xc9subcompact
Regular Member
http://www.stltoday.com/news/article_3daf7e0c-5626-5464-89f0-2021267857d8.html
More evidence that it is a good idea to video everything.
More evidence that it is a good idea to video everything.
-
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.
-
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.
Fox 2 is going to do an ANTI-OC news story, probably tonight
- Thread starter lancers
- Start date
lancers
Regular Member
That is correct. As this progresses I don't feel like that will happen. I might have to take legal action just to get my XD9 SC back. I made a records request today at Maplewood and they told me that since this is under investigation, they couldn't give me anything. I gave them the statute that said it was in fact an open record and he said he would give it to the police chief. I also made a records request at the Eastern Central Dispatch Center to get the 911 call information. It's like fighting a giant and you have just a few measly rules, but they don't even follow those.
lancers
Regular Member
That is why I started taping everything (after the off-duty cop nearly shot me in the parking lot). Then once I started taping everything, I got called a "baiter"...
xc9subcompact
Regular Member
As your attorney would tell you, if they were to file charges, they would be compelled to turn over all evidence in the states posession of the crime to you, both the incriminating and the exculpatory.
If they never charge you, you get all the information through the discovery process for the civil trial. I think you have a really good case. I think you shouldn't just let it go. They forked over the jail video to the press. They damaged you in public. The court adminstrator already alluded to the damages on the bad warrant. I think you should get the last laugh in court. Please do not give all of these actors a free pass. They are obviously gunning for you (pun intended) now anyway.
That guy in Loveland CO got 15K on a settlement for them taking his gun for 5 minutes. They handcuffed you and took you to jail dude.
peterarthur
Regular Member
An LEO lied??? :O See my shocked face?
I know, most of us believe most LEO's are good. We have to. We need to. But they are just people like us, whether they like it or not. Hence the need for 2A...
ChiangShih
Regular Member
I'm a criminal law major at UMKC. I like to think I have a pretty solid understanding of standards of proof. Though I'm not sure why you are speaking in terms of trial if the issue in question was the initial contact incident and he has yet to appear in court if I'm not mistaken. Unless somewhere in the conversation you jumped ahead to Brett pressing a civil case...?
The only thing I'm having trouble understanding is why you believe you know what happened though you were not there.
How do you know they had no RAS? There is no evidence of this. How do you know he wasn't a threat. He admitted in the jail cell the thought of shooting the cops passed through his mind.
From what I read when they took him into custody they had a warrant.
You have a child like idealized perception of law and how you -think- it can work. fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has countless exceptions like many other 4th amendment and police power issues. I could sit here and theorize how they would make it legal but I'd rather avoid presumption and hypothetical scenarios. (unlike you apparently)
In my world? That is a rather bold accusation derived from my strictly empirically minded stand point. But I guess since you seem to think you know how everything went down in a situation you weren't present for, what is a little mind reading?
Also, they did not need to read him his rights, as he was being arrested on an active warrant, thus no guilt seeking questions were needed.
I -think- what you're saying is all of this third party speculation, Brett's word, and one sided perception and distrust of LEO's would equal to a successful civil case against the police department?
HAH. That would be the day. I think you fail to realize how much discretion police officers have and what may constitute RAS. Even more so I think you fail to realize how tight knit officers and the courts can be especially when you add in the attendant circumstances surrounding Bretts history, his warrant, and the jail house comments.
Lets break down RAS for a moment on that note. Particularly the line that states "to believe a crime is about to be committed", now how can an officer tell what the future holds? If he has his gun out then a crime is already being committed, thus not "about to be", so that does not work.
So now we must think harder...how can an officer -believe- someone is -about- to commit a crime; although, not currently breaking any.
The answer is capability and demeanor.
So essentially, if a person has the capability to commit a crime and exhibits any negative trait that may constitute so much as unease amongst the officers or patrons combined with clear capability (a loaded gun), the officers can argue RAS.
Include the jail house comments later of aggravating evidence and to tie in capable criminal mind set, a good PA could pull off established RAS. And given the attendant circumstances a judge would undoubtedly uphold it.
Of course this is my oh so humble opinion. I'm also not saying I agree with one side or the other and no evidence currently exists either way.(not to sway a civil trial, simply to sway me, and what we have currently isn't even enough preponderance to sway me.)
PS. Do you do palm readings?
