arrested for OC while intoxicated

[sudden valley gunner]

"...or take any other direct personnel action for or against an officer."

Let me see, about four years ago a cop decided to stop me on a bogus traffic stop, hand cuffed me and detained me for about an hour. In the end the case was dropped. The officer was fired and stripped of his power to ever serve as an officer again. All without ever using an attorney.

So, I guess your right a poor old citizen can't take any direct personnel action against an officer.

Oh ya, I got a ticket two years ago for speeding (53 in a 35), case dismissed.

Have a nice day.

Don't worry about eye we have gone over this subject extensively. They are by definition Public Employees. And congratulations on doing that. I am working on something similar in my area, not check points but we need to start watching the watchers and proactively getting rid of the ones who violate the law.

 

[SavageOne]

In MO possession of firearm while intoxicated is only a crime if you do so negligently.


http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM


Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

(2) Sets a spring gun; or

(3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;




Now, if we can only follow WI and get rid of these roadblocks.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;

Wow, you can be intoxicated and still act in self-defense with your firearm. That's pretty cool. Although, I wonder what the jury is going to think when you tell them that two people were attacking you, when only one person was--seeing double?

 

[eye95]

"...or take any other direct personnel action for or against an officer."

Let me see, about four years ago a cop decided to stop me on a bogus traffic stop, hand cuffed me and detained me for about an hour. In the end the case was dropped. The officer was fired and stripped of his power to ever serve as an officer again. All without ever using an attorney.

So, I guess your right a poor old citizen can't take any direct personnel action against an officer.

Oh ya, I got a ticket two years ago for speeding (53 in a 35), case dismissed.

Have a nice day.

YOU fired no one. You are not the employer.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

YOU fired no one. You are not the employer.

But he got a Public Employee fired.

 

[Venator]

Really? Roadblocks are illegal in Wisconsin?

Michigan too. Michigan Supreme court ruled on this.

 

[Michigander]

This is why I am 100% against DUI checkpoints. Without RAS or PC for any detention, officers have to 'wing it' to try to accomplish what they are told to do (namely, stop cars and contact drivers for DUI investigations). Officers feel they have the authority to 'do what is necessary' and treat a checkpoint stop like a traffic violation stop, without the legal backing of a traffic stop.

It really does expose the treasonous unconstitutional stupidity of that SCOTUS ruling. I will also go so far as to say that I believe cops who enforce these stops are acting treasonously or at least extremely tyranically, because the SCOTUS didn't have the authority to make that ruling, just like these cops don't have the authority to carry it out, because doing so violates the Bill Of Rights.

Probably not much of a color of law case due to that ruling, right up until they went nuts about being legally armed. That they still have it makes it even better. I suggest that on proof of your BAC being dry you find a gun friendly activist lawyer to work on a federal suit with you. As I understand it you'll have 7 years to file it, so that should leave plenty of time for fund raising if needed.

 

[Michigander]

YOU fired no one. You are not the employer.

I would disagree. He or she who pays the salary should be considered the employer. Just because there is an order of how the money gets from my (our) wallets to the cops wallets, it doesn't mean that the higher ranking government agents who get it first then distribute it are the employer. It still starts at the tax payer.

 

[REALteach4u]

Out of all the posts, where is the Nevada State statute regarding DUI/DWI checkpoints? What are Nevada's laws on disclosing the presence of a firearm? What are Nevada's laws on open carry? Is the fact that the firearm is not in plain view by an officer at the driver's window reason to consider it concealed? (this one is a stretch, but you can bet a prosecutor might try it) What is Nevada's law on recording? What is Nevada's law regarding alcohol and firearms?

Yet more proof that if you've been drinking out in public or leave the safety of your domicile that you should not carry just like you should not be driving. The audio clearly illustrates those bad decisions. And I agree, interesting that the video is missing, but the audio turned up.

Let's not forget one thing that WILL come up if this goes to court: The driver KNEW this was a checkpoint and started recording prior to with the knowledge that he/she had consumed alcohol, was driving a motor vehicle, and was in possession of a firearm at the time of the stop.

 

[Yard Sale]

Out of all the posts, where is the Nevada State statute regarding DUI/DWI checkpoints?

There is no state law about DUI checkpoints. The police in question seem to (poorly) attempt to set up Administrative Roadblocks.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec570

What are Nevada's laws on disclosing the presence of a firearm?

None.

What are Nevada's laws on open carry?

None.

Is the fact that the firearm is not in plain view by an officer at the driver's window reason to consider it concealed?

No. And when I choose to conceal it, I have a valid CCW permit for that holstered pistol.

What is Nevada's law on recording?

None apply here.

What is Nevada's law regarding alcohol and firearms?

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec257

Yet more proof that if you've been drinking out in public or leave the safety of your domicile that you should not carry just like you should not be driving. The audio clearly illustrates those bad decisions. And I agree, interesting that the video is missing, but the audio turned up.

Let's not forget one thing that WILL come up if this goes to court: The driver KNEW this was a checkpoint and started recording prior to with the knowledge that he/she had consumed alcohol, was driving a motor vehicle, and was in possession of a firearm at the time of the stop.

Stop making stuff up. You have no knowledge whether I consumed any alcohol that day, that week, or that month. I haven't posted the blood test results because I haven't seen them. Have you?

 

[eye95]

I would disagree. He or she who pays the salary should be considered the employer. Just because there is an order of how the money gets from my (our) wallets to the cops wallets, it doesn't mean that the higher ranking government agents who get it first then distribute it are the employer. It still starts at the tax payer.

Neither does he pay the salary of the officer. The citizenry fund the local government, and the local government pays the public employee.

You shop at Sears. The money you pay goes into the gross receipts from all customers and fund the payment of employees. If you have a legitimate beef with one of the employees and it is egregious enough to motivate the firing of the employee, could you claim that he works for you?

Of course not. You do not hire and fire. You do not make personnel decisions. The Sears employee does not work for you. Neither does any public employee.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Never mind he just doesn't get it.

 

[coolfrmn]

It REALLY pays to read the small print on EVERYTHING!!

In VA, there is what's called Implied Consent Law. It's in the small print when we sign for our DL at the DMV. Just like when you get your Base decals for your vehicle to travel on military posts. In that case, we consent to searches while on post. So essentually, we give up civil rights to drive/work/live on post. & in some cases drive on highways.

The devil is in the details!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I emplore EVERYONE to read the small print on EVERYTHING!!!!!!! Especially before you start giving LEO's a hard time, even if it's justified. I understand standing up for our rights & making the system work for us, not the other way around, BUT you better have ALL the facts first... Just saying.


http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-268.2.HTM


§ 18.2-268.2. Implied consent to post-arrest testing to determine drug or alcohol content of blood.

A. Any person, whether licensed by Virginia or not, who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway, as defined in § 46.2-100, in the Commonwealth shall be deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood, breath, or both blood and breath taken for a chemical test to determine the alcohol, drug, or both alcohol and drug content of his blood, if he is arrested for violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance within three hours of the alleged offense.

B. Any person so arrested for a violation of clause (i) or (ii) of § 18.2-266 or both, § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance shall submit to a breath test. If the breath test is unavailable or the person is physically unable to submit to the breath test, a blood test shall be given. The accused shall, prior to administration of the test, be advised by the person administering the test that he has the right to observe the process of analysis and to see the blood-alcohol reading on the equipment used to perform the breath test. If the equipment automatically produces a written printout of the breath test result, the printout, or a copy, shall be given to the accused.

C. A person, after having been arrested for a violation of clause (iii), (iv), or (v) of § 18.2-266 or § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance, may be required to submit to a blood test to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood. When a person, after having been arrested for a violation of § 18.2-266 (i) or (ii) or both, submits to a breath test in accordance with subsection B or refuses to take or is incapable of taking such a breath test, he may be required to submit to tests to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood if the law-enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs, or the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.

(1992, c. 830; 1993, c. 746; 1994, cc. 359, 363; 1995, c. 23; 2002, c. 748; 2004, c. 1013; 2005, cc. 616, 757, 840.)

 

[coolfrmn]

As a side note. It really seems to me that some people who carry go looking for a reason to get into a conflict with LEO's. There is a fine line between knowing & exercising your rights & crossing the line. Even if you are in the Right at first, you can easily go to the wrong really quick during the protest. Personally, I wouldn't push that line too close while carrying. It just amplifies everything when they find out you are carrying. I think it's better to go along with LEO demands then hammer their wrong actions afterwords.

Put yourself in the average LEO's shoes. They are good people trying to do a job. Most people who have something to hide resist simple commands. You have now put youself in the catagory of "criminal" during your protest. If there is a loophole or flaw in your state's laws, help fix them on a legislative level. NOT on the street level by harrasing LE.

The regulations I'm prepared to stand up for and not get bamboozled by an uninformed LEO, I have the statutes on paper in my vehicle, i.e. the state gun laws & copies of the AG letter to respective states granting reciprocity or recognision concerning CC/ gun laws
.
Give them the statute on paper that you are trying to argue. Don't be childish by just saying "What laws?, What statute? Trying to make them look foolish. You look just as foolish in the process. And could very well get roughed up in the process. Reminds me of the school yard game, "I know you are, what I'm I? I know you are, what I'm I?"

Sure you might be right, but now you have a group of LEO's that have a bad taste in their mouths about those who carry. What about what it looked like to the bystanders watching the whole thing right there at the check point?

 

[eye95]

"We're just doing our job," is the excuse I got both times from all the officers. That just does not wash. Doing one's job means knowing the rules (or laws) and following them.

If one is not following the rules, he should accept a civil rebuke--and that is the approach I take: refusing to consent to my rights being violated, informing the LEOs of the law, and remaining polite all the way. If my rights are violated despite my lack of consent, I will deal with the matter at a later time.

This was effective both times. Montgomery has not achieved perfection yet, but the improvement is impressive. As long as they are moving in the right direction, I won't sue.

Birmingham, Surry, and the city in Wisconsin that harassed the lady leaving church need to be sued. WCI just won the case in Wisconsin. Good work.

 

[Venator]

As a side note. It really seems to me that some people who carry go looking for a reason to get into a conflict with LEO's. There is a fine line between knowing & exercising your rights & crossing the line. Even if you are in the Right at first, you can easily go to the wrong really quick during the protest. Personally, I wouldn't push that line too close while carrying. It just amplifies everything when they find out you are carrying. I think it's better to go along with LEO demands then hammer their wrong actions afterwords.

Put yourself in the average LEO's shoes. They are good people trying to do a job. Most people who have something to hide resist simple commands. You have now put youself in the catagory of "criminal" during your protest. If there is a loophole or flaw in your state's laws, help fix them on a legislative level. NOT on the street level by harrasing LE.

The regulations I'm prepared to stand up for and not get bamboozled by an uninformed LEO, I have the stautes on paper in my vehicle, i.e. the state gun laws & copies of the AG letter to respective states granting reciprocity or recognision concerning CC/ gun laws
.
Give them the statute on paper that you are trying to argue. Don't be childish by just saying "What laws?, What statute? Trying to make them look foolish. You look just as foolish in the process. And could very well get roughed up in the process. Reminds me of the school yard game, "I know you are, what I'm I? I know you are, what I'm I?"

Sure you might be right, but now you have a group of LEO's that have a bad taste in their mouths about those who carry. What about what it looked like to the bystanders watching the whole thing right there at the check point?

Are you a police oficer???? Sure sounds like it.

 

[coolfrmn]

"We're just doing our job," is the excuse I got both times from all the officers. That just does not wash. Doing one's job means knowing the rules (or laws) and following them.

If one is not following the rules, he should accept a civil rebuke--and that is the approach I take: refusing to consent to my rights being violated, informing the LEOs of the law, and remaining polite all the way. If my rights are violated despite my lack of consent, I will deal with the matter at a later time.

