Talk about a BS detainment.

PALO said:

again, you don't know the facts and circumstances

i was pulled over at gunpoint and proned out on the sidewalk driving home once

why?

because i was a minority?

because i was unshaven?

because i had a political sticker on my van?

i could make all sorts of inferences like that

once i learned that the cops had RS for me as an armed robbery suspect, though, THEN i got it

again, unless we have a bit more to go on, there is no way to rationally believe that the stop was or wasn't justified.

bald speculation is nice, but it's frequently wrong, and i prefer to operate from knowledge not ignorance

ymmv

Click to expand...

I was illegally arrested for trying to file a complaint for an illegal arrest at gun point for OC'ing. Guess what none of those facts appeared in the police reports, no RAS either.

Until something is proved that this story is fabricated or untrue it is upsetting because this happens all too often I would conjecture it happens way more than reported. Sometimes I think it happens to generate FIR's to justify having the officer out in the field and the continual taking of tax payers money.

PALO said:

the problem with stories like this is everybody, based on their biases, will naturally assume the veracity of the fact pattern if it reflects on their metanarrative.

iow, what we have here is claims. they may or may not be true and/or at least distorted.

furthermore, i can't speak to that state, but in this state, an officer could certainly question a 5 yr old in many circ's w/o a parent present. depends on whether they were a suspect, a witness, etc.

Click to expand...

Let me take a wild guess here. The P in your username stands for police and the LO stand for law officer or something of that nature?

PALO said:

again, you don't know the facts and circumstances

i was pulled over at gunpoint and proned out on the sidewalk driving home once

why?

because i was a minority?

because i was unshaven?

because i had a political sticker on my van?

i could make all sorts of inferences like that

once i learned that the cops had RS for me as an armed robbery suspect, though, THEN i got it

again, unless we have a bit more to go on, there is no way to rationally believe that the stop was or wasn't justified.

bald speculation is nice, but it's frequently wrong, and i prefer to operate from knowledge not ignorance

ymmv

Click to expand...

So, what did you do about this 'proning out' incident?

What were the specific articulable facts that lead the cops to 'infer' that you were their BG?

Were there any other proning outs during the course of their investigation?

Could their, the cops who proned you out, inferences to gain RAS be proven as justifiable in front of a judge?

Were/are you OK with getting proned out as long as you 'get it'?

Does your local PD typically prone out citizens?

....does not pass the smell test....

PALO said:

<snip> that I can actually have at least a reasonble belief is a credible account and where I have at least a reasonable belief I understand the fact pattern from all sides, not from an account that is probably myopic AT BEST

Click to expand...

So, we are to take your 'proned out' story based on your word alone? But, the linked story in the OP is not to be believed absent more facts?

....got it.

I was detained/had an encounter, with a bellingham police officer whose name is OFFICER ALLEN BASS. He had no RAS to harass me, but he did anyway. I was "arrested" because he drew his weapon and, at times pointed it directly at my chest. I received a copy of his "police report" and it was a total fabrication. To put it in plain english, he LIED in his report. This incident is still being processed, but as it progresses, I will post his report.

Did you get audio/video of the cop?

Me, no. A detailed narration of occurance written immediatly. Even better, credible witnesses.

MSG Laigaie said:

Me, no. A detailed narration of occurance written immediatly. Even better, credible witnesses.

Click to expand...

Having credible witnesses is good indeed, but having audio/video proving them to be credible witnesses is even better.

MSG Laigaie said:

I was detained/had an encounter, with a bellingham police officer whose name is OFFICER ALLAN BASS. He had no RAS to harass me, but he did anyway. I was "arrested" because he drew his weapon and, at times pointed it directly at my chest. I received a copy of his "police report" and it was a total fabrication. To put it in plain english, he LIED in his report. This incident is still being processed, but as it progresses, I will post his report.

Click to expand...

Small correction John, It's Allen Bass and he has fabricated a report in an incident with me too. A smile became a "Bizarre grin", and somehow on a bright sunny day he was able to see into tinted windows at Starbucks and see me acting "nervous and suspicious". A warning on a phone call to fix my driver license became a ticket when I asked him what his PC was for running my license. As one local attorney put it "he becomes a complete thug when you question his "authority"".

And I don't find it "coincidental" this all happened the day after my attorney had spoken to their attorney about settling my case concerning unlawful arrest because I was OC'ing.

sudden valley gunner said:

Small correction John, It's Allen Bass and he has fabricated a report in an incident with me too. A smile became a "Bizarre grin", and somehow on a bright sunny day he was able to see into tinted windows at Starbucks and see me acting "nervous and suspicious". A warning on a phone call to fix my driver license became a ticket when I asked him what his PC was for running my license. As one local attorney put it "he becomes a complete thug when you question his "authority"".

And I don't find it "coincidental" this all happened the day after my attorney had spoken to their attorney about settling my case concerning unlawful arrest because I was OC'ing.

Click to expand...

you should write him up for his grammar... it should be "nervously and suspiciously"

that being said, no LEO needs "PC" (or even RS) to run your license.

in fact, there has been an attorney who routinely trys to make a case that cops should have at least RS to run vehicle registrations or licenses.

he loses.

in no state in the country does a cop need PC to check a license status

they need RS to DETAIN you, and they need RS (or a few exceptions, like if you are in a collision) to demand your name, dob etc.

but if a cop has your name and dob, he needs no PC/RS to run it to check license status

example: cop is standing in a parking lot and sees a guy he knows as Sam Smith drive by

he figures "hey, Sam usually has a suspended license. i think i'll check"

so, he runs Sams name. Sam has a suspended license

does he need to conduct a traffic stop?

no, he can simply issue a citation and it will be mailed to Sam's address of residence.

now, that doesn't mean that a cop can't be disciplined or even criminally charged if he misuses WACIC/NCIC for some kind of personal vendetta. like if you start dating his ex-wife, so he starts using police resources to check your background, license status, etc. ... THAT could get him in trouble

OC for ME said:

So, we are to take your 'proned out' story based on your word alone? But, the linked story in the OP is not to be believed absent more facts?

....got it.

Click to expand...

i don't care what you take at face value

but generally speaking, absent evidence, whether you choose to believe a NON self serving story of mine is up to you.

iow, nothing in my story BENEFITS me. it's simply something that happened to me about 25 yrs ago. it's also consistent with **** that happens every day

it's also consistent with what happens all the time - people get stopped, even at gunpoint, when they have done NOTHING wrong.

the issue is not - did they do anything wrong, when evaluating whether the conduct was legal by the cops

the ISSUE is - what the did the cops reasonably/believe suspect based on their vantage point, etc. (see also Aguilar Spinelli test etc.)

if a cop randomly stopped you and found 3 stolen guns, a murder weapon, and evidence of homicide on you, that no more justifies the stop ex post facto, than if a cop does have a legitimate reason to stop you, but finds nothing

it's a process analysis, not a results analysis

this is about rule of law, not anecdotes.

if you doubt my story, then consider that people get stopped ALL THE TIME, who did nothing wrong. the TEST is not what the person did, it's what did the officers reasonably believe/suspect based on totality of circ's known to them

this is the exact same standard used when anybody, cop or joe blow, uses force to include deadly force.

if a kid pulls a realistic looking pellet gun on you, and you shoot him, it will be ruled justified

the fact it was NOT a gun is irrelevant. it's what you reasonably believed

the cops REASONABLY suspected i had committed an armed robbery, based on proximity, description of suspect, vehicle description, etc

the fact that i DID NOT commit an armed robbery is irrelevant as to the justification for the stop

hth

this is also why i fully support videotaping of cops and audiotaping of them, and the cops doing the same of others.

because that way, people can VERIFY stories with hard evidence, and bad cops get punished, good cops get exonerated and people who make false complaints can (at least sometimes) be punished.

there was a case just recently of some very prominent attorney completely fabricating his account of a traffic stop and the cop was looking at some serious allegations, until he pulled out his audio tape upon being questioned

iirc, the attorney ended up being disbarred, which sounds reasonable. as an officer of the court, that was grossly dishonest

OC for ME said:

So, we are to take your 'proned out' story based on your word alone? But, the linked story in the OP is not to be believed absent more facts?

....got it.

Click to expand...

PALO said:

it's also consistent with what happens all the time - people get stopped, even at gunpoint, when they have done NOTHING wrong.

Click to expand...

:monkey

PALO said:

you should write him up for his grammar... it should be "nervously and suspiciously"

that being said, no LEO needs "PC" (or even RS) to run your license.

in fact, there has been an attorney who routinely trys to make a case that cops should have at least RS to run vehicle registrations or licenses.

he loses.

in no state in the country does a cop need PC to check a license status

they need RS to DETAIN you, and they need RS (or a few exceptions, like if you are in a collision) to demand your name, dob etc.

but if a cop has your name and dob, he needs no PC/RS to run it to check license status

example: cop is standing in a parking lot and sees a guy he knows as Sam Smith drive by

he figures "hey, Sam usually has a suspended license. i think i'll check"

so, he runs Sams name. Sam has a suspended license

does he need to conduct a traffic stop?

no, he can simply issue a citation and it will be mailed to Sam's address of residence.

now, that doesn't mean that a cop can't be disciplined or even criminally charged if he misuses WACIC/NCIC for some kind of personal vendetta. like if you start dating his ex-wife, so he starts using police resources to check your background, license status, etc. ... THAT could get him in trouble

Click to expand...

There's a little more to the story and the conversation what you are hinting at is what I was saying, some of the first words out of his mouth when he called me on my unlisted cell phone, was you were carrying a gun it brought you to my attention so I decided to run your plates. Yet he doesn't mention that part on his report. I was unaware my license was suspended (suspicious circumstances surrounding that too), he asked me are you going to take care of your license, I thanked him and said yes right away. I then questioned him on PC he got rather upset and then said "now you are getting a ticket". I asked him why he changed his mind on warning to ticket when I had a simple question. He got more irate. I tried to calm him down and finally had to tell him I wasn't going to argue over the phone and hung up. His report says the exact opposite that I was the one trying to argue with him...etc.

Regardless of whether he had PC or not his actions where inappropriate and untruthful and misleading. His reports leave everything about the gun out, you can tell he doesn't quite have it together from one page to the next. He actually never saw me drive on a public road, used subjective but typical of LEO boiler plate words, and omitted many clarifying facts.

And he had access to my phone number from my complaint I had sent into the department about two illegal arrests for OC, so he was well aware OC is legal and him investigating me was nothing but harassment on his part. He wouldn't choose to randomly investigate, someone else dressed in work clothes grabbing a cup of joe from Starbucks.

Yep he has a reputation as a thug in this town and it is one he seems to like to prove. He needs not to have any position of "authority".

A judge reinstated my license, now the state or city can't keep messing with it.:lol:

PALO said:

you should write him up for his grammar... it should be "nervously and suspiciously"

that being said, no LEO needs "PC" (or even RS) to run your license.

in fact, there has been an attorney who routinely trys to make a case that cops should have at least RS to run vehicle registrations or licenses.

he loses.

in no state in the country does a cop need PC to check a license status

they need RS to DETAIN you, and they need RS (or a few exceptions, like if you are in a collision) to demand your name, dob etc.

but if a cop has your name and dob, he needs no PC/RS to run it to check license status

example: cop is standing in a parking lot and sees a guy he knows as Sam Smith drive by

he figures "hey, Sam usually has a suspended license. i think i'll check"

so, he runs Sams name. Sam has a suspended license

does he need to conduct a traffic stop?

no, he can simply issue a citation and it will be mailed to Sam's address of residence.

now, that doesn't mean that a cop can't be disciplined or even criminally charged if he misuses WACIC/NCIC for some kind of personal vendetta. like if you start dating his ex-wife, so he starts using police resources to check your background, license status, etc. ... THAT could get him in trouble

Click to expand...

Your ignorance of the law is breathtaking! Are you a cop? If so, where? Pyongyang?

PALO said:

<snip>

Click to expand...

You continue to evade to issue raised in the OP. That the GP was stopped, for the second time. Your defense of cops and citizens in the situations you provide are irrelevant to the OP. Your experience 25 years ago is indicative of a citizen who can 'stick it it' to the cops, but who may or may not because the cops 'were just doing their job'. I disagree, proximity, car and description (how could they determine description, it seems you were in the car) is not enough if the issue is taken in front of a judge.

You may or may not have pursued the issue. Today, however, every opportunity to 'push back' at the slightest infringement of your rights must be taken.

PALO said:

blah blah

Click to expand...

You still haven't answered the question..

Are you just going to avoid it, because you can't answer it?

sudden valley gunner said:

There's a little more to the story and the conversation what you are hinting at is what I was saying, some of the first words out of his mouth when he called me on my unlisted cell phone, was you were carrying a gun it brought you to my attention so I decided to run your plates. Yet he doesn't mention that part on his report. I was unaware my license was suspended (suspicious circumstances surrounding that too), he asked me are you going to take care of your license, I thanked him and said yes right away. I then questioned him on PC he got rather upset and then said "now you are getting a ticket". I asked him why he changed his mind on warning to ticket when I had a simple question. He got more irate. I tried to calm him down and finally had to tell him I wasn't going to argue over the phone and hung up. His report says the exact opposite that I was the one trying to argue with him...etc.

Regardless of whether he had PC or not his actions where inappropriate and untruthful and misleading. His reports leave everything about the gun out, you can tell he doesn't quite have it together from one page to the next. He actually never saw me drive on a public road, used subjective but typical of LEO boiler plate words, and omitted many clarifying facts.

And he had access to my phone number from my complaint I had sent into the department about two illegal arrests for OC, so he was well aware OC is legal and him investigating me was nothing but harassment on his part. He wouldn't choose to randomly investigate, someone else dressed in work clothes grabbing a cup of joe from Starbucks.

Yep he has a reputation as a thug in this town and it is one he seems to like to prove. He needs not to have any position of "authority".

A judge reinstated my license, now the state or city can't keep messing with it.:lol:

Click to expand...

well yes. i 100% agree. it is COMPLETELY inappropriate for a cop to "fish" for info on you because he saw you carrying a gun and doesn't like that.

that is ********!

Gunslinger said:

Your ignorance of the law is breathtaking! Are you a cop? If so, where? Pyongyang?

Click to expand...

if there is some aspect of my analysis you disagree with, then challenge it. and like i said, i am commenting on GENERALITIES because the law (and constitutional guidelines ) vary state to state

i am not going to devolve into ad homs and silly stuff. i'll leave that to you. if you claim something i said was incorrect, then say what it is.

VW_Factor said:

You still haven't answered the question..

Are you just going to avoid it, because you can't answer it?

Click to expand...

what question?

i am so busy wading through the ad homs, the intellectual dishonesty and the hysterical black helicopter paranoia crap, i'm not sure what question you are referring to

PALO said:

well yes. i 100% agree. it is COMPLETELY inappropriate for a cop to "fish" for info on you because he saw you carrying a gun and doesn't like that.

that is ********!

Click to expand...

Inappropriate? It's against the law. That's called Color of Law, 18 USC 242.

US vs Ubilies, unconcealed carrying of a firearm isn't a reason to stop in a state that's OC.