BMWAG arrested AND jailed

[PavePusher]

imported post

Jersey Ron wrote:

okay, i've kept my "2 cents" to myslef until i heard the audio tape. the bottom line in my opinion is that danbus is NOT guilty of anything and the charges will get dismissed. however, and i know i'm going to get "hated on" for saying this, but if i were a cop "investigating" a suspect and someone appeared with a gun on his hip i may get a little anxious myself. now i know that cops are SUPPOSED to be trained professionals and blah, blah, blah but when it comes down to it, they're just like anyone else. they cry, they laugh, they bleed, they get scared andhave bad breath just like the rest of us!

now, danbus said the neighborhood wasn't the best place in the world nor was it iraq but all the rules of engagement are thrown out the window when a gun is involved EVEN if he wasn't making a threatening pose. for all the cop knew, danbus could have been a friend or relative of the so-called suspects and was looking for trouble. or he could have just caught his wife cheating and was looking to vent some steam! ithink someone said in an earlier post that the cop should have told him to "move along" but knowing what i THINK i know about danbus, he probably would have said "why should i move along" and then that would lead to another altercation. it's kinda like a pissing contest with no winners! this could turn into a vicious cycle of ocer's vs. big ego cops. we have to find a better way to educate the big ego cops. this is just my humble opinion.



Jersey

PS - danbus, get jacoby & meyers and they'll make sure you get compensated. and i do mean the actual jacoby & meyers!!

Actually, there are supposed to be very structured ROE's for these instances. It sounds like these LEO's totally blew off the rules and made an illegal arrest. Yes, sometimes you have to go on your "gut" or instinct, but if you are proved wrong later, 'fess up like a man, pay the price, apologize, and learn a lesson. I haven't heard the audio yet (stupid work computer net) so I'm suspending my opinion until then, but I am leaning towards suspicion of the LEO's... Maybe I'm just paranoid, but it's comforting!

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

Slowhand wrote:

I have a question. Is there anyonewho hasEVER heard of an instance of somebody open carrying and interfering with a LEO investigation where the officer involved was threatened by that OC'ers weapon (e.g. brandishing, grabbing for their weapon, etc.)? Does anyone have access to LEXIS-NEXIS? If there is no recording of this type of behavior being common, then what are the LEOs afraid of? I would understand if it is a common occurrence for LEO's to be threatened by OC'ers pulling out there weapons on Police. But if there are no prior instances of such behavior, aren't they (LEO's)just being paranoid?

Cops obviously need to plan for the unexpected, but they need to do so within the constraints of the law...and they shouldn't be throwing tantrums by making up bogus charges just because someone didn't jump when they said jump.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

danbusis FINALLY getting what he wants...ATTENTION. Wether good or Bad he is getting the attention he wants. Good for him.

Right, it's not like any of us are doing what we believe in for the purposes of making change.

:cuss:

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

xd.40 wrote:

I personally wouldn't have approached the officers in the first place. Although I think they might have went a little too far. Word of advise, let them know that you feel you are being illegally detained, and that you don't agree with it, then be quiet. You aren't helping them while you egg them on. Just my opinion...

I agree with you xd.40.

If Cops are on the scene, they are supposed to be competent to handle whatever they are doing. By going over there is just to put more fuel to the fire.

I don't feel that danbusneeded to have "provoked" the situation by going where they were and thus put himself in an ackward situation.

Are cops the only people in the world who never have to take responsibility because they're "provoked," "egged on," "under stress," and "have a tough job??"

Dan did nothing wrong. The cops broke the law. They need to take responsibility. Dan has no responsibility for ANYTHING bad that happened. period.

God. :banghead:

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

Dan, may I suggest never ever using the words "lawsuit time" ever again? If you do file a lawsuit, those words will come back to haunt you, guaranteed. And the "more money for me" line...tsk tsk. Not the image you want. You don't win friends by appearing to have alterior motives.

As far as the obstruction charge, it's clear to me that the officers were charging because of failure to show ID, not failure to disarm. This won't stick...and I'd wager they knew it wouldn't stick. They talked big and had to follow through.

It's always the "show me ID and it'll be easy." But there's so much more at stake than that...a right unexercised is a right lost...I think I read that somewhere.

 

[nickerj1]

imported post

IdahoCorsair wrote:

The point is... as long as you follow the law, DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO!!!!! ---- It is simply none of a LEO's business to impose his preference or opinion on you. Danbus acting like a jerk is no grounds for a LEO to get all pissy. (not that danbus did or did not act like a jerk)

2. SOMEONE needs to hold LEOs accountable, and sure, danbus could do it better with videocamera etc... but he was doing it... LEOs are supposed to be ACCOUNTABLE!!!!! .... TO THE PEOPLE.

