Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: OCer detained/disarmed in Medford, Oregon.. (Video)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    155

    OCer detained/disarmed in Medford, Oregon.. (Video)

    The video was originally posted in the Oregon Open Carry Report thread and I figured cross posting it here would get more exposure.

    Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1UkfirtoDQ

    Article: http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...130311/-1/COMM

  2. #2
    Activist Member SigGuy23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Freeland, WA
    Posts
    323
    Those Officers were morons. They take his guns away for safety, yet they put them on the ground instead of the police cruiser. Someone could have just walked up and grabbed them. How stupid. Those officers were morons.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South end of the state, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    314
    Seems to me you should have asked them if they saw you doing anything illegal as they drove up. When he said " NO " it would go a lot further towards an illegal stop.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DonRow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kalaheo, Hawaii, United States
    Posts
    56
    Wow... Can you say "EGO" and violation of your 4th. You can not detain anyone with out "probable cause" I see a law suite in the making.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    292
    Couple things I noticed. The officer did not disarm until after the guy refused to give id. He said the police do not talk to people while they are armed, so do they disarm each other when talking to each other? After he disarmed him, he did not check the guns to unload them or to see if they are loaded. First thing anyone should do with touching a gun is to see if its loaded. He gets half a point for keeping the rifle in a safe direction, but gets minus 10 for the point the handgun in the window. They knew the guy and it seems they are just trying to harass him to stop carrying guns around.
    Last edited by jag06; 12-15-2011 at 11:24 AM.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by jag06 View Post
    SNIP Couple things I noticed. The officer did not disarm until after the guy refused to give idea.
    I would never give an officer an idea. I would make them think for themselves

    This guy was surely mistreated, though it could be argued that he brought it on himself. I seem to remember some iffy OC situations involving this guy that have previously been discussed on this forum.

    Strange "procedure" they have about officers not talking to people who are lawfully armed. I have had many conversations with LEOs while carrying. (no confrontations or MWAG calls, just general interactions). I hope he filed the appropriate complaints.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 12-15-2011 at 12:47 AM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Rights may have been violated. I admit I did not watch the entire video - I have little tolerance with folks who have little information and poor ideas about how to conduct themselves during adverse interactions with the police. I also have little tolerance with folks who insist on holding a legal debate and/or trial on the street with the cops.

    Document the violation of your rights. Document the unsafe behavior of the police. Document the foolishness and jackbooted thuggery of the cops. Try not to at the same time document what a ******* you are making of yourself.

    It's not enough to know your rights and to know when they are being violated. You need to know that it is often necessary to both be victimized and be seen as being victimized in order to win your point and your case. I'm not by any means suggesting that anybody just roll over and take whatever the cops do without making complaints both at the mpment their rights are being violated as well as afterwards. I am suggesting that this did not appear to be a situation where the victim was showing himself in the best possible light. In other words, if you are going to be involved in street drama make sure you are not te one being dramatic.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by SigGuy23 View Post
    Those Officers were morons. They take his guns away for safety, yet they put them on the ground instead of the police cruiser. Someone could have just walked up and grabbed them. How stupid. Those officers were morons.
    At one point I noticed that both officers had their back to the firearms, and the camera was positioned so I could not see them behind the officers... How long would it take them to realize if someone walked off with them?



    Sent using tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Remember momma's admonition to wear clean underwear just in case you were in an accident? Her point was to put yourself in the best light, be seen as a good person.

    When our undergarments are soiled, we caste doubt on our character. The gentleman in question has failed to follow this simple precept. Had he acted responsibly and with good decorum, his presentation would be viewed much differently. Perception is paramount.
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Rights may have been violated. I admit I did not watch the entire video - I have little tolerance with folks who have little information and poor ideas about how to conduct themselves during adverse interactions with the police. I also have little tolerance with folks who insist on holding a legal debate and/or trial on the street with the cops.

    Document the violation of your rights. Document the unsafe behavior of the police. Document the foolishness and jackbooted thuggery of the cops. Try not to at the same time document what a ******* you are making of yourself.