Last edited:
Thomas Masse
Regular Member
How can we believe what he says, in post #14 he suggests he verbally identified himself, while in post #38 when directly asked if he verbally identified himself before they ran the warrant check, he responds that they identified him through a seized ID after detainment.
In an earlier post, his wording suggests he did not recall comments about shooting cops, then when the story was aired on fox, he apparently remembers the conversation in the jail cell so well he can recall all matters of context and claims editing on behalf of the news media.
Also, in respect to ChiangShih's post, I agree with his position regarding the question of the LEO's RAS. I am a post-certified Peace Officer with the state of Missouri and a Criminal Justice major at UCM. Given the circumstances, RAS is not as hard to obtain as you people may think. And often when the suspicion pans out and bears something such as a warrant, RAS is rarely considered in court and the officers are often taken at their word.
I do not take either the LEO's or Darrow's side in this discussion because I don't have all the facts, just like the rest of us here.
Last edited:
Yep, that is after all the the one fact everyone but Brett can agree on.
xc9subcompact
Regular Member
I think we have identified your problem.
Have you watched the videos that Brett made?
Have you watched the Fox2 video?
Did you EVER read where ANYONE has EVER accused him of doing anything other than standing in that line? Do you know of a single instance where he was disrepectful to a police officer?
Did your law professors ever explain to you the presumption of innocence?
Do you still have your head buried in the sand?
I won't grow tired of rebutting you; every time you ask "where's the beef" you are diggin' in deeper.
lancers
Regular Member
How do we know you are not a child molester? There is no evidence to show you are not. Don't you think after the cops setup the news story they would have talked about RAS besides standing in line??????
I never said I thought of shooting the cops. I said I could have because of their "not scared of you" attitude in thought about it afterwards. They just decided to try and embarrass me by detaining and taking my gun, not because they were scared for the citizens like they claim. Yeah, no criminal record, college graduate, own my own real estate business... You think I would shoot a cop especially when I haven't done anything wrong? Give me a break.
You obviously did not watch the video I posted of the arrest. I was in the back seat of the car handcuffed, before they even knew who I was. The warrant was not confirmed until we were already on our way to jail. That is not how it works unless the person is under arrest for something else. They thought open carry was illegal and if you couldn't pick that up in the video, I don't know that you should even be able to post about the incident because it's so obviously clear.
Obviously they thought it was illegal to open carry and I was asked questions at the jail about it. Then once they determined it was legal they said, "we're now only going to book you on the warrant."
I think you fail to realize what constitutes RAS. Just because cops get by stretching it everyday and don't get challenged does not make it right. Please tell me what crime they thought might be about to happen?
Again, what crime is being committed?
They can argue it, but it will fail. They are not mind readers and we don't expect them to be. We DON'T want them to be. That is not how our justice system is setup.
Still waiting on what crime I was about to commit that the cops should have been worried about.
Too bad, the video would be heard in whole. No clips like on the news. It will clearly show I had no intention of hurting anyone.
Do police officers? According to you, they can predict the future.
lancers
Regular Member
No, if you look at what I said closely, I said the chief said they disarmed me after I failed to ID myself. That is not true. The officer disarmed me immediately after I said I was not a cop. He never asked for an ID until later.
This is correct. I really could not even remember saying that at first. The only time I thought it might have been in the conversation was when I was talking about the drunk cop attacking me in the parking lot.
After talking to the reporter about what point it was in, I then remembered when it was said. That is how little of a deal it was.
What crime was I about to commit?
ChiangShih
Regular Member
I have watched the videos, and the responding officers accused him doing more than just standing in line. That is why they claim they initiated the stop. The officers also reported he was being non-compliant and confrontational, I guess they could misconstrue that as disrespectful.
Sure, until you find a warrant.
I would respect that fact that you wont grow tired of rebutting me, however, I wish you would stop rebutting strawmen. For instance, you keep making assumptions or accusations as to my position, which often suggest I'm arguing on behalf of the LEOs or against Brett, when clearly in every post (even in the ones where I play devils advocate a bit describing possible RAS) I maintain a position of neutrality.
So create and rebut your strawmen all day long, but I wont be pulled to stand firmly for or against Brett based on presumption, speculation, and opinion based perspective.
