Detained and disarmed while OC (Video)

[Carnivore]

imported post

WOW!! like hitting the local lottery, maybe you're right i'll get right on it and go trolling for a lawsuit.. if I were to get throwed/rolled/and cuffed, I would get after em hard and fast, and time will tell if they truely are more informed of the laws they are paid to enforce, in this particular scenario, and the way it played out in a civil and courteous manner i wouldn't have time for court. BUT thats just me, you on the other hand might have the schedule for it.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

zekester wrote:

The "man" is in your life whether you accept it or not.

Every encounter with a citizen effects how the "man" will deal with you.

Oh I know that. You make it hard on him, he'll make it hard on you.

I understand how it works more than you know. I choose not to make anything harder on people than I have to, no matter who they are. If they are making my life difficult, I may do the same back. If they are being respectful to me, I will return that same respect.

You said earlier:

The only way in which to inform the "masses" and those hired by US, is through a court case which will bring to light the abuses of power granted to the LEO.....Granted...in this case, the officer was civil and admitted that he was wrong, but the "fact" and I will reiterate "FACT" is that he was wrong.

I have no animosity toward this officer, and none against the St Charles Police Department, as I know many officers, but the "FACT" still remains that this was clearly against the law.

Doc can and will do what he wants to do, and I respect that more than you may ever know. I just know that I would pursue this for a few reasons.

First, this was indeed a violation the the 4th Amendment.....this cannot be acceptable in any case.

Second, it would give light to the exemption which is needed to pass in the state.

No judge would award anything after seeing that video. The only thing they are guilty of is being ignorant of the ever changing laws, not violating anyone's rights. If they would have been complete asses, then I could see a point. As of now, I don't see any reason for further action except to stir the pot. I've learned through my experiences that isn't the way to "keep low" .

 

[zekester]

imported post

Festus_Hagen wrote:

zekester wrote:

The "man" is in your life whether you accept it or not.

Every encounter with a citizen effects how the "man" will deal with you.

Oh I know that. You make it hard on him, he'll make it hard on you.

I understand how it works more than you know. I choose not to make anything harder on people than I have to, no matter who they are. If they are making my life difficult, I may do the same back. If they are being respectful to me, I will return that same respect.

You said earlier:

The only way in which to inform the "masses" and those hired by US, is through a court case which will bring to light the abuses of power granted to the LEO.....Granted...in this case, the officer was civil and admitted that he was wrong, but the "fact" and I will reiterate "FACT" is that he was wrong.

I have no animosity toward this officer, and none against the St Charles Police Department, as I know many officers, but the "FACT" still remains that this was clearly against the law.

Doc can and will do what he wants to do, and I respect that more than you may ever know. I just know that I would pursue this for a few reasons.

First, this was indeed a violation the the 4th Amendment.....this cannot be acceptable in any case.

Second, it would give light to the exemption which is needed to pass in the state.

No judge would award anything after seeing that video. The only thing they are guilty of is being ignorant of the ever changing laws, not violating anyone's rights. If they would have been complete asses, then I could see a point. As of now, I don't see any reason for further action except to stir the pot. I've learned through my experiences that isn't the way to "keep low" .

Sorry,

By the officer removing the weapon, not to mention the stop was completly illegal.

(“When applicable law does not ban carrying a
firearm, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk regardless of any
indication that a suspect is armed or potentially dangerous because there is no indication that the
suspect is violating the law.”)

Not to mention the person which had a CCW....which the officer took his weapon also.

 

[zekester]

imported post

 

[zekester]

imported post

 

[zekester]

imported post

Festus_Hagen wrote:

zekester wrote:

The "man" is in your life whether you accept it or not.

Every encounter with a citizen effects how the "man" will deal with you.

Oh I know that. You make it hard on him, he'll make it hard on you.

I understand how it works more than you know. I choose not to make anything harder on people than I have to, no matter who they are. If they are making my life difficult, I may do the same back. If they are being respectful to me, I will return that same respect.

You said earlier:

The only way in which to inform the "masses" and those hired by US, is through a court case which will bring to light the abuses of power granted to the LEO.....Granted...in this case, the officer was civil and admitted that he was wrong, but the "fact" and I will reiterate "FACT" is that he was wrong.

I have no animosity toward this officer, and none against the St Charles Police Department, as I know many officers, but the "FACT" still remains that this was clearly against the law.

Doc can and will do what he wants to do, and I respect that more than you may ever know. I just know that I would pursue this for a few reasons.

First, this was indeed a violation the the 4th Amendment.....this cannot be acceptable in any case.

Second, it would give light to the exemption which is needed to pass in the state.

No judge would award anything after seeing that video. The only thing they are guilty of is being ignorant of the ever changing laws, not violating anyone's rights. If they would have been complete asses, then I could see a point. As of now, I don't see any reason for further action except to stir the pot. I've learned through my experiences that isn't the way to "keep low" .

This is not about money....

Stirring the pot?

Since when it is "stirring the pot" to protect your rights.

Believe me I know what you are saying......"Why mess with a good thing. the COPS are cool with this"......What will happen next time.....Will Doc meet a "cool" officer or will he just shoot him because he has a gun? Or me? or YOU?

I myslef would not take that chance based on the training or updates to the local LEO's.

Z

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

Have at it bud. I'm not here to argue. Good luck.

 

[zekester]

imported post

I am not here to "argue", I tought this was a debate?

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

zekester wrote:

I am not here to "argue", I tought this was a debate?

Then I'm done "debating".

You feel you need to sue over an officer trying to do his job in a respectful manner, I do not.

Seems cut and dried to me. I am tired of the courts being tied up with "sue-happy" people. some thrive on it. Have a good time with that. I'm goin' shooting.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

zekester wrote:

Festus_Hagen wrote:

zekester wrote:

The "man" is in your life whether you accept it or not.

Every encounter with a citizen effects how the "man" will deal with you.

Oh I know that. You make it hard on him, he'll make it hard on you.

I understand how it works more than you know. I choose not to make anything harder on people than I have to, no matter who they are. If they are making my life difficult, I may do the same back. If they are being respectful to me, I will return that same respect.

You said earlier:

The only way in which to inform the "masses" and those hired by US, is through a court case which will bring to light the abuses of power granted to the LEO.....Granted...in this case, the officer was civil and admitted that he was wrong, but the "fact" and I will reiterate "FACT" is that he was wrong.

I have no animosity toward this officer, and none against the St Charles Police Department, as I know many officers, but the "FACT" still remains that this was clearly against the law.

Doc can and will do what he wants to do, and I respect that more than you may ever know. I just know that I would pursue this for a few reasons.

First, this was indeed a violation the the 4th Amendment.....this cannot be acceptable in any case.

Second, it would give light to the exemption which is needed to pass in the state.

No judge would award anything after seeing that video. The only thing they are guilty of is being ignorant of the ever changing laws, not violating anyone's rights. If they would have been complete asses, then I could see a point. As of now, I don't see any reason for further action except to stir the pot. I've learned through my experiences that isn't the way to "keep low" .

Sorry,

By the officer removing the weapon, not to mention the stop was completly illegal.

(“When applicable law does not ban carrying a
firearm, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk regardless of any
indication that a suspect is armed or potentially dangerous because there is no indication that the
suspect is violating the law.”)

Not to mention the person which had a CCW....which the officer took his weapon also.

I didn't see the officer take the concealed weapon from the CCW permit owner that was carrying concealed.

 

[sohighlyunlikely]

imported post

As I remember it. Officer Duncan asked if we were CCW Big mike said yes. They asked if he was carrying a weapon. He said yes and gestured to his right waist. Officer Howe then with out warning stepped upfrom his right side,pulled up his shirt to expose the firearm and instantly took it from him.The CCW holder was detained and disarmed as well.

Doc

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

All I see is the Chrome Tok. being removed from the open carry citizens skeletonized holster.

 

[sohighlyunlikely]

imported post

Well then I guess you will have to trust my 1st hand account(I'm the one with the chrome Tok)or ask Big Mike, He is here on OpenCarry.org as well.

Doc

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

Good nuf., did you even ask the officer what business it was of the nosey lady sheeple that originally brought his attention to you and your partners? I believe I would've had to single her out on some sort of fashion police violation, that might have sent her mindback into the world that she fell out of. :lol:

 

[LMTD]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

All I see is the Chrome Tok. being removed from the open carry citizens skeletonized holster.

That is quite clear in the video as is when he returns the weapon to its owner.

Violation of rights, yes, something that tort law is going to address and some large payday result from, no.

A jury would most likely award a very small sum based upon the delay, but compared to the beat downs that happen far too often, this was a polite encounter.

Overall it was a positive event that has likely resulted in the leo's being reminded at roll call that the open carry movement has moved into St Charles and to address it properly from this point forward.

 

[silo]

imported post

Honestly I think the publication of the video is the best avenue, not a lawsuit. A lawsuit for this instance could be either good or bad for the cause: good because it could result in an OK payout and would make cops realize there are penalties for infringing someone's rights; bad because, should he lose, cops have little to no reason to discontinue erring on the side of caution.

It's best, then, to let this go and publicize the video as much as possible. The more people and officers who see the video, the better educated they are and the less those people will think we're just gun-crazed nuts out for street vengeance. The video shines very well on our cause and us as a whole.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

LMTD wrote:

Overall it was a positive event that has likely resulted in the leo's being reminded at roll call that the open carry movement has moved into St Charles and to address it properly from this point forward.

That's exactly the way I see it too.

 

[9026543]

imported post

I just wonder how the encounter would have gone if the video camera had not been in use? With the first officer being so cock sure that he was right and even after he found outhe was wrong he spent quite a considerable length of time trying to impose his personalopposition to OC upon the person he had detained.

With this attitude it would have been quite different without the camera being there I am sure.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

YuppieDog wrote:

I understand that you feel you where wronged. But isn't this the reason for going out andOC ing, to teach the LEO's and the John Q public. But, it seems to me the real lesson for the police was missed.

The lesson is not that OC is or isn't legal. The lesson is that without authority, the police may not act. Unless that cop could point to a statute prohibiting OC, and say to himself, "I have read the statute and know for a fact that is illegal," he had no justification to seize the OCer.

This wasn't about guns. It was about police acting without authority, violating someone's 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure.

 

[LMTD]

imported post

Just out of curiosity, can anyone specify the date that the ordinance changed?

When did OC become illegal and when did it become legal again in our fine state?

How about st charles city?