hydroxside
Regular Member
Thanks for the email
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Just got kicked out of Walmart
- Thread starter Sam
- Start date
The fact that they are backing each other up is something I expected from registering a complaint within the same department.
Backing each other up is something LEOs are well trained in. It also carries over to covering each others illegal conduct, as well.
You will not find a positive resolution to this matter if you keep the complaint within the same police department. Sadly, you'll have to go further.
Backing each other up is something LEOs are well trained in. It also carries over to covering each others illegal conduct, as well.
You will not find a positive resolution to this matter if you keep the complaint within the same police department. Sadly, you'll have to go further.
Mike Frye
Regular Member
just reading what you guys are talking about being stopped illegally by the police and I new to alot of this stuff especially the jargan what exactly is "Gatttotp"?
sFe
Regular Member
Going armed to the terror of the public. There's several threads were Dreamer explains it nicely, but basically it's an add on charge to armed robbery but is used maliciously by cops that are against the public having guns.
Juggernaut
Regular Member
Going Armed to the Terror of the Public is acommon law charge. Statutory reference to Armed to the Terror of the Public:
§ 14‑288.3. Provisions of Article intended to supplement common law and other statutes.
The provisions of this Article are intended to supersede and extend the coverage of the common‑law crimes of riot and inciting to riot. To the extent that such common‑law offenses may embrace situations not covered under the provisions of this Article, however, criminal prosecutions may be brought for such crimes under the common law. All other provisions of the Article are intended to be supplementary and additional to the common law and other statutes of this State and, except as specifically indicated, shall not be construed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant other provisions of law. In particular, this Article shall not be deemed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant such common‑law offenses as unlawful assembly, rout, conspiracy to commit riot or other criminal offenses, false imprisonment, and going about armed to the terror of the populace and other comparable public‑nuisance offenses. (1969, c. 869, s. 1.)
There are 4 criteria that must be met:
1) arming one's self with an unusual and dangerous weapon
2) For the purpose of terrifying others
3) goes about on public highways
4) in a manner to cause terror to others.
§ 14‑288.3. Provisions of Article intended to supplement common law and other statutes.
The provisions of this Article are intended to supersede and extend the coverage of the common‑law crimes of riot and inciting to riot. To the extent that such common‑law offenses may embrace situations not covered under the provisions of this Article, however, criminal prosecutions may be brought for such crimes under the common law. All other provisions of the Article are intended to be supplementary and additional to the common law and other statutes of this State and, except as specifically indicated, shall not be construed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant other provisions of law. In particular, this Article shall not be deemed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant such common‑law offenses as unlawful assembly, rout, conspiracy to commit riot or other criminal offenses, false imprisonment, and going about armed to the terror of the populace and other comparable public‑nuisance offenses. (1969, c. 869, s. 1.)
There are 4 criteria that must be met:
1) arming one's self with an unusual and dangerous weapon
2) For the purpose of terrifying others
3) goes about on public highways
4) in a manner to cause terror to others.
sultan62
Regular Member
Welcome! Feel free to ask any questions you have, just be sure to research on your own to get a better understanding. There is a sticky thread in the NC forum with an "NC Gun Rights" brochure that is a very quick, brief starter.
I suggest you do as much independent research as you can-we are pretty knowledgeable here, but when it comes down to it, it's your butt on the line when you OC (or do anything else for that matter).
As I said in the beginning, welcome, and feel free to ask questions!
razor_baghdad
Regular Member
that is awesome....
.275Rigby
Regular Member
Sam,
As a litigator I can tell you that the question is often not whether you were wronged, but how you were harmed. It certainly sounds to me like the officer was wrong, but was fairly polite, didn't arrest you improperly, and didn't take anything of yours. You and I and most members of this forum see the issue as one of discrimination against law abiding citizens, and an issue of whether the officer had the right to stop you when you had done nothing wrong. 99% of citizens, including many who support personal gun ownership, will see it as an issue of their safety, and the officer's safety. To them the question is "should a LEO be able to stop and question someone who walks into a public place conspicuously carrying a weapon?" The answer will almost inevitably be "yes!" The analogy that would likely be used against you is something like: "six young males in hoodie sweatshirts, who don't look like they belong in the establishment, enter store x with semi-auto AK-47's strapped to their backs. Is law enforcement prohibited from interacting with them (or obtaining control of the weapons) until after they've done something illegal?"
Legal answer may be YES! But John Q Public (jury member) wants law enforcement to have full authority to prevent what seems to be something bad from happening, and considers your inconvenience in being momentarily detained to be a reasonable trade-off for the security they perceive in granting law enforcement that ability.
