Continuation of "Threatened with Arrest". Tigerlilly, please read!

Here are my notes. I think it will be more benefit airing my laundry here. Tigerlilly, please take note of the last note!

8 Sep 11

- Had 2 beers with Jesus and Dan in Dan's Garage. Jesus is his neighbor, I live across street.
- Suspicious vehicle drove up and driver (Robby) approached Jesus truck (2130hrs). They were approached and questioned.
- After talking it over and getting business card (Name on card David), leaving voice mail with HOA (they were sent by HOA), Robby left.
-Left voicemail for Stacy at HOA. They state they were sent by Cindy/Carroll.
-Nothing in HOA laws about un licensed vehicles in Driveways
- Truck comes back by and we wave. (to show friendliness and no hard feelings)
- They stopped; We talked, let them know that there were no hard feelings, got more info about why they were here, and they left (approx 2200hrs)
- 2300hrs cops arrive at door and ring bell and knock loudly.
- Armed up, and saw police through peep hole
- Holstered and answered door.
- Talked with cop about incident (Officer Acher). Told I should have disarmed and "done something with" weapon before answering. I stated I had nothing to hide and felt if I did I would be leading the cops to believe I was being dishonest had I “hid the weapon”, and that I was being honest and respectful. I was then told that if I respected his job, I would have not answering the door with a gun. When then chastised “if I walked up to Creech drunk and pulled a gun at the gate would you like it”.. Officer was very condescending and sarcastic. He asked me if I open carried often and I told him it was situation dependent but on my own property I always open carried. Had a second cop with riffle pointed at me the entire time from front of my house. During the mean time I was asked for my blue card and ID (provided both -driver’s license for ID). I felt as if I shouldn't reach for my ID with the gun on my hip, but was ordered to do so anyway.
- Gave Officer Archer permission to disarm me. Officer Archer stated if he was threatened he would "outshoot me" and "I would be disarmed already" when stating that I was keeping my hands where he could see them and that I was not going to harm them. Cop declined to disarm me after giving this cocky answer. Again, officer spoke in condescending and cocky manner. I was just trying to talk with the officer to establish that I was not doing anything wrong and on my won property. I was slightly nervous having a shotgun aimed at me.
- Asked to step outside. Gave police permission to disarm me for "both of our safety". This was done to stop weapons from being pointed at me.
- Asked to put on shoes, denied and told to walk across street. Dan is on sidewalk in underwear being interrogated about "guy in black shirt and blue jeans who 'pulled a gun'". This matched both of our descriptions.
-Robby reported “someone pulled a gun” This was me open carry. No weapon was every touched, or pulled.
- I asked to proceed to the other sidewalk (instead of standing in street where they stopped me). Permission granted.
- Interrogated by Officer Acher. When a police vehicle approached and I was asked what I saw. I stated a vehicle with 5 lights pointed at me. I feel this was done as a intimidation technique.
- Told to put hands at my side (currently on my head). I stated I had keys in my left pocket with a knife on them. Other officer removed it after light pat down of both front pockets.
- Hands now at side: Told to sit down since I am now in a "standoffish" stance by other officer. I clarified that they wanted me on the curb and sat. More badgering from the first cop. I tried to talk to him but was called a smart ass and threatened with jail. Asked where I work, unit, first sergeant, and commanders name. Was unable to recall CC name but thought it was Hanes (it was Hoehn). I stated I was new to the unit. Got a sarcastic smirk.. The officer might have thought I was lying.
- Told I was in possession of a firearm while "intoxicated". Officer stated the law (in reference to NRS 202.257) was that you could not use alcohol AT ALL while in possession of a weapon. I corrected him and stated it's 0.10 is the legal limit. He asked me how much “you want to bet”... recanted his statement and then asked how much I was willing to place on that statement and insinuated jail time. I stated “everything”. Told I would be arrested if I failed field sobriety. I consented to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and blood test.
- (2330 hrs) Released and handed ID's and keys. Officer Archer stated “That's fine, I'm sure I will be seeing you again”. No sobriety test done. Told my gun was "inside of my front door"
- Asked for specifics on gun location. Officer refused any more details. "it's just right inside." I posed questions such as "on the ledge?", "on the ground?". Told get get inside immediately.
- Went inside. Found gun on ground in rack cleared position with the clip and chambered round next to it.
- Dan released without further issues. His gun was fully disassembled..holster missing.