    It's not enough to know your rights and to know when they are being violated. You need to know that it is often necessary to both be victimized and be seen as being victimized in order to win your point and your case. I'm not by any means suggesting that anybody just roll over and take whatever the cops do without making complaints both at the mpment their rights are being violated as well as afterwards. I am suggesting that this did not appear to be a situation where the victim was showing himself in the best possible light. In other words, if you are going to be involved in street drama make sure you are not te one being dramatic.

    stay safe.
    I'm going to have to agree with this. I also did not watch the entire video but I will go back and do that. My first impression, and this is deliberate on my part, is that the guy was looking for a confrontation so that he could record it. Now I say first impression being deliberate because first impressions are very important.... not always correct, but important nonetheless.

    I'll go back and look at the video to see if my first impression turns out to be lasting in a while, but initially, initially mind you, this man's actions are questionable, not those of the LEO. Perhaps upon a complete viewing that will change.


    Update:

    I have viewed the video and my impression has not been changed much. I did see some errors on the part of the officers which others have already pointed out, but I have to say that they kept their cool pretty much the entire time. It would have been helpful to know what transpired to give reason for them to stop this person and by that I mean what the complaint said. Could a dispatcher have filtered this better or is it the policy of this department to answer all MWAG calls regards of the situation? Carrying a firearm where it is legal is not grounds for being stopped or harassed by officers.

    I will not go into whether or not it was a good and rational idea for the guy to be carrying a scoped rifle slung on his back, others can vent either way with that one. For me, I would not do that without a damned good reason (partial or worse societal breakdown comes immediately to mind) mainly because it inhibits movement (think cars and such). A defensive handgun in my day-to-day goings on serves me well.... I hope.

    The problem with LEO's, their departments, and stops is that they are going to push the envelop as long as they are able. If they can get away with something that is either not legal or not policy, they will do it until they are called for it. Asking for an ID might sound and seem simple enough and you'd be surprised how many people defend this. But allowing this to continue, opens more doors into invasions of our rights.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 12-15-2011 at 11:21 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    How can any perception be made beforehand when the video feed doesn't show activity prior to the recording?

    It is wishful thinking that this guy incited something on behalf of the officers or apologists for the officers.


    He was clearly, lawfully (otherwise he would have been arrested and/or cited) carrying his sidearm and picketing. The call was placed by a knee-knocker who was "scared" that he had a rifle on his back and a pistol holstered on his side. The stop initially began seemingly consensually, which then quickly became de facto detainment, which in this case seems to be expressly unlawful. The officer then incited that an individual had a "right to be scared", which is not an enumerated right whatsoever, while he certainly violated this gentlemans 4th amendment rights.

    This stop, while seemingly trivial in nature, is exactly the reason for the state of affairs in this nation. As the officer said, he runs background checks on all individuals he detains per department policy. It is sad that this has become policy in the face of the 5th Amendment. In fact, the policy is in direct conflict with the US Constitution. Yet since they have "normalized" it, it is perceived as "acceptable".


    I am very shocked some of you are coming to bat for the officers here. The crossed arm body position, rigid stance, and tonal inflection as well as behavior of the officers was spot on for those with an authority complex, seeking to assert said authority. This stop could have gone much better, and was in all ways completely unnecessary to begin with.


    For those who are wondering, a certain individual in Tennessee who wore camo and painted his firearm has an amicus filed against him by SAF and Calguns supporting the officers (Rangers) in that particular case. This in direct conflict with no law or statute prohibiting the individual choice of paint jobs on personal possessions, or outerwear whilst carrying. I wonder if they will file an amicus when/if a lawsuit pops up on this incident in the future? I mean he "was" carrying 2 firearms. If you are going to be such an idiot as to support the "reasonable regulation" of a civil right, at least do so without purporting to be in support of the right.

    Mental midgets abound all around.

    This movement is so full of idiots that view the world their own rose colored spectacles, and only THEIR spectacles will do. Too stupid to realize the restrictions and impositions, and too naive to realize the failing of their methodology and perception of "freedom". I am getting so disenchanted with the people on this forum who apply their own "reasonable" regulation to the BoR. Its pitiful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    I would never give an officer an idea. I would make them think for themselves

    This guy was surely mistreated, though it could be argued that he brought it on himself. I seem to remember some iffy OC situations involving this guy that have previously been discussed on this forum.