However, I will hold my opinion, which was RAS will probably be upheld and all parties should be happy if the case is dismissed and nothing comes of it. The LEOs should be happy if Brett cant prove mistreatment(if it happened), and Brett should be happy they arent pursuing the warrant charges.
Everyone needs to write it off and focus on damage control for the cause. Maybe even a "better man" statement on behalf of Brett to the local news media.
A lawsuit against the department (imo would be a failure) would also be a fire starter for Anti OC legislation.
Last edited:
ChiangShih
Regular Member
Whoa now buddy, because my moral character relating to the accusation of child molestation has not been formally called into question. Also from this line suggest you think -I- think you are guilty, that is not the case as I have remained constant in my assertion that theres nothing proving either side and that we must wait to see more material from the events to jump on either side.
I'm not saying you would. I've even said that such comments in a joking context amongst friends would undoubtedly have been laughed off, however they were not amongst friends they were in a jail cell and publicized for the world to hear. If there is any aspect of this encounter that you should man up to and admit fault it is this one.
I understand this, however the reason I remain neutral is the question of RAS. They can hold and identify you if they had RAS before hand. I also see where they though OC to be illegal, but in this respect (not saying that its right) but LEOs discretion includes small misunderstandings. If they were to have detained you specifically for OC and you had no warrant then found out it was legal it would have been "oops our bad, have a nice day" This is understandable as cops are people too and they were responding to a call. However the aggravating circumstance is you had a warrant. Thus this **** storm.
Speaking of said warrant, I've read that the PA isn't pursing it as a felony carry charge since it was a municipal warrant for a misdemeanor charge? But I haven't read anywhere that the warrant was later found to be wrongly issued. How did that turn out?
No, I think I realize more realistically coming from the LEO community what constitutes RAS. The CJ system and action/behavior of the cops is all about balance. They can not be 100% by the books all of the time. Its unrealistic and hypocritical to charge LEOs with the job of stopping and preventing crime and then lose our **** when the balance spills over on one of us. What you may see as stretching is simply discretion and an aspect of the job. There are entire books and schools of study on the aspects of officer discretion and the balance of "law on the books" and "law in action". My point is, we(society) have no problem when in your opinion "stretched" RAS results in the arrest of some felon from the hood daily, but when the same application of law in action is directed as us, we demand to be treated like the model citizens we believe ourselves to be. Even when the LEOs dont know this.
You want to read a good book on how the CJ system really works, read Courtroom 302 by Steve Borgia.
I agree fully, it is a shame the entire event wasn't clearly represented.
Nope they only have to prove capability and possible intent.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
The media salivates at the opportunity of kissing the cops ***. Of course, the police are your friends, so you should learn the lyrics to sing along with them:
Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!
SA marschiert mit ruhig-festem Schritt.
ChiangShih
Regular Member
Disconcerting that you know the Nazi's anthem word for word.
That said, how can you claim the media salivates at the opportunity of cop ass kissing? Speaking in respect of Brett's more famous recorded police incident, it was highly perpetuated by both local and national media outlets in defense of Brett, and it projected outrage at the LEO. This is a fine example of the media taking the side of the citizen over the officers.
Your quick to assume and accuse attitude is not much different from that of the projected perception of the LEOs or evil media moguls.
So again, I repeat my call for a moderate stance.
Last edited:
lancers
Regular Member
Well that is just it. You have no reason to believe I did anything other than walk in the store, grab some items, and stand in line just like I don't have any reason to believe you are a child molester. You still insist I might have done something else even without proof. Don't you think the police would have been on TV saying I kept pulling my gun out or something like that? I would expect a reasonable person to see absent any proof, even when the cops had an opportunity to, didn't say I was doing anything suspicious except standing in a checkout line, "with a little girl and her parents behind me."
I'll admit I should not have even said them. I didn't even remember saying them and truthfully, I was just getting along in jail.
Yes they have a little leeway, but this was beyond that. Leeway would be if they thought you had to use your turn signal for 500 feet instead of 300. The fact is, they had time to check into this while responding. This wasn't an incident where the cops happen to see me. They had to be dispatched. At least 4 officers responded including a sergeant and not one thought to see if it was illegal. In 2008, I even contacted the chief about open carry. He pointed me to an ordinances that said it was illegal to carry weapons in city buildings. In inquired further and told them there was no ordinance against it that I could fine. He told me to contact an attorney if I had any other questions. Then I contacted the City Manager just the week prior about it. They had more than fair notice it was legal and even had time to check before they contacted me.
I read that to. I assume it was denied by the PA, but I'm still not sure why yet. My attorney contacted the head county counselor about it and she acted uninterested and didn't want to admit too much fault. She might have made a phone call to the PAs office though. I assume you saw my two videos of the court administrator and supervisor saying it was bad? My bail money is scheduled to be returned and my court date has been canceled.
I do have a problem with it being stretched even with felon in the hood. If he is really a felon in the hood, it should not be hard to get real RAS on him sooner or later.
I'm still curious what crime they could have thought had occurred, was occurring, or was about to occur other than open carry which was legal.
Hopefully I will get some more information from my records request that will answer some questions I and everyone else have.
xc9subcompact
Regular Member
The ChiangShih dude knows he is wrong. Notice how he keeps reverting back to his old arguments about RAS?
And his Capability and Demeanor argument. What a hoot! I have the capability to cause an incident that I guarantee would be on the news within the next 15 minutes from now if I wanted to. But I won't because I am a responsible law abiding person. I am responsible for my actions.
Should the cops be able to violate my rights because I have the capability or should they decide if they have a RAS based on what they observe to be happening that is contrary to the law?
And since I have the capability to break the law, should the way I appear to the police come into play if no known law has been broken? Is this like the definition of porn? (I know it when I see it)
Here is ChiangShih's position:
MWAG is RAS.
If MWAG isn't doing anything illegal, then it's OK to perceive what he might be capable of, in order to claim a RAS of a crime.
If MWAG is handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car for a bogus RAS, then it's OK if they get lucky and find/or manufacture a bogus warrant.
What he fails to ask himself is: What if there was no warrant? Would MWAG still be in handcuffs and transported to jail? The video says YES. He doesn't get it. It is all false arrest. The warrant is bogus too. Someone falsely swore that out on you.
And his Capability and Demeanor argument. What a hoot! I have the capability to cause an incident that I guarantee would be on the news within the next 15 minutes from now if I wanted to. But I won't because I am a responsible law abiding person. I am responsible for my actions.
Should the cops be able to violate my rights because I have the capability or should they decide if they have a RAS based on what they observe to be happening that is contrary to the law?
And since I have the capability to break the law, should the way I appear to the police come into play if no known law has been broken? Is this like the definition of porn? (I know it when I see it)
Here is ChiangShih's position:
MWAG is RAS.
If MWAG isn't doing anything illegal, then it's OK to perceive what he might be capable of, in order to claim a RAS of a crime.
If MWAG is handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car for a bogus RAS, then it's OK if they get lucky and find/or manufacture a bogus warrant.
What he fails to ask himself is: What if there was no warrant? Would MWAG still be in handcuffs and transported to jail? The video says YES. He doesn't get it. It is all false arrest. The warrant is bogus too. Someone falsely swore that out on you.
ChiangShih
Regular Member
I think this is the fundamental misunderstanding in this conversation. I don't insist or necessarily believe you did anything wrong, nor do I insist or believe the cops did anything wrong. I simply don't know. Although, I have played devils advocate occasionally to balance perspectives on RAS, which most likely led to the perception that I'm on one side or the other. My responses were and are merely pointing out the fact that none of us know and the perpetuation of suggestion leading to a conclusion that one side or the other -did- do something wrong without any of us (aside from you of course) having had been there is premature.
I hope it turns out for the best, I'm just not willing to take sides until I know more. Even though I'd like to be on the side of the OCer, there is not enough to convince me to take a side.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Me either, except violate his 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment rights, that is. And follow that up with their usual idiotic, macho BS on their "forums." His "prior attempts" are indicative of his catching the police acting like mindless thugs, above the law, who are going to "get" someone who has the audacity to catch them acting like the thugs their actions showed them to be. Their "job" is to investigate, not violate constitutional safeguards. Legal OC is not grounds for a Terry stop, as courts have ruled again and again. They had no RAS as defined in Terry v OH--among many other decisions, and once they ascertained no RAS existed, they should have left him alone. Instead, they falsely arrested him. He has a big mouth, but I'm not sure of what MO statute that violates. On the other hand, I have listed the constitutional rights he does' have which were violated by them and constitute standing for a 42 USC 1983 action.