9 Sep 2011

Told by towing company manager that their policy is to report a MWAG call anytime they suspect someone has a firearm. Told to get my lawyer if I wanted to talk anymore and “good luck cause the owner is a lawyer and a judge downtown.”

11 Sept 2011

Notified that Officer Acher (cop that knocked on my door) is contacting my First Sergeant over my pending IA complaint against him. Considering second IA complaint for improper use of military contacts to persuade me not to pursue my case. Considering talking to lawyer if he contacts my first sergeant.

12 Sept 2011

Contacted lawyer. Told I didn't have enough damages to win in court..Would be thrown out. Told I was “well within my rights” and not to worry.

HOA called and left message stating they wanted to know what exactly happened since the Tow Truck Company's story did not "add up". I gave them (Cindy and Carroll) the run down and they stated they were going to talk to the owner and handle things. They were amped up at the end of the call.

17 Sept 2011

Spoke with Sergeant Ortiz with North Las Vegas Internal affairs. He stated he will train Officer Acher on proper procedures on handling persons with firearms and laws associated with such. Furthermore he stated insulting and “interrogating” people in common place to “break” a suspect. He then finished by stating that there is a group of Open carriers in Vegas who try to push police by “walking up on them with a gun on their hip and a dog when they are interrogating a suspect in a school zone.” And that they make “Officers feel unsafe/have a right to defend themselves”. It then occurred to me the reason why Officer Archer asked me if I “open carry often” was to see if I was associated with this group, and made his final statement “I'm sure I will be seeing you again” was because he had assumed I was a member.

I am working with a certain State official behind the seines to have the deadly weapons band removed in North Las Vegas. Could you please PM me your phone number? I would like to talk to you more about this and see if we can use it to help what we are tring to do.

CSINEV said:

I am working with a certain State official behind the seines to have the deadly weapons band removed in North Las Vegas. Could you please PM me your phone number? I would like to talk to you more about this and see if we can use it to help what we are tring to do.

Click to expand...

There is NO ban on "deadly weapons" (i.e., handguns) in North Las Vegas. There is a city ordinance that prohibits possession of a "dangerous or deadly weapon" in a vehicle. They have a city ordinance that defines a "dangerous or deadly weapon," a firearm being one. However, the ordinance excludes certain firearms from its definition. It says: “The term ‘dangerous or deadly weapons’ includes… any firearm other than (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport.” So, the ordinance excludes from its definition of “dangerous or deadly weapons,” a firearm carried “pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority.” The provision of that exclusion within the ordinance creates a safe harbor for those who have valid permission to carry a firearm concealed on their person as well as those who have valid permission to carry a firearm openly on their person. It, in effect, eliminates any liability under the law with respect to North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 – possession of dangerous or deadly weapon in a vehicle - for those two categories of lawful firearm possession.

Do open carriers have “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority?” In a word, yes. The Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1, permits its citizens “to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.” Does not Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution afford the right, or in effect, permit its citizens to “bear arms,” even those driving their vehicles within the confines of the city limits of the City of North Las Vegas; and is not the State Constitution the supreme law of the state and therefore inherently a “duly authorized government authority?” Openly carrying a handgun in a vehicle in Nevada is lawful. Openly carrying a registered handgun in a vehicle in Clark County is lawful. Openly carrying a registered handgun in a vehicle in North Las Vegas is lawful as well, because it is done with “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority,” and in doing such the handgun so carried falls under the exclusion of the City’s own ordinance that defines what a “dangerous or deadly weapon” is NOT.

One might then ask oneself, what is the purpose of the City’s ban on firearms in vehicles? Simply stated, I would suggest that it is to deter individuals from having in their possession and in their vehicle firearms that are illegally possessed for intended unlawful purpose(s).