If you had been charged with going to the terror of the public, or even arrested for it, or if the officers had caused you a harm (unfortunately, the time and stress have been adjudicated "inconveniences" we all subject ourselves to in exchange for the security a police force provides) your odds of prevailing in a civil suit would be much better.
The Socratic question to your question (what should I do?) is "what do you want to achieve?"
(As a practical aside, successful prosecution for unauthorized practice of law is very rare in NC unless the culprit told you they were a licensed attorney when they were not.)
As a litigator I can tell you that the question is often not whether you were wronged, but how you were harmed. It certainly sounds to me like the officer was wrong, but was fairly polite, didn't arrest you improperly, and didn't take anything of yours. You and I and most members of this forum see the issue as one of discrimination against law abiding citizens, and an issue of whether the officer had the right to stop you when you had done nothing wrong. 99% of citizens, including many who support personal gun ownership, will see it as an issue of their safety, and the officer's safety. To them the question is "should a LEO be able to stop and question someone who walks into a public place conspicuously carrying a weapon?" The answer will almost inevitably be "yes!" The analogy that would likely be used against you is something like: "six young males in hoodie sweatshirts, who don't look like they belong in the establishment, enter store x with semi-auto AK-47's strapped to their backs. Is law enforcement prohibited from interacting with them (or obtaining control of the weapons) until after they've done something illegal?"
Legal answer may be YES! But John Q Public (jury member) wants law enforcement to have full authority to prevent what seems to be something bad from happening, and considers your inconvenience in being momentarily detained to be a reasonable trade-off for the security they perceive in granting law enforcement that ability.
If you had been charged with going to the terror of the public, or even arrested for it, or if the officers had caused you a harm (unfortunately, the time and stress have been adjudicated "inconveniences" we all subject ourselves to in exchange for the security a police force provides) your odds of prevailing in a civil suit would be much better.
The Socratic question to your question (what should I do?) is "what do you want to achieve?"
(As a practical aside, successful prosecution for unauthorized practice of law is very rare in NC unless the culprit told you they were a licensed attorney when they were not.)
razor_baghdad
Regular Member
1. Illegally searched, detained and stripped of his rights as a law-abiding citizen is more like the description and you, as a 'litigator', I would think, would be better attuned at helping the RTKBA reading audience [sic-jury] for the OP understand those facts.......but only if you want to eat
2. Your job, IMHO, as a litigator, would be to help the 99% sheep jury understand that the officer nor any of the 99% sheople shoppers in Wal-Mart were in any danger, ever. Did I mention the OP broke no laws?
3. Yes, the legal answer is yes. The young hoodlums will be 'observed', legally, until further interaction is necessary.
4. Full Authority [as I read it from your stance] equates to basically Martial Law. Not sure why I read it that way. Tell me I'm reading it wrong. The 'trade-off' you speak of is the 'change' we are currently experiencing by tossing out the Constitution..
5. I think his chances in civvie court are outstanding. Sure, add a zero for GATTTotP, but still, his chances look good to me.
6. The answer to the OP's question would seem to me to be to assist the LEO's who do not know their own laws, to learn their own laws according to state laws and constitutional laws, either by financial means, public apology, or re-training.. Make sense?
7. The 'unauthorized practice of law' as seen from a Law Enforcement Officer who espews his opinions of the law while enforcing his version of the law with intimidation fits very nicely into your description.
Objection, Counselor?
Please take this as funny and not as snide or mean spirited.
AAAAAAAND: Welcome to OCDO. Interesting 1st post!
Last edited:
Dreamer
Regular Member
Thank you...
I think that the good Defense Attorneys of the State of NC need to start INSISTING that these spurious GAttTotP charges be thrown out summarily when they are charged against someone who is on private property (like a WalMart), because "Condition 3" of the Common Law definition of the GAttTotP charge CLEARLY states that to be guilty of this violation, you must "going about on public highways".
Private property is NOT "public highways"... If they want to attempt to charge people with this when they are walking in the street, that's one thing, but there are NO provisions in the GAttTotP case law to support this charge if the incident occurs on private property...
I think evryone on this forum should check this thread out!
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?83389-The-Morning-Call-Allentown-PA-settles-with-
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?83389-The-Morning-Call-Allentown-PA-settles-with-
Dreamer
Regular Member
+1,000,000
Thos.Jefferson
Regular Member
I hope your intention is to pursue this in the courts? This seems like a blatant 4th amendment violation.
