12 Jul 10 - Ruck Hump - Open Carry - Police Called (VIDEO LINK)

[ElevenBravo]

A lot of it, the way it is "hook or crooked" on us, you are guilty until proven innocent, and you bear the burden of proving your innocence. Insane the way that 360 came around.

With the arrival of 9/11, even more people are looking for something new to hate and suspect, among the ranks of the law abiding citizens. It gives some a "warm fuzzy" to be a sheeple of the "terrorist brain washing" machine.

Proof in point: A man carrying a holstered weapon has the police called on him. For no other reason.

Its sure wasn't for:
Wearing a ruck sack
Wearing a lime green shirt
Wearing tan pants
Having a orange flag
Walking on the right side of the road
Being Caucasian
Wearing black boots
Wearing a hat
Wearing glasses


Some right wing twit called because I had a gun.

Thats my story, and Im sticking to it.


Andrew

 

[ODA 226]

I'm not sure what area you have experience with obtaining these charges, but my dept's legal instructor has time and time again told us you need the intent to commit a burglary part to get the burglarious tools charge. In fact, I have had a burglarious tools charge denied by magistrates before, after getting gloves, screwdrivers, wire cutters off someone walking down the street at 3 a.m. towards an apartment parking lot (consent) because I could not prove he had the intent to commit a burglary/larceny (larceny from auto most likely especially given his 4 previous charges and that he is unemployed and stated he "found the items").

If anyone can find a case law where an officer charged someone with burglarious tools without proving at first that they were intending to use it for a burglary, please send me the case. Especially a case where someone was charged for merely having a leatherman tool.

My Dear Brother,
Please read the second part of the law again.... Simple POSSESSION = Prima Facia Evidence that you intend to commit a felony. If your CA asks for something more, that is up to him. The law clearly states if you have burglary tools in your possession, you are guilty of a Class 5 Felony.

 

[t33j]

Prima Facia Evidence that you intend to commit a felony.

I've seen this other places before as well... what I don't understand is how this can be so if we are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

 

[peter nap]

I've seen this other places before as well... what I don't understand is how this can be so if we are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

I've always wondered that myself TJ.
User's the one to explain the history of that.

 

[VASR9]

One word keeps popping into my head. . . . paranoia! Saying all cops are out to get you is like saying all mechanics are crooks. We aren't and all cops aren't bad. I have respect for LEO's and most people here don't. I live in a good city were the LEO's consider it a good thing (most of them) for people to OC. As for the other issue, I welcome anyone to come and search my vehicle and tell me I have something illegal in it. . . . and prove it. I know my rights and I know what privacy is, but I also know the difference between reality and paranoia. All I can say is this we all love our right to carry and we all love our right to disagree.

 

[t33j]

One word keeps popping into my head. . . . paranoia!
...all cops aren't bad.
agreed

More like preparedness... for the chance that you'll come across one that has no business messing with you.
Names like Danbus and Szymecki and come to mind.

 

[TFred]

I've seen this other places before as well... what I don't understand is how this can be so if we are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

I've always wondered that myself TJ.
User's the one to explain the history of that.

IANAL, and would welcom User's input here... Wikipedia has a definition, the main point being:

"It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts."​

There are enough other interesting portions in the Wiki article to recommend the read, including the observation that the logical opposite to prima facie evidence is the affirmative defense, your legal version of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

I guess what it ultimately means is that the General Assembly has decided that if certain facts exist (such as certain tools being in your possession), in their mind, that is sufficient to prove your intent.

Seems like the problem is with the General Assembly to make such an assumption. It does keep the Defense Attorneys well employed.

TFred

 

[t33j]

I understand the meaning of the term. What I lack is an understanding of how it is allowed to be present in any American law book.

 

[peter nap]

One word keeps popping into my head. . . . paranoia! Saying all cops are out to get you is like saying all mechanics are crooks. We aren't and all cops aren't bad. I have respect for LEO's and most people here don't. I live in a good city were the LEO's consider it a good thing (most of them) for people to OC. As for the other issue, I welcome anyone to come and search my vehicle and tell me I have something illegal in it. . . . and prove it. I know my rights and I know what privacy is, but I also know the difference between reality and paranoia. All I can say is this we all love our right to carry and we all love our right to disagree.

Then there isn't really much sense in discussing it VASR.
Everyone has to determine the best path to take.
There is no absolute good or absolute evil.

Copperhead snakes are generally benign animals. I almost always leave them alone unless they are near the house. If they decide to take up residence nearby, I kill them or move them.

I'm always careful around them though. You never know the bad ones until they bite you.

 

[ElevenBravo]

Copperhead snakes are generally benign animals. I almost always leave them alone unless they are near the house. If they decide to take up residence nearby, I kill them or move them.

I'm always careful around them though. You never know the bad ones until they bite you.

The better to be safe than sorry approach, good one to use.

Andrew

 

[KBCraig]

It's not cop-bashing to point out the fact that the police are not your friends.

I hear this all the time, and I think its also important to point out that the police are not your enemies either. They are out there to do a job. They must look at everyone equally in doing that job.

I'm not suggesting anyone treat anyone as an enemy (although there are times it feels the citizens are being treated that way).

My point was, even though they're just out there to do a job, that job is often at odds with our desire (and right) to go freely about our business unmolested unless police have probable cause or RAS to believe we have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime.

 

[ElevenBravo]

I'm not suggesting anyone treat anyone as an enemy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8rfefPQ24

I like his analogy as they are your adversary, not your enemy.

Andrew

 

[ODA 226]

I've seen this other places before as well... what I don't understand is how this can be so if we are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

It's simply because our Reps and Senators in Richmond passed a law saying so...

 

[conhntr]

The better to be safe than sorry approach, good one to use.

Andrew

Rooted in relativism; while I think that belief system is flawed it just goes to show that gun rights are embraced from people coming from all backgrounds

 

[Deanimator]

I'm not suggesting anyone treat anyone as an enemy (although there are times it feels the citizens are being treated that way).

My point was, even though they're just out there to do a job, that job is often at odds with our desire (and right) to go freely about our business unmolested unless police have probable cause or RAS to believe we have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime.

The simple fact is that you have only limited control over whether you'll interact with the police and absolutely NO control over the character and judgment of any particular LEO.

I drive the speed limit and obey the relevant laws regarding stop signs, etc. I don't associate with known criminals or frequent the places where they're known or likely to hang out. That is NO guarantee that you won't interact with police. I've been in a car stopped for "weaving" which I absolutely know for a fact was NOT weaving. The cop who said the driver (my friend and lawyer's wife) was "weaving" was LYING.

Are ALL cops out to get you? No. Are SOME out to get you (or worse)? ABSOLUTELY. How MANY are? Nobody knows. Can you tell one from the other before he commits an overt act? I certainly can't.

That being the case, I treat ALL LEOs as potentially dangerous. I will say nothing more than is required by law and will not EVER consent to ANY searches. I carry a voice recorder and will use it for EVERY LEO encounter, if at all possible.

The bottom line is that it's as foolish for you to "trust" a random cop in an encounter and waive your rights, because he's PROBABLY on the up and up, as it would be for that same cop to leave his gun and vest in his vehicle during a 2:00am traffic stop because you're PROBABLY not a two time loser who'd rather shoot him than go back to prison.

People protect themselves from the police because the police themselves have made it foolish not to. If they (and their supporters) don't like that, then they need to look within and decide if "solidarity" with a fellow cop who misbehaves is worth the consequences.