Lawfully open carrying a handgun on one's person in a vehicle with the requisite permission and authority of the Nevada State Constitution - should be afforded the “safe harbor” provided by the exclusion definition of the city ordinance which defines “dangerous or deadly weapon,” just as is an individual who is permitted and authorized to lawfully conceal carry a handgun in a vehicle. Anything less would be a misapplication of the ordinance and certainly fly in the face of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

North Las Vegas is misguided in their efforts when it comes to a citizens' constitutional rights to open carry. What's it gonna take to set them "straight?"

TigerLily said:

There is NO ban on "deadly weapons" (i.e., handguns) in North Las Vegas. There is a city ordinance that prohibits possession of a "dangerous or deadly weapon" in a vehicle. They have a city ordinance that defines a "dangerous or deadly weapon," a firearm being one. However, the ordinance excludes certain firearms from its definition. It says: “The term ‘dangerous or deadly weapons’ includes… any firearm other than (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport.” So, the ordinance excludes from its definition of “dangerous or deadly weapons,” a firearm carried “pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority.” The provision of that exclusion within the ordinance creates a safe harbor for those who have valid permission to carry a firearm concealed on their person as well as those who have valid permission to carry a firearm openly on their person. It, in effect, eliminates any liability under the law with respect to North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 – possession of dangerous or deadly weapon in a vehicle - for those two categories of lawful firearm possession.

Do open carriers have “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority?” In a word, yes. The Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1, permits its citizens “to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.” Does not Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution afford the right, or in effect, permit its citizens to “bear arms,” even those driving their vehicles within the confines of the city limits of the City of North Las Vegas; and is not the State Constitution the supreme law of the state and therefore inherently a “duly authorized government authority?” Openly carrying a handgun in a vehicle in Nevada is lawful. Openly carrying a registered handgun in a vehicle in Clark County is lawful. Openly carrying a registered handgun in a vehicle in North Las Vegas is lawful as well, because it is done with “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority,” and in doing such the handgun so carried falls under the exclusion of the City’s own ordinance that defines what a “dangerous or deadly weapon” is NOT.

One might then ask oneself, what is the purpose of the City’s ban on firearms in vehicles? Simply stated, I would suggest that it is to deter individuals from having in their possession and in their vehicle firearms that are illegally possessed for intended unlawful purpose(s).

Lawfully open carrying a handgun on one's person in a vehicle with the requisite permission and authority of the Nevada State Constitution - should be afforded the “safe harbor” provided by the exclusion definition of the city ordinance which defines “dangerous or deadly weapon,” just as is an individual who is permitted and authorized to lawfully conceal carry a handgun in a vehicle. Anything less would be a misapplication of the ordinance and certainly fly in the face of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

North Las Vegas is misguided in their efforts when it comes to a citizens' constitutional rights to open carry. What's it gonna take to set them "straight?"

Click to expand...

Sorry folks... I used TigerLily's login by mistake. This post is MINE... and I stand behind every word of it. :lol:

our open carry activitys do not conflict with the "deadly weapons" law that you speak of, NLV is aware of this. That fact however does not mean that they fully train their officers, or there is no confusion.

Mike, I assume that you were OC when you encountered the HOA dudes, I do not know the layout of your home, But I do appreciate my metal screen door. that alone would give me the opportunity to assert my rights, ask for a warrant and whemn not provided close the door.

The reason that you do not have a court case, (per the lawyer) is you answered your door, volunteered conversation, gave your ID, and blue card, and agreed to be disarmed.

Absent your consent, you would have likely encountered more resistance (not always.) If you yelled through thte door do you have a warrant, it may have helped, Heres why, Officers with a warrant, or Probable cause, DO NOT KNOCK ! In their terms they "do business" If they are asking for information, Questions, ID etc. It is in hopes that you give them something to arrest you for, ANYTHING.

As far as submitting to the breath test, Or the "Clown" test (FST) since you were not driving, there is no implied consent. ASK for your attorney, also in yuor home there is no .01 BAC as long as you are not threatening. Cite:
NRS 202.257 Possession of firearm when under influence of alcohol, controlled substance or other intoxicating substance; administration of evidentiary test; penalty; forfeiture of firearm.