    Strange "procedure" they have about officers not talking to people who are lawfully armed. I have had many conversations with LEOs while carrying. (no confrontations or MWAG calls, just general interactions). I hope he filed the appropriate complaints.
    I guess I should stop posting at midnight lol.

    Something else I was thinking about the video this morning, was the one officer keeps telling the guy to take his hands out of his pockets. The last time he said it was "I am not going to tell you to take your hands out of your pockets again" or something like that. I know they say its for officer safety, but since when is having your hands in your pockets while talking to the police a crime? If he put his hands in his pocket "one more time" would they have arrested him? Is it legal to arrest someone for not removing your hands from your pockets?

    It seems to me if you don't feel comfortable as a police officer for someone to keep their hands in their pockets when talking to them, something most everyone does, should you really be a police officer? You just disarmed a man, there are two officers there with guns and tazers, and you are worried about a guy with his hands in his pockets? Seems to me its just something they are taught to do to present themselves as superior when in contact with people.

    I am just happy that around here the few officers I have OC'ed around have just kept on going and never said anything to me.
    Last edited by jag06; 12-15-2011 at 11:43 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Remember momma's admonition to wear clean underwear just in case you were in an accident? Her point was to put yourself in the best light, be seen as a good person.

    When our undergarments are soiled, we caste doubt on our character. The gentleman in question has failed to follow this simple precept. Had he acted responsibly and with good decorum, his presentation would be viewed much differently. Perception is paramount.
    The Jews marching into the gas chambers acted "responsibly and with good decorum." Extreme example, of course. Afterall, this guy only had his 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights trampled. And his point about a black guy was on target. If a black guy walking around at 2300 in a ritzy neighborhood causes "alarm" among the residents, and the cops "service" the call, where's the difference? Or a white guy walking around a known drug dealing area. If open carry is legal, it's legal. If walking down the street is legal, it's legal. If some ******* subject doesn't like it and calls the cops, that is what their reply should be, not an invite to violate clearly defined rights under the BoR or Terry. That the guy sounds like Elmer Fudd, notwithstanding.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    The Jews marching into the gas chambers acted "responsibly and with good decorum." Extreme example, of course. Afterall, this guy only had his 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights trampled. And his point about a black guy was on target. If a black guy walking around at 2300 in a ritzy neighborhood causes "alarm" among the residents, and the cops "service" the call, where's the difference? Or a white guy walking around a known drug dealing area. If open carry is legal, it's legal. If walking down the street is legal, it's legal. If some ******* subject doesn't like it and calls the cops, that is what their reply should be, not an invite to violate clearly defined rights under the BoR or Terry. That the guy sounds like Elmer Fudd, notwithstanding.
    I understand all of that and do not disagree. I will still go the other route as a personal decision. Being well kept is a style that will benefit. Looking like someone's preconceived notion of a BG is not illegal, but it will draw more attention. That's maybe unfortunate, but you can expect that it to be so. In a perfect world.............
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Reader's Digest version of your comments.....'do as I say, or I shall chastise you on the Interwebs for making ME look bad.'
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________

    Image is important to some, and likely everything to others. Me, not so much. The image thing is solely on LE, they routinely screw that up, and not the LAC, even if he is exercising more than just his 2A. Which, by the way, is the point behind the 1A, getting noticed by a great many folks.
    Good summation.

    I am getting so sick and tired of it to be honest.


    The perception filters on some people are tuned to some unrealistic level of expectation. The idea that one must kowtow to social norms in order to not garner negative attention is, quite frankly, undermining to the purpose of our BoR.

    Why not just tack on a foreword to the Constitution annotating the necessity for a suit, well groomed appearance, enormous intellectual capacity, perfect tonality of voice, diverse knowledge of applicable law to said violated right in progress, and appropriate patterns of body positioning?

    That's what many on this forum expect whilst not holding LEO to the same standard.

    It's getting rather hypocritical and is altogether, completely pitiful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  16. #16
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by SigGuy23 View Post
    Those Officers were morons. They take his guns away for safety, yet they put them on the ground instead of the police cruiser. Someone could have just walked up and grabbed them. How stupid. Those officers were morons.
    That got me more than anything, the supervisor walking away leaving the seized firearms unattended?

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    How can any perception be made beforehand when the video feed doesn't show activity prior to the recording? Thanks for noticing. Yes, it certainly helps, but the story must start somewhere. Let's agree to accept the given starting point and move ahead from there.

    It is wishful thinking that this guy incited something on behalf of the officers or apologists for the officers. Sorry, but I'm confused. Where did that notion come from?


    He was clearly, lawfully (otherwise he would have been arrested and/or cited) carrying his sidearm and picketing. The call was placed by a knee-knocker who was "scared" that he had a rifle on his back and a pistol holstered on his side. The stop initially began seemingly consensually, which then quickly became de facto detainment, which in this case seems to be expressly unlawful. The officer then incited that an individual had a "right to be scared", which is not an enumerated right whatsoever, while he certainly violated this gentlemans 4th amendment rights. Agree on both points. My complaint is about how he dealt with the violation of his rights. And especially so as it is most likely the video will be introduced as evidence of the violation(s).

    This stop, while seemingly trivial in nature, is exactly the reason for the state of affairs in this nation. As the officer said, he runs background checks on all individuals he detains per department policy. It is sad that this has become policy in the face of the 5th Amendment. In fact, the policy is in direct conflict with the US Constitution. Yet since they have "normalized" it, it is perceived as "acceptable". You may say it is normalized. Others may say that as well. But it reads as if you are trying to fit those words into my mouth as well, which I will not permit.


    I am very shocked some of you are coming to bat for the officers here. The crossed arm body position, rigid stance, and tonal inflection as well as behavior of the officers was spot on for those with an authority complex, seeking to assert said authority. Hmm. Body language and voice modified to meet the situation is now a "complex"? In any contact with a cop someone has to be in charge, and cops are trained to be that one. The problem might be that the individual cop asserts duties and rules that do not in fact exist in law. But a snowball has a better chance of surviving unchanged in Hell than one does winning on the street an argument with a cop. This stop could have gone much better, and was in all ways completely unnecessary to begin with. AS long as you make that assertion for both sides I agree with you. There should be no reason for either side to stamp their feet, hold their breath in an attempt to change facial color, or to resort to "because I said so" - wrll, that last one is actually the lawful and appropriate last resort of police officers dealing with persons who are being obstinant merely for the sake of being obstinant.*


    For those who are wondering, a certain individual in Tennessee who wore camo and painted his firearm has an amicus filed against him by SAF and Calguns supporting the officers (Rangers) in that particular case. This in direct conflict with no law or statute prohibiting the individual choice of paint jobs on personal possessions, or outerwear whilst carrying. I wonder if they will file an amicus when/if a lawsuit pops up on this incident in the future? I mean he "was" carrying 2 firearms. If you are going to be such an idiot as to support the "reasonable regulation" of a civil right, at least do so without purporting to be in support of the right. This has nothing to do with the incident currently on the table for discussion. You know that. Putting up a red herring is not nice.

    Mental midgets abound all around. Name calling is impolite.

    This movement is so full of idiots that view the world their own rose colored spectacles, and only THEIR spectacles will do. Too stupid to realize the restrictions and impositions, and too naive to realize the failing of their methodology and perception of "freedom". I am getting so disenchanted with the people on this forum who apply their own "reasonable" regulation to the BoR. Its pitiful.
    To my knowledge nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to return here time after time. If in fact that is the case please use the emergency code word so we will know you are here under duress. Otherwise, please refer to the comment immediately above.

    For the sake of clarification, because it appears clarification is needed, my comments both immediately above and further above should not be taken as any indication of support for the actions of the police officers. They should, however, be taken as criticism of the behavior of the person being detained. He did more to exascerbate the situation than to calmly and accurately document the violation of his rights. In doing so, he loses credibility and sympathy from both casual viewers like those here, and with any trier of the facts in any complaint filed regarding the incident. Rather than being "innocent" he has moved himself to "instigating" and "aggravating" the situation.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Thanks for noticing. Yes, it certainly helps, but the story must start somewhere. Let's agree to accept the given starting point and move ahead from there.


