only was the officer ignorant and threatening, but he was intentionally rude as well.

Click to expand...

I had not noticed that. You are correct though. I'm going to start keeping my eyes open for that...

sharkey said:

How about right here? You certainly imply what the law is, apparently, without having any clue as to it's content. There is nothing in the law that allows anyone to demand "papers" or ID based on how someone looks.

Click to expand...

Again, I never once quoted, or implied any statement I made as being a quote, of Arizona law. My statement was an attempt to clarify the intentions of the poster who was being questioned.

However, since YOU brought it up, I suspect most all of us are at least somewhat familiar with the ORIGINAL language that was used in AZ SB1070 (prior to it finally being amended and subsequently passed), that CLEARLY stated that a law enforcement officer "may not SOLELY consider race, color, or national origin" in implementation of the law. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the original language was intentionally meant to allow law enforcement officers to base their "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" on nothing more than the way a person looked. The law, as passed, also "presumes" a person stopped under these pretenses to actually be an illegal alien if they can't produce one of several "accepted" forms of ID. In other words, it's a default requirement for EVERYONE present in AZ to be able to "produce" their "papers" on demand, or take the risk of being considered an illegal alien until they can prove otherwise.

Sorry if it offends you folks so much that some of us believe our 4th Amendment protections take precedent over whatever "dire" circumstances you happen to believe you face.

cshoff said:

Again, I never once quoted, or implied any statement I made as being a quote, of Arizona law. My statement was an attempt to clarify the intentions of the poster who was being questioned.

However, since YOU brought it up, I suspect most all of us are at least somewhat familiar with the ORIGINAL language that was used in AZ SB1070 (prior to it finally being amended and subsequently passed), that CLEARLY stated that a law enforcement officer "may not SOLELY consider race, color, or national origin" in implementation of the law. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the original language was intentionally meant to allow law enforcement officers to base their "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" on nothing more than the way a person looked. The law, as passed, also "presumes" a person stopped under these pretenses to actually be an illegal alien if they can't produce one of several "accepted" forms of ID. In other words, it's a default requirement for EVERYONE present in AZ to be able to "produce" their "papers" on demand, or take the risk of being considered an illegal alien until they can prove otherwise.

Sorry if it offends you folks so much that some of us believe our 4th Amendment protections take precedent over whatever "dire" circumstances you happen to believe you face.

Click to expand...

Since the proposed bill is not the law that was passed, and the ONLY law that matters is the one that was passed, your argument is specious. A bill could be proposed that it was illegal to wear white shirts while committing a bank robbery, but if the law that is passed says robbing a bank is illegal without mention the color of someone's shirt then the point is moot.

Those of us who can understand the English language realize that Had the law intended that "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" could be based on nothing more than the way a person looked also realize that the original bill prohibited that very conduct.

I notice with no small satisfaction that you feel the need to use quotation marks, such as "presumes", "accepted" forms of ID, "produce" and "papers." Could it be that those words and phrases are not in the law being discussed? If the law did indeed presume then you wouldn't feel the need for such shenanigans.
You can't quote what's NOT in the law but you can certainly allude that those phrases are in there.

If such phrases are indeed in the law, show us. Your tactics do you no honor.


By the way, I'm sure you're really an "honorable" and "intelligent" man. <wink>
Guess those quotes mean things, don't they?

OC for ME said:

If the SJ officer stated he was "checking out a MWAG" situation, whether true or not, he may have provided RAS. Just cuz you disagree with his RAS does not mean that he could not defend his RAS.

Click to expand...

You summed it up right there.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Since the proposed bill is not the law that was passed, and the ONLY law that matters is the one that was passed, your argument is specious. A bill could be proposed that it was illegal to wear white shirts while committing a bank robbery, but if the law that is passed says robbing a bank is illegal without mention the color of someone's shirt then the point is moot.

Those of us who can understand the English language realize that Had the law intended that "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" could be based on nothing more than the way a person looked also realize that the original bill prohibited that very conduct.

I notice with no small satisfaction that you feel the need to use quotation marks, such as "presumes", "accepted" forms of ID, "produce" and "papers." Could it be that those words and phrases are not in the law being discussed? If the law did indeed presume then you wouldn't feel the need for such shenanigans.
You can't quote what's NOT in the law but you can certainly allude that those phrases are in there.

If such phrases are indeed in the law, show us. Your tactics do you no honor.


By the way, I'm sure you're really an "honorable" and "intelligent" man. <wink>
Guess those quotes mean things, don't they?

Click to expand...

From the text of the bill:

<snip>.....A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN
37 ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON
38 PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
39 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
40 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
41 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
42 IDENTIFICATION.
43 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
44 STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
45 GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.....<snip>

Click to expand...

So, absent your ability to provide the "approved papers" as outlined in the bill, a person would "presumably" be considered an illegal alien.

Your inability to comprehend the language notwithstanding, it is in there if you'll take the time to read it. "Tis' better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".

Your continued use of "approved papers" and "presumably" in quotes causes me to suspect you are well aware of the nature of the duplicitous tactics that you are using. One who was speaking plainly and honestly would not feel the need to use such circumlocutions.



Let's turn that around a bit and see if you "logic" still makes sense.

A person is presumed not to be an imbecile if he is able to provide any of the following; a college diploma, a high school diploma, or a summer vacation bible school certificate of attendance.
If, due to circumstances you could not provide any of the above, would you consider it reasonable that someone "presume" you were an idiot?
Yeah, ....... didn't think so.

By logic, just because one thing can be presumed through evidence presented, does not mean the opposite must be presumed as true for lack of evidence.

The logical fallacy you are attempting is called 'denying the antecedent.'
In computer terms it could be coded as:
If A
THEN B
not a
THEN Not_B

Once can easily see the how such logic is fallible.
IF user-knows-password
THEN user-is-employee
****user does not enter correct password
ELSE user-is-NOT-employee

However:
A user can forget his password and still be a company employee. Entering an incorrect password is not Proof that the user is not an employee


It can also be expressed as - -
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.


In terms of thinking logically...... it seems you have spoken and removed all doubt.
If you wish to make childish insults like a 5-yr old on the playground, that's what PM's are for. Intelligent discourse is best done in an adult manner.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Since the proposed bill is not the law that was passed, and the ONLY law that matters is the one that was passed, your argument is specious.
............

Click to expand...

Not necessarily so.

We recently had a law passed here in Virginia making it legal to have a gun in a "secure" container while on school property. Some LEA wanted to read that as meaning in a "locked" container.

Only in reading the original bill where the word "locked" was used and then struck by the Governor with the word "secured" inserted in its stead is the misunderstanding cleared. Point of fact, an unlocked glove compartment or closed console is legal.

sharkey said:

How about right here? You certainly imply what the law is, apparently, without having any clue as to it's content. There is nothing in the law that allows anyone to demand "papers" or ID based on how someone looks.



I'll share a saying of mine for the fun of it, though it is off topic.

I have friends of all socio-economic, ethnic, gender, age, sexuality and political belief backgrounds. They all have one trait in common, they speak English.

Click to expand...

Since you seem to be put not using English in a poor light, do you have as much problem with all those who seem to keep using Latin or Greek on this forum lately?

Reverend BCal said:

i am the direct supervisor for officer tonn... After complete review of all the information, appropriate action has been taken...

Click to expand...

Love the non-response. I recommend demanding clarification; you'd need a lawyer to tell you what you're actually empowered to demand, of course, but this reply is a spit in your eye. It's abundantly clear that "appropriate action" was somewhere between "nothing" and "a pat on the back."

Grapeshot said:

Not necessarily so.

We recently had a law passed here in Virginia making it legal to have a gun in a "secure" container while on school property. Some LEA wanted to read that as meaning in a "locked" container.

Only in reading the original bill where the word "locked" was used and then struck by the Governor with the word "secured" inserted in its stead is the misunderstanding cleared. Point of fact, an unlocked glove compartment or closed console is legal.

Click to expand...

I think I see your point, Grapeshot, but on the other hand which phrase matters, "locked" in the proposed bill or "secured" in the law as passed? I'm gonna say the word that matters is "secured" from the law as passed. Certainly reading and comparing one with the other did help to determine which meaning the Governor intended. But that's also the word as used in the law vs the word used in the bill.

Fallschirmjäger said:

I think I see your point, Grapeshot, but on the other hand which phrase matters, "locked" in the proposed bill or "secured" in the law as passed? I'm gonna say the word that matters is "secured" from the law as passed. Certainly reading and comparing one with the other did help to determine which meaning the Governor intended. But that's also the word as used in the law vs the word used in the bill.

Click to expand...

Very often the meaning/interpretation of a word has to be settled in court. In this case it has not, but showing the history of the bill to local prosecutors has caused these certain LEAs to have a clearer understanding.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Your continued use of "approved papers" and "presumably" in quotes causes me to suspect you are well aware of the nature of the duplicitous tactics that you are using. One who was speaking plainly and honestly would not feel the need to use such circumlocutions.

Click to expand...

And your inability to comprehend the plain language in the bill causes me to suspect that you are intentionally being obtuse. The language I quoted has specific requirements for what "papers" are "approved". Now read this real slow, so as not to have anything go over your head:

39 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
40 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
41 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
42 IDENTIFICATION.
43 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
44 STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
45 GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

This is the list of specifically "approved papers", or you could also call them, "approved forms of identification". If using plain language is what you consider to be "duplicitous tactics", then I think it's more than fair to call your comprehension skills into question.

Let's turn that around a bit and see if you "logic" still makes sense.

A person is presumed not to be an imbecile if he is able to provide any of the following, a college diploma, a high school diploma, a summer vacation bible school certificate of attendance.
If, due to circumstances, you could not provide any of the above would you consider it reasonable that someone "presume" you were an idiot?
Yeah, ....... didn't think so.

Click to expand...

I figured you would, and then you did. You definitely have removed all doubt.

By logic, just because one thing can be presumed through evidence presented, does not mean the opposite must be presumed as true for lack of evidence.

Click to expand...

As it pertains to law, you are quite wrong. For example, a driver who is stopped for a traffic violation and who cannot produce a valid driver's license is presumed to be driving without a valid drivers until and unless he can prove otherwise. As another example, a person carrying a concealed firearm in Missouri who cannot provide a valid CCW endorsement upon the lawful request of a peace officer is presumed to be unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm (a Felony offense) until and unless he can prove otherwise. The burden is ALWAYS on the licensee rather than the state, when it comes to your participation in a licensed activity.

Law is arbitrary, rather than subjective. A law that requires a person to meet a certain requirement in order to be presumed lawful in their participation of a specific activity, be it a license or some kind, a permit of some kind, a certification of some kind, or some other criteria, ABSOLUTELY presumes the person taking part in said activity to be doing so in an unlawful manner if he/she cannot prove he/she meets that certain requirement.

The logical fallacy you are attempting is called 'denying the antecedent.'
In computer terms it could be coded as:
If A
THEN B
not a
THEN Not_B

Once can easily see the how such logic is fallible.
IF user-knows-password
THEN user-is-employee
****user does not enter correct password
ELSE user-is-NOT-employee

However:
A user can forget his password and still be a company employee. Entering an incorrect password is not Proof that the user is not an employee


It can also be expressed as - -
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.

Click to expand...

No, the problem here is that you are trying to apply subjectivity to the arbitrary nature of law. Your "logic" doesn't hold water.

In terms of thinking logically...... it seems you have spoken and removed all doubt.
If you wish to make childish insults like a 5-yr old on the playground, that's what PM's are for. Intelligent discourse is best done in an adult manner.

Click to expand...

You mean childish insults like these:

Those of us who can understand the English language....

Click to expand...

Clearly implying that I cannot....

Your tactics do you no honor.

By the way, I'm sure you're really an "honorable" and "intelligent" man. <wink>
Guess those quotes mean things, don't they?

Click to expand...

Again, your implications were quite clear. Sorry guy, but YOUR WORDS were the ones in question, not mine. If you don't want to remove all doubt, then I highly suggest you start putting some thought (and research) into your words before you type them out.

Thank you, I read the emphasized words slowly, out loud even. You'd be proud of me, I'm sure.

Again, the law is quite specific, it says that upon the production of any of the listed documents then a person IS PRESUMED NOT TO BE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. The presumption that someone who can not produce such evidence must be presumed to be illegal is a completely within your own head. The law is silent on the matter.

As it pertains to law, you are quite wrong. For example, a driver who is stopped for a traffic violation and who cannot produce a valid driver's license is presumed to be driving without a valid drivers until and unless he can prove otherwise. As another example, a person carrying a concealed firearm in Missouri who cannot provide a valid CCW endorsement upon the lawful request of a peace officer is presumed to be unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm (a Felony offense) until and unless he can prove otherwise. The burden is ALWAYS on the licensee rather than the state, when it comes to your participation in a licensed activity.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you read what I said, that "just because one thing can be presumed through evidence presented, does not mean the opposite must be presumed as true for lack of evidence."
In your rebuttal you seem to have omitted that rather crucial element. If you can find something that fits the criteria listed, I'd be happy to hear it, but I'm not going to address an 'apples and oranges' comparison.

Your saying my logic doesn't hold water means little without you being able to provide anything better to back that up other than "because I say so."

As for "intelligent" and "honorable", I'm overjoyed that you have come to realize the how the use of "quoted words" in your posts was an implication of the law rather than a statement of what the law is. Perhaps now you will find a way to speak plainly and honestly, rather than trying to say things in the law that aren't there.


As for any other comparisons of Arizona's laws with those of Nazi Germany, we might as well include my local school district in there too. Apparently I have to "show my papers" to prove my children are indeed residents of the local school precinct for them to attend there. Oh the absolute horror! There are only certain, specified documents they'll accept!

You guys should take this to PM's. Your derailing a thread with bickering.

Fallschirmjäger said:

As for any other comparisons of Arizona's laws with those of Nazi Germany, we might as well include my local school district in there too. Apparently I have to "show my papers" to prove my children are indeed residents of the local school precinct for them to attend there. Oh the absolute horror! There are only certain, specified documents they'll accept!

Click to expand...

Arizona's immigration/proof of legality have nothing to do with OC or RKBA and is decidedly OT for all but the Social Lounge. You may always start a thread there.

We need to get back on topic or expect a lock.

SavageOne said:

Since you seem to be put not using English in a poor light, do you have as much problem with all those who seem to keep using Latin or Greek on this forum lately?

Click to expand...

Not at all. They speak English. If they came on the board and started writing everything in Latin or Greek I'd then take issue. It would balkanize the forum. Language is a unifier.

I have many friends who speak multiple languages. They speak English while in public or with me.

[Flame]Duh![/Flame] :lol: