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

skidmark said:

Someone was a bit touchy at 10:51 PM last night.

Click to expand...

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.

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

since9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SouthernBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jag06 said:

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?

Click to expand...

In their minds, "officer safety" trumps any law.
The guy could have had a pocket gun & been planning to shoot through his pocket! :cuss:

since9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

MKEgal said:

Amen.
....

Click to expand...

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.

Oy. Say only what needs to be said, then S.T.F.U.


I do not consent to this encounter. I wish to leave imediately.

I will identify myself only if I'm being detained for reasonable suspicion of a crime.

I do not consent to the seizure of my property. I do not consent to any searches.

I will not answer questions. I wish to speak with my legal counsel.

Some things I would have done differently.

#1 I would not go through an entire rehersed statment of "You're being recorded, I do not concent, I plead the 5th." Depending on the state you live in I would make the statment that I am recording including audio. That's it.

#2 I wouldn't even act like I assume they are trying to make contact with me. I'd wait for them to speak first and join in on a pleasant conversation.

#3 I don't feel like it's my job to educate each and every individual LEO that would have a problem with my Open Carry. Honestly in this guys situation, don't tell them what they don't know, tell them that they are wrong, with solid and sound knowledge of the law, then when they continue to herass, take the video and file suit. Bad technique to not file suite if this has happened in the past. Teach the entire LEO force in your community buy filing and getting a nice paycheck from the taxpayer.

Cops quoting not existing laws. How many times does this have to happen? Seriously what training do they get annually for new laws and do they have to pass a test each year? The fact that the supervisor was there and watching and knew but didn't know the person should have been a flag in the cops mind that maybe he knows what he is talking about or he wouldn't have the camera.

Folks, the person in question's name is Warren Drouin. He's an early 20-something who lives in or around Medford, OR. He continually seeks confrontation with the local PD by either openly confronting police officers while carrying, or by open carrying a rifle on his back in public. He does it to call attention to the fact that Medford police generally have no clue when it comes to open carry encounters. This is admirable. However, he goes about it in such a way as to make himself look like a total idiot, and a general nuisance. Couple that with the fact that his posting style leads one to believe that his general education level appears fairly low, and you have a recipe for a soup sandwich.

People have busted my balls for talking smack about this kid, but he's such an incredibly lousy representative for OC that he makes everyone else look bad as well.

since9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So, it is OK for them to stop us and detain us and question us about where we are going, what we are doing with the firearm, what our intentions are? When, during this stop, would it have been appropriate for the detainee to become ticked off at the officer? IMHO, from the start when the officer indicated that "someone else's alarm" instigated the stop. Personally, I would have told them to call the Shift Commander. If that person continued the travesty, I would have told them to call the Chief of Police to report their stupidity as I most definitely would be doing that. Better yet, find out what General Orders and Daily Standard Operating Protocols are in use in your local PD ... then go to the City Council meetings to ask very pointed questions about why the officers being encountered on the streets are still INFRINGING on 2A RIGHTS when they conduct a response to a MWAG call.

I understand where you are coming from since9, but where do we draw the line in the sand and REQUIRE local PDs to ensure that all officers are trained how to properly respond to MWAG calls? It is a fine line between cooperating so the officer can "clear the call" and being intimidated into allowing our 2A rights (among others!) to be infringed on by Government Authority.

since9 said:

... snip ... 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.

Click to expand...

Detained in a situation in which he should never have been detained! He is a CITIZEN not a SUBJECT and was treated like a subject! Since my run-in, I have escalated my resistance to questioning by Authority a whole factor. That doesn't mean that I am rude, I am not. I give the officer an opportunity to be pleasant, and as pleasant as he is with me, the more willing I am to help him conclude the contact with a positive outcome for both of us.

However, too many officers operate in an antagonistic and aggressive manner all too often. There are two young officers here that literally look down their noses at me (I'm 5'2" and they are 5'10"+), and on more than one occassion, have tried to physically intimidate me. It was all I could do to keep from taking them down at the knees ... literally ... I was inside their reach and below their center of gravity - bad move/mistake on their part LOL IMHO, they are the type of officers that will soon be booted off the force because of falsifying reports, lying on the stand, excessive use of force, etc. as they have already proven that they are not very smart.

I will have an opportunity to "twit" them soon, and I will most definitely take the opportunity to help them show themselves for the idiots they are.

since9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Very nicely put my friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ironbar: ...incredibly lousy representative for OC...

Click to expand...

What exactly are the preferred characteristics of a OC representative? And none of that 'whatever it is, it ain't him' crap. Ya ever think, that just maybe, it is the Ron Paul sign that gets him harassed by the cops? Ya know what Big Sis says about Ron Paul supporters.

Ironbar: ....his general education level appears fairly low....

Click to expand...

He has to this point, eluded the cops by exercising his 1A and 2A rights, lawfully and in public.....I know, say it ain't so, how dare he cause alarm to some folks of Medford and not others. What is the matter with the people? Why are some misguided citizens in Medford actually daring to display their support for him, in public? How can this be? I am shocked....SHOCKED!....I tell you. Style over substance....who wudda thunk it. One other thought....

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.

Click to expand...

You did read the linked article in the OP, right? What do you think his intentions were....walking around armed with a Ron Paul sign in his hand?

Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said police see this kind of activity infrequently in Medford, although Drouin has been contacted several times over the past few months by police but hasn't been arrested or charged.

Click to expand...

I suspect that that the cops in Medford are almost foaming at the mouth for this dude to make even the smallest slip. He will have his weapons seized (for officer safety of course) every time he is illegally detained, in the hopes that he passes some breaking point. ....then BAM!....we got our man, pats on the back, all around, for a job well done.