1. It is unlawful for a person who:

(a) Has a concentration of alcohol of 0.10 or more in his or her blood or breath; or

(b) Is under the influence of any controlled substance, or is under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance, or any person who inhales, ingests, applies or otherwise uses any chemical, poison or organic solvent, or any compound or combination of any of these, to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely exercising actual physical control of a firearm,

Ê to have in his or her actual physical possession any firearm. This prohibition does not apply to the actual physical possession of a firearm by a person who was within the person’s personal residence and had the firearm in his or her possession solely for self-defense. 2. Any evidentiary test to determine whether a person has violated the provisions of subsection 1 must be administered in the same manner as an evidentiary test that is administered pursuant to NRS 484C.160 to 484C.250, inclusive, except that submission to the evidentiary test is required of any person who is directed by a police officer to submit to the test. If a person to be tested fails to submit to a required test as directed by a police officer, the officer may direct that reasonable force be used to the extent necessary to obtain the samples of blood from the person to be tested, if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be tested was in violation of this section.

3. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor.

4. A firearm is subject to forfeiture pursuant to NRS 179.1156 to 179.119, inclusive, only if, during the violation of subsection 1, the firearm is brandished, aimed or otherwise handled by the person in a manner which endangered others.

5. As used in this section, the phrase “concentration of alcohol of 0.10 or more in his or her blood or breath” means 0.10 gram or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of the blood of a person or per 210 liters of his or her breath.

(Added to NRS by 1995, 2533; A 1999, 2470; 2003, 2565)

I do not bring this up as a suggestion that you did anything wrong, I totaly consented on my first firearm encounter, I just offer options. Looks like we need to OC NLV again...

TigerLily said:

There is NO ban on "deadly weapons" (i.e., handguns) in North Las Vegas. There is a city ordinance that prohibits possession of a "dangerous or deadly weapon" in a vehicle. They have a city ordinance that defines a "dangerous or deadly weapon," a firearm being one. However, the ordinance excludes certain firearms from its definition. It says: “The term ‘dangerous or deadly weapons’ includes… any firearm other than (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport.” So, the ordinance excludes from its definition of “dangerous or deadly weapons,” a firearm carried “pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority.” The provision of that exclusion within the ordinance creates a safe harbor for those who have valid permission to carry a firearm concealed on their person as well as those who have valid permission to carry a firearm openly on their person. It, in effect, eliminates any liability under the law with respect to North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 – possession of dangerous or deadly weapon in a vehicle - for those two categories of lawful firearm possession.

Do open carriers have “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority?” In a word, yes. The Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1, permits its citizens “to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.” Does not Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution afford the right, or in effect, permit its citizens to “bear arms,” even those driving their vehicles within the confines of the city limits of the City of North Las Vegas; and is not the State Constitution the supreme law of the state and therefore inherently a “duly authorized government authority?” Openly carrying a handgun in a vehicle in Nevada is lawful. Openly carrying a registered handgun in a vehicle in Clark County is lawful. Openly carrying a registered handgun in a vehicle in North Las Vegas is lawful as well, because it is done with “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority,” and in doing such the handgun so carried falls under the exclusion of the City’s own ordinance that defines what a “dangerous or deadly weapon” is NOT.

One might then ask oneself, what is the purpose of the City’s ban on firearms in vehicles? Simply stated, I would suggest that it is to deter individuals from having in their possession and in their vehicle firearms that are illegally possessed for intended unlawful purpose(s).

Lawfully open carrying a handgun on one's person in a vehicle with the requisite permission and authority of the Nevada State Constitution - should be afforded the “safe harbor” provided by the exclusion definition of the city ordinance which defines “dangerous or deadly weapon,” just as is an individual who is permitted and authorized to lawfully conceal carry a handgun in a vehicle. Anything less would be a misapplication of the ordinance and certainly fly in the face of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

North Las Vegas is misguided in their efforts when it comes to a citizens' constitutional rights to open carry. What's it gonna take to set them "straight?"