    That's fantastic. Now please realize that this thread has more than two people posting in it, and is not in any way limited to you or I.

    Thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Sorry, but I'm confused. Where did that notion come from?


    Please realize that every reply in this thread is not in direct response to your comments. Thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    You may say it is normalized. Others may say that as well. But it reads as if you are trying to fit those words into my mouth as well, which I will not permit.

    You are awful defensive for not even initially clarifying who I was directing my comments towards. Part of my response indeed is in reply to your commentary. Part of it is not.

    Perhaps as a full grown, mature man, you should clarify with the poster you take issue with precisely what and/or who they are responding to. I would have happily elaborated.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Hmm. Body language and voice modified to meet the situation is now a "complex"?

    Combined with a lengthy, observable pattern of authoritative abuse from coast to coast, and sea to shining sea, yes. It has progressed and developed from the demeanor, positioning, and authoritative tone necessary only during situations which warrant it, to standard operating procedure even during low threat or casual contact situations.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    In any contact with a cop someone has to be in charge, and cops are trained to be that one.
    Incorrect. An authoritative stance does not need to be taken unless the situation warrants it. This is pure, simple, unadulterated logic. LEO could do far better than implementing the authoritative role on every single stop.

    The military is interesting in comparison because servicemembers of all branches know that one ********* who is "hooah/ooh-rah/etc." at any and all times, adopting that authoritative, controlling posture even when not warranted. There is a time to adopt that authoritative role when warranted in life, and times it is purely, wholly, and completely asinine and counter-productive to do so. This was definitely one of those stops, and this type of behavior exhibited here is the core of the problem with LEO doctrine, policy, and enforcement methods.

    The question must be asked, "Why did this stop proceed to immediate detainment absent probable cause?". If one cannot justify the stop, one cannot justify the authoritative tone, positioning, and threats.

    I would agree that in the event of a a proper RAS or PC substantiated stop that it is indeed within the purview, and indeed necessary, for the officer to be authoritative.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The problem might be that the individual cop asserts duties and rules that do not in fact exist in law. But a snowball has a better chance of surviving unchanged in Hell than one does winning on the street an argument with a cop.
    Any citizen should have, and as substantiated in previous court cases, does indeed have the right to disobey an unlawful order, and furthermore when said rights are violated, the right to resist illegal detainment. The method of resistance I agree should probably be non-violent unless the officer is indeed threatening your life. However, just because society has allowed for the slow erosion of these rights does not mean we should not try to get them back through any peaceful means necessary.

    In this case, as would most reasonable people, we find a man who is a bit agitated, potentially flustered, and understandably upset. If this was his first stop, he did better than a lot of the internet commandos on here would. Denigrating him because he is not Alan Gura in an Armani suit with a highlighted pocketbook of Oregon state law is quite ignorant, and very superficial of anybody who proclaims to be for our rights.

    I seem to recall an individual who whilst agitated, pointed his finger at ferry police, probably justifiably so, who summarily was whisked away to a courtroom on drummed up charges which were summarily dismissed.

    I am in doubt that the individual in question was not agitated, could recite every word of Virginia state law, was dressed in an Armani suit, attempting to board the ferry in his Jaguar.

    He won his court case if I recall. With competent counsel of course.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    AS long as you make that assertion for both sides I agree with you. There should be no reason for either side to stamp their feet, hold their breath in an attempt to change facial color, or to resort to "because I said so" - wrll, that last one is actually the lawful and appropriate last resort of police officers dealing with persons who are being obstinant merely for the sake of being obstinant.


    It is entirely incumbent upon the "professional organization" to act in a manner consistent with departmental PR directives, or in a manner that best reflects community service. It is not incumbent on the populace they serve to react with the well adjusted, veteran experience of a corporations PR executive to some form of tragedy.

    The man made no threatening moves other than to put his hands in his pockets, and was conducting himself in accordance with state and federal law during his daily activities. You can turn your nose up at his reaction, but it is not so abnormal, nor is it irrational for him to respond in such a manner.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    This has nothing to do with the incident currently on the table for discussion. You know that. Putting up a red herring is not nice.


    It does have to do specifically with my point of the inner corruption and collaboration to minimize the 2nd Amendment, as well as the 4th, by elitists championing the BoR for their own purposes.

    Here we are, in a thread where people are calling into question the activity of an individual engaged in legal, constitutionally protected rights on the basis of his understandably upset response. Could we all be the most rational of people in dire times?

    No.

    That is why we have admired, respected individuals of the past who are really looked upon with admiration. It is because they are not the norm. Individuals of such caliber wrote the US Constitution. They did so in a manner that applies to any and all individuals.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Name calling is impolite.


    A lot of things are impolite.

    Such an example would be undermining a normal, everyday, average Joes right to exercise his freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms, and right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    To my knowledge nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to return here time after time. If in fact that is the case please use the emergency code word so we will know you are here under duress. Otherwise, please refer to the comment immediately above.

    For the sake of clarification, because it appears clarification is needed, my comments both immediately above and further above should not be taken as any indication of support for the actions of the police officers. They should, however, be taken as criticism of the behavior of the person being detained. He did more to exascerbate the situation than to calmly and accurately document the violation of his rights. In doing so, he loses credibility and sympathy from both casual viewers like those here, and with any trier of the facts in any complaint filed regarding the incident. Rather than being "innocent" he has moved himself to "instigating" and "aggravating" the situation.

    stay safe.

    I will post how I wish, when I wish, without any recommendation or inference from yourself dictating any content, composition, or decision to post on my behalf. If a moderator makes a decision to address me, I will address that as I see fit as well, with the realization that this is their site. Thanks though!


    For the sake of clarification, the citizen here is not tasked with the orderly, respectful, and considerate community correspondence of law enforcement. LEO is.

    Creating a false premise of acceptable conduct and applying it to an individual merely out exercising their rights is wholly inappropriate. Such a standard perpetuates and validates superficial assessments which will never be in tune with liberty, or the true premise of the BoR.

    Nurturing such ambiguous standards is unhealthy to the cause of civil rights, and part of the core problem.

    Good day.


    P.S. ​I see you like blue and italic. I too like blue and italic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I watched the entire video three times. A few points for anyone encountering cops who're ignorant of the law:

    Videotaping - good, he did that.

    Do state that you do not consent to any search, seizure, or release of ID - he did that, too.

    Don't tell them "I do not consent to any detainment," as consent is not required for a law enforcement officer to detain you, whether he's acting properly or not.

    Don't engage them in legal mumbo-jumbo. It's a stop, not a court of law.

    Don't constantly interrupt them. That just ticks them off.

    Do say: "I am legally refusing to show you my ID."

    Don't argue with them. That also ticks them off.

    Be succinct. Many words do not make your case. What little gems he did give was lost in the fluff.

    Don't constantly repeat yourself. That's doesn't make your case.

    Don't threaten lawsuits. That's another thing that ticks them off.

    Don't come across in a whiny tone of voice, as it sounds defensive and gives rise to suspicion.

    Don't "plead the fifth." Simply say "I refuse to speak without having my attorney present."

    Do state: "I have broken no law."

    Don't ask them to cite the ordinance. Most cops do not operate directly from ordinances. They operate from their department's General Orders, which are supposed to be in accordance with local, county, state, and federal law, but occasionally are not. If anything, they're reduced set of instructions designed to be easily memorized and cover most circumstances in a conservative manner.

    Do state: "Respectfully, Sir, someone's alarm is not probable cause."

    Do state: "Lawful carry of a firearm is not probable cause."

    Take a moment to carefully choose your words before you respond.

    Don't pull the race card.


    Here's how this should have gone:

    Detainee: "Am I being detained?"

    LEO: "Yes. Do you have ID on you?"

    Det: "Yes."

    LEO: "May I see it, please?"

    Det: "No."

    LEO: "Why not?"

    Det: "I prefer not to show it to you."

    LEO: "Why not?"