This was effective both times. Montgomery has not achieved perfection yet, but the improvement is impressive. As long as they are moving in the right direction, I won't sue.

Birmingham, Surry, and the city in Wisconsin that harassed the lady leaving church need to be sued. WCI just won the case in Wisconsin. Good work.

I agree Eye... I just think there is a better/more professional way of proving your right. It's easier to hand them a copy of what your challenging them on then just saying you know your rights & challenging the LE. If what you are willing to challenge LE on, I would carry copies of the relative statutes. It's ashame it has to come to this but it's what we have to deal with. No one is perfect & can be expected to know everything. Even doctors & lawyers specialize. Being AR that I am, If I was a LEO working a check point, I would bone up on the relative laws. Just me.
They already have a tough job, let's help make them more informed. Not screw with them playing word games on the side of the road. Especially considering they deal with curb side lawyers every day trying to get out of the trouble they got themselves in.

What's the saying? I'm from the show me state, Missouri. You are going to have to show me.

Arguments are usually won & alot shorter in length when you can put written proof in someone's face. Hard to argue written proof from their own state's website. I use this tactic with work & my liberal in-laws. :shocker:

As it's said in the military, "The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle." Do the homework.

 

[The Big Guy]

A thought from another citizen slave.

Neither does he pay the salary of the officer. The citizenry fund the local government, and the local government pays the public employee.

Hmmm! Curious. Somewhere along the line I got the idea that "We the People" WERE the government. But then I went to school too many years ago so I'm not up on today's revised history.

TBG

 

[coolfrmn]

Are you a police oficer???? Sure sounds like it.

No. Firefighter, hense my profile name. Having worked along side of them for 18 1/2 years, I get to see what they go through day after day. Alot of hate & discontent towards LEOs often gets passed down to EMS & firefighters because we work so closely and wear similar uniforms. As far as most people are conserned, we are all "The Man". Are there POS in every profession? SURE!!!

But, personal feeling on this is.. If you are going to carry OC/CC like a grown up, then act like one. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Posting our recordings on YouTube screems childish to me. Makes me wonder if they have recorders & cameras for protection OR to be the next big YouTube sensation.
(And yes, I have copies of laws in my vehicle & I have on order a Mini Digital Video Recorder for my protection.) You won't see anything I record on YouTube. It's for me & my lawyer.

 

[Super Trucker]

As a side note. It really seems to me that some people who carry go looking for a reason to get into a conflict with LEO's. There is a fine line between knowing & exercising your rights & crossing the line. Even if you are in the Right at first, you can easily go to the wrong really quick during the protest. Personally, I wouldn't push that line too close while carrying. It just amplifies everything when they find out you are carrying. I think it's better to go along with LEO demands then hammer their wrong actions afterwords.

Put yourself in the average LEO's shoes. They are good people trying to do a job. Most people who have something to hide resist simple commands. You have now put youself in the catagory of "criminal" during your protest. If there is a loophole or flaw in your state's laws, help fix them on a legislative level. NOT on the street level by harrasing LE.

The regulations I'm prepared to stand up for and not get bamboozled by an uninformed LEO, I have the statutes on paper in my vehicle, i.e. the state gun laws & copies of the AG letter to respective states granting reciprocity or recognision concerning CC/ gun laws
.
Give them the statute on paper that you are trying to argue. Don't be childish by just saying "What laws?, What statute? Trying to make them look foolish. You look just as foolish in the process. And could very well get roughed up in the process. Reminds me of the school yard game, "I know you are, what I'm I? I know you are, what I'm I?"

Sure you might be right, but now you have a group of LEO's that have a bad taste in their mouths about those who carry. What about what it looked like to the bystanders watching the whole thing right there at the check point?

The problem with "going along with what the LEO wants" on the side of the road and worrying about it later is that, once you agree to be violated on the side of the road, you can not go back later and say they did something wrong.

When your dog shits on the carpet, do you wait until next week to teach him he was wrong?