youtube

Dario · Aug 4, 2014

solus said:
sorry papabear, if you had paid attention at the beginning, and watched the video, read the sentinel article, as well as read the earlier post you would have discerned the young man was apparently cited for obstruction.

second, he just turned 18 years old 45 days ago and it didn't take a giant leap of faith to think this new adult lives with his care giver(s) who prob purchased his shotgun, police scanner, and digital recorder. my comment centers around i hope since he is an adult, his caregivers will not pay his ticket for him.

but i'm sure his caregiver will mark it off as a youthful transgression...like the other 12+ times he has run into the police in the last 45 days.

ipse

Well since he hasn't been convicted of anything yet it's undetermined if there will even be a fine. And it does take a giant leap of faith to assume (we all know what that means) an 18 year old can't afford a $200~ shotgun and $50~ 3g phone that records audio/video and has internet access to radioreference.com to record the police encounters of his lawful activities based on peoples hoplophobia.

Edit: I'll go further and insinuate there is actually a very good chance he may actually get some money out of this, like the gentlemen in Colorado Springs and Loveland did a few years ago in their lawsuits.

stealthyeliminator · Aug 4, 2014

solus said:
nuff said...like your opinion, mine is equal to yours.

What makes your opinion equal to anyone else's? You are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else is, that certainly doesn't mean the quality of your opinion matches that of anyone else's. And, yours certainly does not.

Those officers were not polite or friendly, they were consistently demeaning, shifty and exploitative as is the case far too often in situations like these.

They did not have reason to suspect that he was underage, they used that as an excuse to force their prerogative of authority and rulership. They determined before they even pulled up that they would demand identification. The supposed age suspicion they stumbled upon mid-way through the illegal detention. You can tell in their tone of voice as they realize, oh, maybe we can force his hand by saying he looks too young! He asked not 45 seconds in "how old are you" and showed no suspicion toward the given answer of 18. In fact, he even followed the answer with "ok, so you can legally carry one."

"Have I committed a crime?"
"Well, bs bs bs bs bs bs bs"="no, this is an illegal detention"

solus · Aug 4, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
What makes your opinion equal to anyone else's? You are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else is, that certainly doesn't mean the quality of your opinion matches that of anyone else's. And, yours certainly does not.

Those officers were not polite or friendly, they were consistently demeaning, shifty and exploitative as is the case far too often in situations like these.

They did not have reason to suspect that he was underage, they used that as an excuse to force their prerogative of authority and rulership. They determined before they even pulled up that they would demand identification. The supposed age suspicion they stumbled upon mid-way through the illegal detention. You can tell in their tone of voice as they realize, oh, maybe we can force his hand by saying he looks too young! He asked not 45 seconds in "how old are you" and showed no suspicion toward the given answer of 18. In fact, he even followed the answer with "ok, so you can legally carry one."

"Have I committed a crime?"
"Well, bs bs bs bs bs bs bs"="no, this is an illegal detention"

well, stealth...our opinions have been at odds for quite awhile, will probably stay that way awhile, and of course, you are equally entitled to yours and in the scheme of things i am absolutely it is as valuable as mine.

btw, how is it going in texas with its BS nonsense?

ipse
pse

papa bear · Aug 4, 2014

sorry SOLUS, you don't seem to understand the laws. basically he was pleading the Fifth. so he could not be charged,,, well sorry again, convicted of 'obstruction". if that was true then every body that has testified at hearings would be guilty of obstruction.
at best, they could have detained him to verify his identity. but what seemed to happen was false arrest

he should be entitled to getting some money

still don't understand your "caregiver" remark. are you saying he is mentally deficient, or are you just trying to make a snide remark?

solus · Aug 4, 2014

papa bear said:
sorry SOLUS, you don't seem to understand the laws. basically he was pleading the Fifth. so he could not be charged,,, well sorry again, convicted of 'obstruction". if that was true then every body that has testified at hearings would be guilty of obstruction.
at best, they could have detained him to verify his identity. but what seemed to happen was false arrest

he should be entitled to getting some money

still don't understand your "caregiver" remark. are you saying he is mentally deficient, or are you just trying to make a snide remark?

SHOTGUN-ARMED TEEN CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION IN AURORA AFTER OPEN-CARRY STOP

http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/shotgun-armed-teen-charged-obstruction-aurora-open-carry-stop/

it is a misdemeanor ticket charge, all the young man has to do is pay the fine...no harm no foul.

I am not sure why you do not understand the term 'caregiver'...since it is not apparent if the young man resides w/parent(s), grandparent(s), in foster care, etc., the term refers to those individuals who are providing his overall food, shelter, clothing, firearm, ad nausm.

my comment is the young man purports to wanting to function as an adult, then he should be accountable as such, then he alone should pay whatever fines for his escapades.

ipse

solus · Aug 4, 2014

Papabear you were saying about the law?

C.R.S. 18-8-104 (2013)
18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer

(2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he or she was acting under color of his or her official authority. A peace officer acts "under color of his or her official authority" if, in the regular course of assigned duties, he or she makes a judgment in good faith based on surrounding facts and circumstances that he or she must act to enforce the law or preserve the peace.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor. (Class 2 Misdemeanor: 3-12 months in the county jail and/or a $250-$1,000 fine.)

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

guess the young man is not getting the great fortune everyone believes he should based on the bad bad policeman's actions, especially since paragraph (2) seems to exonerate the peace officer acting in an illegal manner...
ipse

ipse

Dario · Aug 4, 2014

solus said:
Papabear you were saying about the law?

C.R.S. 18-8-104 (2013)
18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer

(2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he or she was acting under color of his or her official authority. A peace officer acts "under color of his or her official authority" if, in the regular course of assigned duties, he or she makes a judgment in good faith based on surrounding facts and circumstances that he or she must act to enforce the law or preserve the peace.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor. (Class 2 Misdemeanor: 3-12 months in the county jail and/or a $250-$1,000 fine.)

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

guess the young man is not getting the great fortune everyone believes he should based on the bad bad policeman's actions, especially since paragraph (2) seems to exonerate the peace officer acting in an illegal manner...
ipse

ipse

Interesting you left out the most important part of the statute 1(a), specifically where it says:

A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

Please explain to us where refusing to surrender an ID falls into this category, solus.

solus · Aug 4, 2014

Dario said:
Interesting you left out the most important part of the statute 1(a), specifically where it says:

A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

Please explain to us where refusing to surrender an ID falls into this category, solus.

sorry, please see the second sentence and it is the interpretation of the LE reacting to the situation.
fact: the young man was cited!
fact: CRS (b) specifically states the any cite is valid even if the LE acted illegally.

bottom line, the young man now has to defend himself in a judicial setting and there is a possibility the young man could incur 3-12 months in the county jail and/or a $250-$1,000 fine.

ipse

Dario · Aug 4, 2014

solus said:
sorry, please see the second sentence and it is the interpretation of the LE reacting to the situation.
fact: the young man was cited!
fact: CRS (b) specifically states the any cite is valid even if the LE acted illegally.

bottom line, the young man now has to defend himself in a judicial setting and there is a possibility the young man could incur 3-12 months in the county jail and/or a $250-$1,000 fine.

ipse

It's part of the same sentence! Regardless of whether or not the cops were acting legally, at no time did he use threats, violence or physically obstruct them. It was a wrongful arrest, bottom line.

solus · Aug 4, 2014

Dario said:
It's part of the same sentence! Regardless of whether or not the cops were acting legally, at no time did he use threats, violence or physically obstruct them. It was a wrongful arrest, bottom line.

was he cited? YES!

does the statute immune the LE for wrongful actions? YES!

therefore, does he have to present himself in a county judicial setting? YES!

dario, et al., jumping up and down stating 'its wrong, its wrong, its wrong', all you wish. the truth of the matter is the young man has been cited and unless he is independently wealthy, or his caregiver(s) assists in his defense or he finds a benefactor to pay for a criminal attorney, who takes class 2 misdemeanor cases where the LE is immune from wrongful actions he is up a creek isn't he?

ipse

Dario · Aug 4, 2014

solus said:
was he cited? YES!

does the statute immune the LE for wrongful actions? YES!

therefore, does he have to present himself in a county judicial setting? YES!

dario, et al., jumping up and down stating 'its wrong, its wrong, its wrong', all you wish. the truth of the matter is the young man has been cited and unless he is independently wealthy, or his caregiver(s) assists in his defense or he finds a benefactor to pay for a criminal attorney, who takes class 2 misdemeanor cases where the LE is immune from wrongful actions he is up a creek isn't he?

ipse

solus, I don't know if you are aware that people have been charged with crimes/infractions that they are not actually guilty of before (ever heard the term wrongfully accused?)

The state is immune only if the entirety of the statute is met and while we are not in a court of law and the judicial process hasn't even started, I think it's safe to say this video shows there is no evidence of any threats, violence or physical interference.

And we have this:

2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he or she was acting under color of his or her official authority. A peace officer acts "under color of his or her official authority" if, in the regular course of assigned duties, he or she makes a judgment in good faith based on surrounding facts and circumstances that he or she must act to enforce the law or preserve the peace.

What law did the officers have a good faith judgement on enforcing? What peace needed to be preserved? Remember, open carry is a guaranteed right in Colorado.

Even a public defender would bring all these points up in court and I have a hard time believing a judge would deny a motion to dismiss based on these simple uncomfortable truths.

WalkingWolf · Aug 4, 2014

Besides there was no RAS, if indeed the dept admits to numerous encounters, they already knew he was of age. Sounds like polite harassment/passive aggressive. Hope they pay through the nose and the young lad adds to his college fund.

solus · Aug 5, 2014

dario, you missed the '...comma OR...' associated with what i previously cited in the second part of (a) in referenced statute.

btw, preservation of the peace covers a great many subjective sins, especially since the LEs were there due to another citizen's phone call ~ whose peace, real or imagined, was disturbed by the young man's actions.

folks, please read what i posted...i am not adjudicating the young man's guilt or innocence, OR condoning the LEs action of citing him, OR if the has RAS, but rather stating, due to his specific action(s), he was CITED and now has to defend himself in a county judicial setting.

which led to my second part...who pays...dario, your recent post said he can get a PD... the PD office is so overworked working with felony cases, if he gets in the door to meet someone, they prob will listen, smile sweetly, tell the young man...pay the fine! rewind back to my previous post of who pays?

you'll fail to realize it takes significant resouces ($$$$$) to push a 'statement' even through the county court and upward if your not satisfied with lower court's ruling.

remember it is a class 2 mis...

ipse

OC for ME · Aug 5, 2014

He asked not 45 seconds in "how old are you" and showed no suspicion toward the given answer of 18. In fact, he even followed the answer with "ok, so you can legally carry one."

If this is the case, then the obstruction charge will be dismissed. The cops apparently are now detaining this fella in the hopes of finding something to cite him with. It appears that the only "crime" he committed was standing on the right side of the law.

Caregiver...too funny. Maybe he is paying to live in his Mom's basement, with his XBox and fuzzy slippers. Who knows...

stealthyeliminator · Aug 5, 2014

solus said:
my comment is the young man purports to wanting to function as an adult, then he should be accountable as such, then he alone should pay whatever fines for his escapades.

ipse

This certainly doesn't make any sense. Adults frequently receive outside funding and donations to fight unjust criminal charges, why would this case be any different? Do you feel the same about all of "those other" defense funds? Or is this just another way of badgering and trying to (verbally) stick it to the kid because you personally don't care for his form of activism?

Hint: It's the latter.

stealthyeliminator · Aug 5, 2014

solus said:
Papabear you were saying about the law?

C.R.S. 18-8-104 (2013)
18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer

(2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he or she was acting under color of his or her official authority. A peace officer acts "under color of his or her official authority" if, in the regular course of assigned duties, he or she makes a judgment in good faith based on surrounding facts and circumstances that he or she must act to enforce the law or preserve the peace.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor. (Class 2 Misdemeanor: 3-12 months in the county jail and/or a $250-$1,000 fine.)

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

guess the young man is not getting the great fortune everyone believes he should based on the bad bad policeman's actions, especially since paragraph (2) seems to exonerate the peace officer acting in an illegal manner...
ipse

ipse

What the **** are you quoting about? I don't see anyone talking about trying to use a defense that the officer's actions which were supposedly obstructed were illegal. What is being said is that declining to ID when not legally required to do so is not obstruction (and wouldn't be able to be, since it'd be a 5th violation). These are two completely different lines of thought. I couldn't help but notice you quoted the "not a defense" part of the statute but didn't bother to quote what obstructing Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer actually is.

... (1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; ...

OC for ME · Aug 5, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
What the **** are you quoting about? I don't see anyone talking about trying to use a defense that the officer's actions which were supposedly obstructed were illegal. What is being said is that declining to ID when not legally required to do so is not obstruction (and wouldn't be able to be, since it'd be a 5th violation). These are two completely different lines of thought. I couldn't help but notice you quoted the "not a defense" part of the statute but didn't bother to quote what obstructing Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer actually is.

... (1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; ...

...well, the young pup was hindering the cop, and the cop decided that his hindering was a violation of penal law...

stealthyeliminator · Aug 5, 2014

OC for ME said:
...well, the young pup was hindering the cop, and the cop decided that his hindering was a violation of penal law...

Did he use or threaten to use violence, force, physical interference or an obstacle? I don't believe so. Queue solos claiming that refusing to forfeit constitutionally protected rights constitutes an 'obstacle'

solus · Aug 5, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
Did he use or threaten to use violence, force, physical interference or an obstacle? I don't believe so. Queue solos claiming that refusing to forfeit constitutionally protected rights constitutes an 'obstacle'

please read my response to dario a few posts ago, as you also seem to miss the second comma and the word OR in section (a).

then please read my comment in the same post about subjectivity of the term preservation of peace..

and then read my final comment in the same post...he got a citation ~ period, he has to defend himself by either paying a fine or presenting himself in front of a judge ~ period.

the young man wasn't arrested, detained, didn't lose his shot gun, it is no more no worse than a traffic ticket. let the young man, or his caregivers run the flag up the flag pole and expend $$$$ fighting this to the ends of the earth...however, i would believe there are more important things to fall on my sword over then a class 2 misdemeanor. especially since the young man lacked the maturity, balls, or wasn't smart enough to ask am i being detained?, am i free to go?, and then continued to engage with the LE to the point the LE asked if the young man wanted to be cited for obstruction and then the young man answered YES.

as stated previously, seem he got what he wanted.

ipse

OC for ME · Aug 5, 2014

solus said:
please read my response to dario a few posts ago, as you also seem to miss the second comma and the word OR in section (a).

then please read my comment in the same post about subjectivity of the term preservation of peace..

and then read my final comment in the same post...he got a citation ~ period, he has to defend himself by either paying a fine or presenting himself in front of a judge ~ period.

the young man wasn't arrested, detained, didn't lose his shot gun, it is no more no worse than a traffic ticket. let the young man, or his caregivers run the flag up the flag pole and expend $$$$ fighting this to the ends of the earth...however, i would believe there are more important things to fall on my sword over then a class 2 misdemeanor. especially since the young man lacked the maturity, balls, or wasn't smart enough to ask am i being detained?, am i free to go?, and then continued to engage with the LE to the point the LE asked if the young man wanted to be cited for obstruction and then the young man answered YES.

as stated previously, seem he got what he wanted.

ipse

So, he walked up to a cop, shotgun and all, and waited for the cop to pop the question...

youtube

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member