    Det: "I am within my rights to refuse to show it to you."

    LEO: "Why are you refusing to show your ID?"

    Det: "I am not required to answer that question."

    LEO: "I say you are required to answer my questions."

    Det: "Respectfully, Sir, I disagree."

    If they keep pestering you, simply say, "Sir, I respectfully decline to answer any further question without my attorney."

    In all likelihood, if the detainee had simply keep calm, cool, and collected, the LEOs would probably not have seized his firearms. Be professional. One's demeanor says loads about one's intentions.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    ....
    Someone was a bit touchy at 10:51 PM last night.

    All I'm going to respond to is the attempt to characterize any of the events at Surry. Since you were not there and VDOT saw fit to destroy the video of the event it amazes me how you can make any cogent comment.

    The rest of your post see,s just a bit too much like someone who protests too much. On the other hand, I extend kudos to since9 for the comments and suggestions he offers. They are quite helpful and make me ashamed that I did not do something similar along with my critiques.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Someone was a bit touchy at 10:51 PM last night.
    Yes, of course. Your reply held no unnecessary sarcasm or veiled insults.

    Except that it did.

    Someone had sand in an orifice last night, but it certainly wasn't me.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    All I'm going to respond to is the attempt to characterize any of the events at Surry. Since you were not there and VDOT saw fit to destroy the video of the event it amazes me how you can make any cogent comment.
    It is well established you "pointed a finger" at one of the authority figures around the ferry.

    I doubt you were calm.
    I doubt you were pointing to say, "Hey those are nice trees over there!".


    You're right though. This is a supposition. Your case was won for a variety of reasons, one of which was the lack of video evidence.

    I wonder what the tape would have shown though? Maybe an angry, agitated individual dealing with smarmy, irritating, authoritative a-holes giving him a hard time?

    When all of this occurred, were you properly groomed?
    Did you have on a nice suit?
    You weren't wearing any camo were you?
    Was your pistol smaller than 5 inches?
    Have you taken public speaking courses, and are you extensively versed in Virginia statutes?


    Oh you aren't?

    Then don't carry. You make us all look bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The rest of your post see,s just a bit too much like someone who protests too much. On the other hand, I extend kudos to since9 for the comments and suggestions he offers. They are quite helpful and make me ashamed that I did not do something similar along with my critiques.

    stay safe.
    The critiquing here being applied towards this gentleman is not that of understanding and rationality. It's individuals armchair quarterbacking it to death.

    The law is meant to work with average joe having an average understanding of his rights.
    He doesn't need to have a doctorate in Public Affairs, nor hold affiliation or registry with the state Bar.


    I am getting tired of the prima donnas creating this premise that everybody needs to be the most properly trimmed and dressed individual carrying a sub-compact, showing a remarkable amount of restraint when illegally confronted by law enforcement and harassed and/or detained/arrested for legal, law abiding behavior.


    You, and those like you, create an unreasonable standard for the exercise of rights. You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

    You say, "Open Carry is the exercise of a Constitutional right that applies to all people."

    You then say, "You got stopped? Do you look like a bum/hippie/tranny/gangster/etc. ? That's wrong! You spoke up because you were agitated by this officers unlawful behavior? That's wrong! You weren't able to recite the precise law. What an idiot you make us look bad!"

    Average joe, doing average things while carrying. Any other standard is unreasonable, and uncalled for.


    While the individual involved in this incident is probably open to suggestions, as most human beings would be, the inflection in this thread from a given few is unnecessary.



    In the end, the picture you guys paint gets clearer and clearer.

    Care to discuss whether you pointed a finger or not skidmark?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I watched the entire video three times. A few points for anyone encountering cops who're ignorant of the law:

    Videotaping - good, he did that.

    Do state that you do not consent to any search, seizure, or release of ID - he did that, too.

    Don't tell them "I do not consent to any detainment," as consent is not required for a law enforcement officer to detain you, whether he's acting properly or not.

    Don't engage them in legal mumbo-jumbo. It's a stop, not a court of law.

    Don't constantly interrupt them. That just ticks them off.

    Do say: "I am legally refusing to show you my ID."

    Don't argue with them. That also ticks them off.

    Be succinct. Many words do not make your case. What little gems he did give was lost in the fluff.

    Don't constantly repeat yourself. That's doesn't make your case.

    Don't threaten lawsuits. That's another thing that ticks them off.

    Don't come across in a whiny tone of voice, as it sounds defensive and gives rise to suspicion.

    Don't "plead the fifth." Simply say "I refuse to speak without having my attorney present."

    Do state: "I have broken no law."

    Don't ask them to cite the ordinance. Most cops do not operate directly from ordinances. They operate from their department's General Orders, which are supposed to be in accordance with local, county, state, and federal law, but occasionally are not. If anything, they're reduced set of instructions designed to be easily memorized and cover most circumstances in a conservative manner.

    Do state: "Respectfully, Sir, someone's alarm is not probable cause."

    Do state: "Lawful carry of a firearm is not probable cause."

    Take a moment to carefully choose your words before you respond.

    Don't pull the race card.


    Here's how this should have gone:

    Detainee: "Am I being detained?"

    LEO: "Yes. Do you have ID on you?"

    Det: "Yes."

    LEO: "May I see it, please?"

    Det: "No."

    LEO: "Why not?"

    Det: "I prefer not to show it to you."

    LEO: "Why not?"

    Det: "I am within my rights to refuse to show it to you."

    LEO: "Why are you refusing to show your ID?"

    Det: "I am not required to answer that question."

    LEO: "I say you are required to answer my questions."

    Det: "Respectfully, Sir, I disagree."

    If they keep pestering you, simply say, "Sir, I respectfully decline to answer any further question without my attorney."

    In all likelihood, if the detainee had simply keep calm, cool, and collected, the LEOs would probably not have seized his firearms. Be professional. One's demeanor says loads about one's intentions.
    Just a few pleasantries one may toss out:
    Your request is without basis in law, and I will not comply.
    Are you detaining me? If so, based upon what RAS?
    While I will cooperate with you under threat of deadly force, your actions are unlawful and violate my constitutional rights. I will be taking appropriate civil action against you and your department, jointly and severally, under 42 USC 1983. You will find that you do not have qualified immunity in Federal Court for Constitutional rights violation and can and will be held personally liable.
    Have a nice day.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 12-18-2011 at 11:28 AM.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  23. #23
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
    The problem with LEO's, their departments, and stops is that they are going to push the envelope as long as they are able. If they can get away with something that is either not legal or not policy, they will do it until they are called for it.
    Amen.
    They need to be reminded at the time, in person, that their actions are against the law (that they swore to uphold).
    If they persist, once you're out of jail then contacting media is in order,
    as well as good lawyers who are proficient with 1983 suits.

    Quote Originally Posted by jag06
    I know they say its for officer safety, but since when is having your hands in your pockets while talking to the police a crime?
    ...Is it legal to arrest someone for not removing your hands from your pockets?
    In their minds, "officer safety" trumps any law.
    The guy could have had a pocket gun & been planning to shoot through his pocket!

    Quote Originally Posted by since9
    In all likelihood, if the detainee had simply keep calm, cool, and collected, the LEOs would probably not have seized his firearms. Be professional. One's demeanor says loads about one's intentions.
    Respectfully, that may work where you live, but here in Milwaukee it doesn't.
    In fact, it made the cops violating my rights all the easier for them.

    The only way my keeping my cool made my life any easier in that situation was that I didn't get tackled or shot, didn't irritate them into being physically abusive (other than refusing to loosen the cuffs which left my hands numb), & the officer who transported me from the PD to the jail was actually reasonable about cuffing me in front & not putting them on tight.
    Oh, and I didn't make any statements that could be used against me.
    Always a bonus.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 12-16-2011 at 12:16 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  24. #24
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Couldn't watch it. I heard who it was, and seeing the responses its no surprise.

    Keep your mouth shut, talking to the police will not help you Warren.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Amen.
    ....
    Dear slowfiveoh - notice how you can indicate how you are responding to different posters all within one response? It eliminates any confusion you might otherwise create regarding to which post your intermingled comments are directed.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •