• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

police arrest active duty sergeant for open carry

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
Found it here all 13 mins of it, you will toss something at your screen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9O-NmBxCA

The very second those officer stopped him from leaving of his own free will, that stop becomes illegal w/o probable cause. Am I not right?

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...n=display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005


Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.
The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a "stop and frisk" of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.

The Court further declined to create a standard "firearms exception" to the Terry doctrine, It was unlawful but the man was detained, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun . . ."[2]
 
Last edited:

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Found it here all 13 mins of it, you will toss something at your screen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9O-NmBxCA

The very second those officer stopped him from leaving of his own free will, that stop becomes illegal w/o probable cause. Am I not right?

The police only need RAS to detain someone, not probable cause.... And the problem with RAS is that it is ill defined and leaves a lot up to the officers judgement in the heat of the moment. Also another issue in these kinds of situations is that the victim doesn't initially know what information the police officer has and whether the police officer has valid RAS even though nothing illegal has taken place.

For instance: Lets assume the victim was doing nothing wrong, just walking down the road with a rifle on his chest. He passes a house and from the window someone sees him walking with the rifle. That person calls the police and says he saw a man walking down the road with a rifle. The dispatcher asks what kind of rifle, the guy says he thinks it is an "assault weapon". The dispatcher asks what the victim was doing with the rifle and the witness says he had another young man with him and appeared to be forcing the young man to march ahead of him at gun point. The dispatcher reports all this to the responding officer, who then approaches as if it is an active crime is taking place. The officer technically has RAS already based on the witness report and therefore can legally approach and disarm while investigating further. Florida vs J.L. doesn't apply in this kind of situation because the witness reported what would definitely be a crime if his statement is accurate, not something that may or may not be.

Of course in this case the officer effectively said all they had before the initial contact was MWAG, which is neither PC nor RAS. The proper response would be none at all, or worst case, to observe from a distance and determine if the individual has likely committed, is committing, or seems as if he is about to commit, a crime. The officers position is also entirely ruined by the fact that he walked right up to the victim and tried to disarm him without drawing his own firearm. He can't validly claim he felt a man with a rifle was a true threat if he was approaching alone and didn't draw his own firearm, at least not in my opinion, and it would be a very easy sell to a jury too.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
The very second those officer stopped him from leaving of his own free will, that stop becomes illegal w/o probable cause.

And what's worse, is what they did to his son.

I caught an interview with C.J. Wednesday morning on Beck (I don't usually listen, but it happened to be on the radio). C.J. said that he told his son in front of both officers to not answer any questions without his mom present. At that point, one cop took C.J. to jail, and the other took his son home.

But-- when he got him home, he told then son that he wouldn't let him out of the car until he answered his questions, without a parent or a lawyer.

:cuss::cuss::banghead:
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Found it here all 13 mins of it, you will toss something at your screen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9O-NmBxCA

The very second those officer stopped him from leaving of his own free will, that stop becomes illegal w/o probable cause. Am I not right?

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...n=display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005


Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.
The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a "stop and frisk" of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.

The Court further declined to create a standard "firearms exception" to the Terry doctrine, It was unlawful but the man was detained, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun . . ."[2]

The presented audio of this incident very clearly indicates the ONLY reason this "assault upon this lawful carrier" occured was because he had a lawfully carried rifle and the police did not know if "he was legal to carry"---- wrong emphasis by the cop. RAS that the person was ILLEGALLY in possession or was in the processes of, was about to commit, or had just committed a crime is the MINIMUM standard.

In my opinion if this case does go to civil court for the egregious actions of these officers, the officers will lose if for no other reason than THE TAPE!
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
And what's worse, is what they did to his son.

I caught an interview with C.J. Wednesday morning on Beck (I don't usually listen, but it happened to be on the radio). C.J. said that he told his son in front of both officers to not answer any questions without his mom present. At that point, one cop took C.J. to jail, and the other took his son home.

But-- when he got him home, he told then son that he wouldn't let him out of the car until he answered his questions, without a parent or a lawyer.

:cuss::cuss::banghead:

Isn't that called "kidnapping"

The police only need RAS to detain someone, not probable cause.... And the problem with RAS is that it is ill defined and leaves a lot up to the officers judgement in the heat of the moment. Also another issue in these kinds of situations is that the victim doesn't initially know what information the police officer has and whether the police officer has valid RAS even though nothing illegal has taken place.

For instance: Lets assume the victim was doing nothing wrong, just walking down the road with a rifle on his chest. He passes a house and from the window someone sees him walking with the rifle. That person calls the police and says he saw a man walking down the road with a rifle. The dispatcher asks what kind of rifle, the guy says he thinks it is an "assault weapon". The dispatcher asks what the victim was doing with the rifle and the witness says he had another young man with him and appeared to be forcing the young man to march ahead of him at gun point. The dispatcher reports all this to the responding officer, who then approaches as if it is an active crime is taking place. The officer technically has RAS already based on the witness report and therefore can legally approach and disarm while investigating further. Florida vs J.L. doesn't apply in this kind of situation because the witness reported what would definitely be a crime if his statement is accurate, not something that may or may not be.

Of course in this case the officer effectively said all they had before the initial contact was MWAG, which is neither PC nor RAS. The proper response would be none at all, or worst case, to observe from a distance and determine if the individual has likely committed, is committing, or seems as if he is about to commit, a crime. The officers position is also entirely ruined by the fact that he walked right up to the victim and tried to disarm him without drawing his own firearm. He can't validly claim he felt a man with a rifle was a true threat if he was approaching alone and didn't draw his own firearm, at least not in my opinion, and it would be a very easy sell to a jury too.

Forgive my ignorance, but can you let me know what the abbreviations MWAG, PC and RAS mean? I found online that RAS is something like Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Is that correct?
 

Old Virginia Joe

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
365
Location
SE Va., , Occupied CSA
Isn't that called "kidnapping"



Forgive my ignorance, but can you let me know what the abbreviations MWAG, PC and RAS mean? I found online that RAS is something like Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Is that correct?

It seems to me somewhere here on this website is a glossary of OCDO acronyms you would enjoy if you can find it. Good luck!
 

Master Control

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
144
Location
SE Regional / Augusta, Michigan
Top