Click to expand...

Sorry if you misunderstood me. I'm working on having the gun ban in cars in NLV removed. Simply put it doesn't really matter what or how the law is interpreted. If the NLV officers in the field have something they can arrest you on they will if they think they are provoked. Yes with a lot of time, effort, and money you can get the charges dropped or dismissed, but in the end it is still a law on the books that can be misinterpreted and in turn cause innocent people unnecessary grief. I for one would rather fight to see the ordnance removed then have to constantly fight the wrongful arrest cause by an ill informed LEO.

This sounds like a train wreck. WHY did you answer the door? WHY did you let them disarm you at your house? WHY did you keep the door open after seeing a rifle pointed at you? WHY did you step outside? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

ugh.

Schlitz said:

This sounds like a train wreck. WHY did you answer the door? WHY did you let them disarm you at your house? WHY did you keep the door open after seeing a rifle pointed at you? WHY did you step outside? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

ugh.

Click to expand...

Understand many of the "why"s except the one bolded above. Personally I'm not moving/flinching/twitching while a rifle is pointed at me!

Grapeshot said:

Understand many of the "why"s except the one bolded above. Personally I'm not moving/flinching/twitching while a rifle is pointed at me!

Click to expand...

That's the part that would have me the most riled up in this encounter. That they had weapons trained on me the instant the door was opened, with no provacation to justify it.

What's that saying? Treat every firearm like it's loaded, always, and only aim at what you intend to destroy. What would have happened with an accidental disharge?

Maybe you can go after them for emotional distress? Being military though, you have more to consider I'd think, but might be one avenue to persue...

Sent using tapatalk

CSINEV said:

I am working with a certain State official behind the seines to have the deadly weapons band removed in North Las Vegas. Could you please PM me your phone number? I would like to talk to you more about this and see if we can use it to help what we are tring to do.

Click to expand...

PM me and I will consider it. I have no idea what you are referring to and I would like details before saying anything.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

Mike, I assume that you were OC when you encountered the HOA dudes, I do not know the layout of your home, But I do appreciate my metal screen door. that alone would give me the opportunity to assert my rights, ask for a warrant and whemn not provided close the door.

The reason that you do not have a court case, (per the lawyer) is you answered your door, volunteered conversation, gave your ID, and blue card, and agreed to be disarmed.

I do not bring this up as a suggestion that you did anything wrong, I totaly consented on my first firearm encounter, I just offer options. Looks like we need to OC NLV again...

Click to expand...

No screen doors allowed per the HOA. I am going to fight this myself. Read the next quote for more on why I did such.

The lawyer stated I don't have a case not because of what I did, but because without damages, the court wont even hear it. He also brought up that being threatened with arrest via false laws is not enough. You have to be charged and if the charges are dropped (even if it's 2 seconds before trial), you have no grounds to sue (no damages...this is assuming you didn't loose your job or something).

Schlitz said:

This sounds like a train wreck. WHY did you answer the door? WHY did you let them disarm you at your house? WHY did you keep the door open after seeing a rifle pointed at you? WHY did you step outside? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

Click to expand...

I answered the door because of a few reasons. 1. Several of my neighbors and buddy's are police officers. 2. Had no idea they were there for me (I did nothing wrong). They could have been telling me some ******* was trying to break in. It doesn't matter. If you don't think you are doing wrong, you typically wont act cautious on the first move.

I let them disarm me because I rather not have guns trained on me. After being notified they got a report of someone pulling a gun, they were hyped up, and had plenty of backup who were also amped, I rather be disarmed than riddled with bullets.

Slam the door? That would have implied guilt and potentially landed a bullet in me. Doesn't sound smart.

It's easy to say you will do all these things.. and hell, you might have the stones. However I am not going to fight a battle in the street with the police and end up as a head stone in the middle of a field. I rather fight it legally and give them plenty of rope to hang themselves. It's a matter of preference but if I would have done ANY DIFFERENT that night, I would have lost my security clearance..and for what I do, that is bad.

