BMWAG ARRESTED!!!

[LEO 229]

imported post

VAopencarry wrote:

longwatch wrote:

kimbercarrier wrote:

I say we vote Dan OCDO oc'er of the year.:celebrate

If this was baseball and we had stats, he would be having a hall of fame year for most LEO encounters. I think now we will have to look at the race for who will get the biggest judgement Chet or Dan.

If I remember correctly Dan had the cops called on him the very first time he OC'd!!!

What luck.....

 

[TrueBrit]

imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Yeah or at least get the audio. Anyone want to pitch in on at least a voice recorder for Danbus, I think hes earned it, and really needs it.

I'm flat broke but pledge $10


These a-holes need charged and convicted. Enough is enough already.

Nice gesture, Patriot ! I guess we have missed the boat, since Dan has bought a voice recorder, but, no worries! In the near future, it may well be that we can get him a new hat!

WBMWAG !

WEALTHY BLACK MAN WITH A GUN!!!

Here's hoping, and my hat is off to the man himself!

True Brit.

 

[danbus]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

Dan, please take a look at MolonLabe!'s thread. His complaint mentions a case where the Supreme Court says that a stop that lasts that long is a "de facto arrest" which means you have that much more ground for a law suit. Dude, those cops are putting an EXCELLENT law suit together for you . Don't let them down by not pursuing it.

They knew that the obstruction charge wouldn't stand. They knew that they couldn't detain you for simply OCing. They're testing your resolve and you're doing GREAT! Thanks so much for your work for us out there!

In addition to the rest of the law suit, you need to get a judge to give a declaratory judgment that the law does not allow detainments for simply OCing and enjoining the PD from doing it again in the future. The fact that they've done it so many times is enough to show they'll do it in the future which is enough to get a judge's order for them to stop.

You're going to make a lawyer very happy

He was given a summons so he WAS arrested.... no matter how long he was held there.

That's a good point.

However, they told me that I either ID myself or face arrest. I got arrested. Following the handcuffs being placed, I was then searched, standard procedure AFTER an arrest is made.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

danbus wrote:

However, they told me that I either ID myself or face arrest. I got arrested. Following the handcuffs being placed, I was then searched, standard procedure AFTER an arrest is made.

Standing up for your rights in the face of violent threats (such as arrest) is one ofthe most amazing displays of patriotism. While it may have seemed easier at the time to give in, you did the courageous thing and others will reap the benefits from your courage. Thank you.

 

[danbus]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

danbus wrote:

However, they told me that I either ID myself or face arrest. I got arrested. Following the handcuffs being placed, I was then searched, standard procedure AFTER an arrest is made.

Standing up for your rights in the face of violent threats (such as arrest) is one ofthe most amazing displays of patriotism. While it may have seemed easier at the time to give in, you did the courageous thing and others will reap the benefits from your courage. Thank you.

Yeah, I don't like going down without a fight. Giving up an inch of freedom is gaining a mile of slavery.

 

[Kevin108]

imported post

Dan if you will register an account with PayPal so that we can donate money towards your FOIA requests, legal defense, etc. I will create and host the web site for it. Once you've registered, all we need is an associated e-mail address to send money to. I can provide you with a free e-mail address (@kevin108.com or @gmail.com) if you require. Please let me know! I sent you an e-mail as well.

 

[cato]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

I haven't taken HRT in years, but I think I might tomorrow. Maybe a VCDL groupbus ride to the Hampton City Council would be in order?

I want to fly out for one of these before they don't happen any more; after Danbus fixes the whole state! Try to give me a couple of weeks notice so I can get a good price on the flight! See ya soon! :celebrate



Do I get to state my name and address at the meeting before I speak? I should get a PO box in Beverly Hills!

 

[cato]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I am still wondering what he did that would have warranted the obstruction charge.

He was guilty of contempt of cop. Thats all.

 

[unrequited]

imported post

...wasn't this JUST addressed with your bank incident last month? *sigh*

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

danbus wrote:

However, they told me that I either ID myself or face arrest. I got arrested. Following the handcuffs being placed, I was then searched, standard procedure AFTER an arrest is made.

I do not believe it was proper to charge you for not showing ID.

They will probably say they needed it to prove that you were not a convicted felon.

At best... they may have wanted to prove that you were 21 "18" and legal to carry a handgun.

I do not think they will win in either case.

There are times when we, as LEOs, are powerless and you (not Dan in this case) can actually get away with a crime.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

cato wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I am still wondering what he did that would have warranted the obstruction charge.

He was guilty of contempt of cop. Thats all.

I can agree to that.

 

[DrMark]

imported post

Wow. Norfolk, Hampton, ...

Best of luck with this Danbus.

Mark

 

[Kevin108]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I do not think they will win in either case. There are times when we, as LEOs, are powerless and you can actually get away with a crime.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but Dan had not committed a crime and to introduce that thought into this conversation seems negative. :?

 

[yankees98a]

imported post

Don't think he meant Dan was guilty of a crime. Just that he might run into someone who just committed a crime, but since he won't get all the info till later, unable to get any info from them. When he does get all the info, it's too late


Kevin108 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I do not think they will win in either case. There are times when we, as LEOs, are powerless and you can actually get away with a crime.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but Dan had not committed a crime and to introduce that thought into this conversation seems negative. :?

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Don't you just love tea parties - of the Boston kind!:monkey
Yata hey

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Kevin108 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I do not think they will win in either case. There are times when we, as LEOs, are powerless and you can actually get away with a crime.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but Dan had not committed a crime and to introduce that thought into this conversation seems negative. :?

Ah!! Easily misunderstood...

Nothing to do with Dan and crime.... More towards the fact that there are times when the police cannot do ANYTHING.... even if some "other" guy was packing a gun and was a felon. We cannot prove it without having the info... but no law broken and no way to know he is a felon.... So the bad guy gets away.

Thanks for not flaming and instead.. using clarification.

 

[CPerdue]

imported post

First off, OUT-FREAKING-STANDING Dan!!

danbus wrote:

snip...

The thing is, there wasn't even justification for the stop. There wasn't reasonable suspicion. They claimed that I could be underage, have warrants, or be a felon as their articulable facts<emphasis added>. Also, they stated that they could say that me being armed on a public bus is cause for concern of public safety.

I repeated to the officers that articulate facts = reasonable suspicion = terry stop (ie detainment, investigatory stop).

Maybe I'm being fuzzy headed this morning and this has been covered before, but what is the best way to counter the 'facts' above? They look like articulated suspicions to me but not material facts, that is the best I can do. You do have a gun any you could be a felon ... why doesn't that work?

Thanks again,

C.

 

[Tess]

imported post

CPerdue wrote:

First off, OUT-FREAKING-STANDING Dan!!

danbus wrote:

snip...

The thing is, there wasn't even justification for the stop. There wasn't reasonable suspicion. They claimed that I could be underage, have warrants, or be a felon as their articulable facts<emphasis added>. Also, they stated that they could say that me being armed on a public bus is cause for concern of public safety.

I repeated to the officers that articulate facts = reasonable suspicion = terry stop (ie detainment, investigatory stop).

Maybe I'm being fuzzy headed this morning and this has been covered before, but what is the best way to counter the 'facts' above? They look like articulated suspicions to me but not material facts, that is the best I can do. You do have a gun any you could be a felon ... why doesn't that work?

Thanks again,

C.

As I read it, the very fact of there being a "could" in the sentence eliminates facts. To be "facts", I'd think they'd have to be able to say something like "You are under 21 (18)" or "you are a wanted felon" or some such. They'd have to base it on known circumstances (facts), not possibles.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

CPerdue wrote:

First off, OUT-FREAKING-STANDING Dan!!

danbus wrote:

snip...

The thing is, there wasn't even justification for the stop. There wasn't reasonable suspicion. They claimed that I could be underage, have warrants, or be a felon as their articulable facts<emphasis added>. Also, they stated that they could say that me being armed on a public bus is cause for concern of public safety.

I repeated to the officers that articulate facts = reasonable suspicion = terry stop (ie detainment, investigatory stop).

Maybe I'm being fuzzy headed this morning and this has been covered before, but what is the best way to counter the 'facts' above? They look like articulated suspicions to me but not material facts, that is the best I can do. You do have a gun any you could be a felon ... why doesn't that work?

Thanks again,

C.

Because having a gun is not in and of itself illegal nor is it reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.

What "facts" are we countering? The fact that he was where he had every right to be? The fact that he is a BMWAG? The fact that he isn't required to show identification on demand? The fact that he did not comply with the officers' illegal demands?

Damn, I better not cross the street if I see a policeman. He might suspect that I'm a convicted felon and require me to show my papers.:banghead:

What else can I say. They're your rights - use or them or lose them.

Yata hey

Yata hey

 

[CPerdue]

imported post

Right, had more coffee now... vaguely remember case precident to the effect, "having a gun is not in and of itself illegal nor is it reasonable suspicion of illegal activity". Have to go look that up again.