Unfortunately, the prosecution will likely argue it this way:

Danbus was charged with obstructing the investigation the officer was conducting prior to Danbus' arrival. While the officer was conducting an investigation, a third party approached, was armed, and began inquiring into the current investigation. He refused to comply with the officer and interrupted his investigation, thereby obstructing it.

The officer would have let the third party "off the hook" if he had produced ID and then moved along. The act of not producing an ID merely pushed the officer past his threshold of obstruction allowance. Therefore the officer did not arrest the third party for not presenting his ID when requested, but rather for approaching and interrupting an official police investigation.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

nickerj1 wrote:

IdahoCorsair wrote:

The point is... as long as you follow the law, DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO!!!!! ---- It is simply none of a LEO's business to impose his preference or opinion on you. Danbus acting like a jerk is no grounds for a LEO to get all pissy. (not that danbus did or did not act like a jerk)

2. SOMEONE needs to hold LEOs accountable, and sure, danbus could do it better with videocamera etc... but he was doing it... LEOs are supposed to be ACCOUNTABLE!!!!! .... TO THE PEOPLE.

Unfortunately, the prosecution will likely argue it this way:

Danbus was charged with obstructing the investigation the officer was conducting prior to Danbus' arrival. While the officer was conducting an investigation, a third party approached, was armed, and began inquiring into the current investigation. He refused to comply with the officer and interrupted his investigation, thereby obstructing it.

The officer would have let the third party "off the hook" if he had produced ID and then moved along. The act of not producing an ID merely pushed the officer past his threshold of obstruction allowance. Therefore the officer did not arrest the third party for not presenting his ID when requested, but rather for approaching and interrupting an official police investigation.

§ 18.2-460. Obstructing justice; penalty.

A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or law-enforcement officer, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

In order to be convicted, Danbus must either knowingly obstruct or not cease obstructing when requested.

Dnbus made an inquiry to the officer. The inquiry was not meant to obstruct, and it is reasonable to assume that Danbus did not know that asking a question of a police officer was obstruction. Approaching a police officer who is having a conversation with another citizen is not obstruction.

Therefore, the police officer must request thatDanbus cease obstructing. I heard no such request in the audio tape, only threat to produce identification or be arrested (cuffed is arrested in most cases).

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

nickerj1 wrote:

IdahoCorsair wrote:

The point is... as long as you follow the law, DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO!!!!! ---- It is simply none of a LEO's business to impose his preference or opinion on you. Danbus acting like a jerk is no grounds for a LEO to get all pissy. (not that danbus did or did not act like a jerk)

2. SOMEONE needs to hold LEOs accountable, and sure, danbus could do it better with videocamera etc... but he was doing it... LEOs are supposed to be ACCOUNTABLE!!!!! .... TO THE PEOPLE.

Unfortunately, the prosecution will likely argue it this way:

Danbus was charged with obstructing the investigation the officer was conducting prior to Danbus' arrival. While the officer was conducting an investigation, a third party approached, was armed, and began inquiring into the current investigation. He refused to comply with the officer and interrupted his investigation, thereby obstructing it.

The officer would have let the third party "off the hook" if he had produced ID and then moved along. The act of not producing an ID merely pushed the officer past his threshold of obstruction allowance. Therefore the officer did not arrest the third party for not presenting his ID when requested, but rather for approaching and interrupting an official police investigation.

§ 18.2-460. Obstructing justice; penalty.

A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or law-enforcement officer, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

In order to be convicted, Danbus must either knowingly obstruct or not cease obstructing when requested.

Dnbus made an inquiry to the officer. The inquiry was not meant to obstruct, and it is reasonable to assume that Danbus did not know that asking a question of a police officer was obstruction. Approaching a police officer who is having a conversation with another citizen is not obstruction.

Therefore, the police officer must request thatDanbus cease obstructing. I heard no such request in the audio tape, only threat to produce identification or be arrested (cuffed is arrested in most cases).

This discussion proves one thing: Dan needs a lawyer. He will not be able to handle this pro se.

 

[dng]

imported post

After listening to the audio, here's my 2 cents:

I wouldn't have gone up the LEOs. I personally, would not have interfered with them, since it didn't concern you. I felt you had an attitude right from the start, and it seemed that you were "looking for trouble". The fact you mentioned "more money for me"seems to back up this belief. The LEOs seemed to handle it okay, I didn't care for how the one said that if the gun went off, it was his problem. Obviously, that would be an issue for you too. But overall, any attitude they gave you seemed to be at the same level you were giving to them. I don't know what the law down there in Virginia is regarding obstruction of justice, but I guess it's up to your lawyer to decide. Overall, I feel like you brought this one on yourself. That's just my thoughts, it's nothing personal. Not that my opinion matters, but I am open to explanations of what I'm taking the wrong way.

 

[xd.40]

imported post

dngreer wrote:

After listening to the audio, here's my 2 cents:

I wouldn't have gone up the LEOs. I personally, would not have interfered with them, since it didn't concern you. I felt you had an attitude right from the start, and it seemed that you were "looking for trouble". The fact you mentioned "more money for me"seems to back up this belief. The LEOs seemed to handle it okay, I didn't care for how the one said that if the gun went off, it was his problem. Obviously, that would be an issue for you too. But overall, any attitude they gave you seemed to be at the same level you were giving to them. I don't know what the law down there in Virginia is regarding obstruction of justice, but I guess it's up to your lawyer to decide. Overall, I feel like you brought this one on yourself. That's just my thoughts, it's nothing personal. Not that my opinion matters, but I am open to explanations of what I'm taking the wrong way.

+1, other than the fact that I feel the cops could have just released him or went about things differently. Illegal arrest is an Illegal arrest...

 

[HankT]

imported post

nickerj1 wrote:

Unfortunately, the prosecution will likely argue it this way:

Danbus was charged with obstructing the investigation the officer was conducting prior to Danbus' arrival. While the officer was conducting an investigation, a third party approached, was armed, and began inquiring into the current investigation. He refused to comply with the officer and interrupted his investigation, thereby obstructing it.

The officer would have let the third party "off the hook" if he had produced ID and then moved along. The act of not producing an ID merely pushed the officer past his threshold of obstruction allowance. Therefore the officer did not arrest the third party for not presenting his ID when requested, but rather for approaching and interrupting an official police investigation.

This seems like pretty tight reasoning from a legal perpsective. I don't see the need for the "Unfortunately" qualitative assessment, though. Danbus got what he wanted, therefore there really cannot be any negative aspect to your suggested prosecutorial strategy. It's just a normal consequence of Dan's behavior. As longwatch has confirmed, Dan is an activist. So, he knew what he was doing. Therefore, there is no unfortunate-ness in the normal consequences.



Thundar wrote:

Obstructing justice; penalty.

...
Dnbus made an inquiry to the officer. The inquiry was not meant to obstruct, and it is reasonable to assume that Danbus did not know that asking a question of a police officer was obstruction.

I'm sure intent matters for something, but what? Once you start saying "it's reasonable to assume" you are left open to "reasonable" counter-assumptions. Developing "reasonable" counter-assumptions will be quite easy, based on Dan's prior history and even, possibly, his public posts here. That might be unpleasant forDan--though it should notbe.





Thundar wrote:

Approaching a police officer who is having a conversation with another citizen is not obstruction

That is incorrect or, at least, debatable. Dan did not approach"a police officer who is having a conversation with another citizen."

Dan approached, while openly carrying a loadedgun, "a police officer who is having a conversation with another citizen."

There is a significant difference between the two descriptions. Is there a significant legal difference between the two? I do not know. But I do know that your sanitized description is lacking.



Thundar wrote:

Therefore, the police officer must request thatDanbus cease obstructing. I heard no such request in the audio tape, only threat to produce identification or be arrested (cuffed is arrested in most cases).

I don't know....maybe you're right. This may have beena Catch-22 situation for Dan. If, and it's a big if, he was legally obstructing by being armed in proximity of the investigating LEO, then removing himself, as you suggest, would have therefore removed the obstruction. So, Dan should have just turned on his heel and left, right? OTOH, once an armed man in the street, in proximity to the investigating LEO is being investigated himself, he is not free to go--since he is being asked questions and is giving some form of answers.

This might be tricky stuff.

Overall, I think Dan is in some moderately difficult legal trouble now. And his flippancy in the actual verbal interaction with the cop (i.e., "more money for me") showed poor judgment.

Dan does not seem particularly proficient in either expressing his side of the story, preparing for a sound legal defense, learning from thewiser heads on this forum, or engaging in "activism" in general.

He does know how to spout code, though. I'll grant that.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Dan does not seem particularly proficient in either expressing his side of the story, preparing for a sound legal defense, learning from the wiser heads on this forum, or engaging in "activism" in general. He does know how to spout code, though. I'll grant that. Current time is 09:23 am

He can beat this if he has a good attorney! I posted a link to a Federal Case that overturned the Nebraska conviction of a man on an obstruction charge. The court said that the obstruction must be absolute. An example used is if a man refuses to identify himself, the officer can follow him home thus finding outr who he is and NO obstruction is committed.

Danbus does need to learn to keep his mouth shut. After the cuffs are on, nothing he says is going to matter.
In this case, he will be using the recording as evidence so the judge and or jury, will hear the more money remark.

 

[taurusfan]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Danbus does need to learn to keep his mouth shut. After the cuffs are on, nothing he says is going to matter.
In this case, he will be using the recording as evidence so the judge and or jury, will hear the more money remark.

I was also appalled at the remark "I'm not mad at you," as he teased the cop about not knowing the code.

Danbus had no reason to be speaking after the cuffs went on. :uhoh:

 

[xd.40]

imported post

Well, all things aside, good luck with this Danbus - check out the link from VCDL's website - "Gun Friendly Lawyers" http://www.hkshooter.net/lawyers/


Edit: Added italic content

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

taurusfan wrote:

I was also appalled at the remark "I'm not mad at you," as he teased the cop about not knowing the code.

Danbus had no reason to be speaking after the cuffs went on. :uhoh:

Him talking after the cuffs went on was inadvisable, not well thought out and probably hurt his case, but how exactly was any of it "appalling?" What, because he didn't act contrite and passive in the face of illegal force, that's appalling??

The only appalling thing is that an officer would knowingly or negligently (and definitely illegally)violate the rights of a citizen.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

OK....now what?

In his favor, he came across on the tape as well spoken, knowledgeable, although I hate hearing all the code spouting. Doesn't impress many people and sure didn't terrify the Cop.

Non Combative although argumentative and not much of a threat.

All this will help and again, with a good attorney, he's got a good shot at beating it.

Then what? A favorable verdict in General District Court doesn't mean squat and this part of Va is a problem area.

Will a civil case help? Sure, if he wins and if he even files a case. Finding an attorney that will take it without being paid is on par with Death bt Metorite...and civil cases are expensive.

As a former bureaucrat, I can tell you that after losing budget money in a civil suit, Administration hates additional work and bad press (in that order) the worst.

There are enough members here to make a difference, not by spewing catchy "We the People" slogans....but by making them work!

I doubt anyone will do it but.....If every member of this board directed an FOI request to the Chief of Police...and staggered the requests so it dragged out for weeks, he would be so sick of hearing that Officers name (and he sounded like a youngster), that his career would stagnate.

Now that does make a difference and Locker Room tactics spread through a police department quickly. I think that if enough pressure was put on UPPER ADMINISTRATION to do extra work, we would see a big drop in the Abuse of Discretionary Authority complaints.

In other words....piss off the boss!

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

danbus wrote:

If there are any other black OCers in VA, I would sure like to hear about their experiences...if any.

They are out there, Dan, and on this board, too.

T-Hawk are you talking about me
My avatar shows a BMWAG
No harrassment (YET :shock, being doing it in VA since 7/05the only time I don't carry is if it is illegal.
Ifilled out my CHP paper work just haven't dropped it off.
However, most of the time I'm OC'inga 3.75 yr old and/or a dog along with my Glock.
A 40+yr old that limps with a toddler tagging along isn't much of a threat.

Edit:
I don't knowingly seek outthe police, nothing good could/would come from it, family/friends excluded.

Heck once you or twice you OC'd a white dude with a gun and you didn't get bothered - cause I was that dude. You've been OC'ing up here in Fairfax almost as long as I've lived here without an issue. It's gotta be that special southern VA hospitality I keep hearing about.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

It's gotta be that special southern VA hospitality I keep hearing about.

Smile when you say that...Yankee

 

[bohdi]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

It's gotta be that special southern VA hospitality I keep hearing about.

Smile when you say that...Yankee

It'll make your blood curl to know I wasn't born here and I say it, lol. I'm from further north still. Guess it's all that NOVA vs Richmond training I've received since 2000. Gotta blame the former ex-gf lawyer for that, lol.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

As a former bureaucrat, I can tell you that after losing budget money in a civil suit, Administration hates additional work and bad press (in that order) the worst.

There are enough members here to make a difference, not by spewing catchy "We the People" slogans....but by making them work!

I've found that to be true as well. Filing FOIAs and complaints after every single negative incident with a police officer has caused alot of No. VA. police departments to be alot more cautious when harrassing law-abiding gun owners.