CSINEV said:

Sorry if you misunderstood me. I'm working on having the gun ban in cars in NLV removed. Simply put it doesn't really matter what or how the law is interpreted. If the NLV officers in the field have something they can arrest you on they will if they think they are provoked. Yes with a lot of time, effort, and money you can get the charges dropped or dismissed, but in the end it is still a law on the books that can be misinterpreted and in turn cause innocent people unnecessary grief. I for one would rather fight to see the ordnance removed then have to constantly fight the wrongful arrest cause by an ill informed LEO.

Click to expand...

Please understand, There is NO gun ban in cars in NLV. None whatsoever..... There is a deadly weapon ban, that does not apply to someone who is carrying their firearm in accordance with a govorning authourity. The constitution is the highest authourity we have, last I checked.

In responce to your quote, "...but in the end it is still a law on the books that can be misinterpreted"...
I follow that with, "every law on the books can, and will be misinturpereted."

I am concerned that CNLV might indeed change the law that you are not breaking right now, and replace it with something more confusing to their officers. Besides are you insinuating that the police should NOT be able to arrest someone that is carrying a deadly weapon (illegaly owned firearm?) what if it was stolen from you? I know that this ordinance is written poorly for our taste, but legal is legal I ride my Motorcycle through CNLV all the time OC no issues, carry proud !! it works, as far as having a red carpet (law designed for OCing.) don't count on it... it is a right not a law so it needs to be excercised. The fact that you are unwilling to get charges or harrased tells NLVPD that once you get your new law, all they have to do is charge or harrass you, and you will back down.. All that work to get where you are already.


On another note, the fella that was arrested and had the charges dropped for this ordinance, is going to get his ammo on Tues. Anyone feel like OCing?



9.32.040 - Dangerous or deadly weapon defined.

The term "dangerous or deadly weapons" includes, but is not limited to, any dirk or dagger; any knife with a blade three inches or more in length, and any snap-blade or spring-blade knife, regardless of the length of the blade; any ice pick or similar sharp stabbing tool; any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle; any dangerous or deadly weapon within the meaning of any law of this state restricting the use thereof; and any cutting, stabbing, or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm; and any firearm other than (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport.



9.32.080 - Deadly weapon prohibited in vehicle—Exceptions.

It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

On another note, the fella that was arrested and had the charges dropped for this ordinance, is going to get his ammo on Tues. Anyone feel like OCing?

Click to expand...

I'm open except the weekend of Oct 8. I'm groomsman in a wedding. And I would hate to be falsely arrested and miss the wedding.

MilitaryMike said:

Slam the door? That would have implied guilt and potentially landed a bullet in me. Doesn't sound smart.

.

Click to expand...

1. I understand that I was not in your shoes that night


2. I never said SLAM THE DOOR, if I opened the door to talk to the police and saw that I had a rifle pointed at me "I" would have at that point politely declined to speak and closed my door. Sure, maybe answering the door at all shouldn't have been a problem, but the moment you point a gun at me I go into 5th amendment mode. If your not being arrested then I don't see any point in talking to the police who are not just there to talk to you, THEY HAVE GUNS AIMED AT YOU. Like another poster said, guns are only to be aimed at what you intend to kill. This officer has intent to murder you and you're going to step outside and talk when you have no obligation to? effff dattt



edit: what's your AFSC if you don't mind me asking?

I suggest taking a look at Nevada's whistleblower protection laws. By contacting your chain of command in response to your IA complaint, he was obviously trying to influence you through intimidation.

KBCraig said:

I suggest taking a look at Nevada's whistleblower protection laws. By contacting your chain of command in response to your IA complaint, he was obviously trying to influence you through intimidation.

Click to expand...

Believe me. If he actually did it, I would be all over that like stink on crap.

Schlitz has a good point, but it is harder to recognize until you have had an encounter. The Cops would never knocked on the door, if they had Probable cause. While most are Pannicking, the growing masses that have had an encounter or two are looking at it as.... "hey he is asking questions, or knocking" that means no RAS or PC... Cool.