1. Illegally searched, detained and stripped of his rights as a law-abiding citizen is more like the description and you, as a 'litigator', I would think, would be better attuned at helping the RTKBA reading audience [sic-jury] for the OP understand those facts.......but only if you want to eat
2. Your job, IMHO, as a litigator, would be to help the 99% sheep jury understand that the officer nor any of the 99% sheople shoppers in Wal-Mart were in any danger, ever. Did I mention the OP broke no laws?
3. Yes, the legal answer is yes. The young hoodlums will be 'observed', legally, until further interaction is necessary.
4. Full Authority [as I read it from your stance] equates to basically Martial Law. Not sure why I read it that way. Tell me I'm reading it wrong. The 'trade-off' you speak of is the 'change' we are currently experiencing by tossing out the Constitution..
5. I think his chances in civvie court are outstanding. Sure, add a zero for GATTTotP, but still, his chances look good to me.
6. The answer to the OP's question would seem to me to be to assist the LEO's who do not know their own laws, to learn their own laws according to state laws and constitutional laws, either by financial means, public apology, or re-training.. Make sense?
7. The 'unauthorized practice of law' as seen from a Law Enforcement Officer who espews his opinions of the law while enforcing his version of the law with intimidation fits very nicely into your description.
Objection, Counselor?
Please take this as funny and not as snide or mean spirited.
AAAAAAAND: Welcome to OCDO. Interesting 1st post!
Also keep in mind that Terry requires that the suspect be both armed AND dangerous. It has been ruled in other states that lawfully carrying a gun does not automatically make one dangerous for the purposes of Terry.
razor_baghdad
Regular Member
Terry was my underlying point....and the perfect case that could be used by a [sic: MY] 'litigator'
Thanks!!
Last edited:
.275Rigby
Regular Member
Razor,
Mean spirited? Not at all! I take your post in the spirit that I hope all posts here are made in – one of working together to educate and inform ourselves and others about our constitutional rights and how best to protect them.
I hope no-one misconstrues my presentation of the opposition argument, or delineation of the pitfalls as denying that Sam’s rights appear to have been violated. My point is that being right under the law (A) often has little to do with the jury’s verdict* and (B) that Sam’s course of action will be dictated by what he wants to achieve.
If, for instance, Sam wants an apology, that is quite a reasonable demand and can likely be achieved inexpensively and expeditiously.
If Sam wants the officers kicked off the force he should expect to fund up front approximately 12-24 months of litigation, for perhaps a less than 25% chance of prevailing.
If Sam wants the State to pay him damages for the violation, he may be able to find an attorney who would take such a case on a contingency basis.
There are other options as well, but they would be case specific and therefore bordering on legal advice.
As a general aside to anyone who comes to these boards looking for legal advice, lawyers are specifically prohibited from “soliciting” business, meaning that they cannot contact you and try to convince you to be their client. If an attorney does approach you about your potential case, he is breaking law and/or ethical codes of the profession, which does not bode well for your future relationship with him or her.
If you want advice, you can contact the attorney directly.
As to mekender’s point, perhaps further explanation is in order. Terry, as applied, says that an officer with an articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed has a right to stop (without probable cause, and short of arrest) a “suspect” to ask them questions, and may frisk a person they’re questioning to determine whether weapons are present which would present a potential danger to the officer. Nothing that I have seen applied requires the “suspect” to be armed, dangerous, or any other condition besides articulably suspect.
This is irrelevant to the Sam’s issue, but remember in the context of GATP that “he fit the description of a suspect” applies to nearly everyone and is likely more than enough for “articulable suspicion.”
*How to get twelve people with their own ideological spins to agree that open carry should be defended is a very interesting question and I would love to discuss it further. I suspect that due to the facial unlikelihood of convincing a jury that they should apply their taxes to defend open carry, many attorneys would be unlikely to attempt it, but if this discussion group could formulate a method of convincing the populace of the merits of the position, it would be a huge benefit not only to the wrongly violated but to the cause in general.
Mean spirited? Not at all! I take your post in the spirit that I hope all posts here are made in – one of working together to educate and inform ourselves and others about our constitutional rights and how best to protect them.
I hope no-one misconstrues my presentation of the opposition argument, or delineation of the pitfalls as denying that Sam’s rights appear to have been violated. My point is that being right under the law (A) often has little to do with the jury’s verdict* and (B) that Sam’s course of action will be dictated by what he wants to achieve.
If, for instance, Sam wants an apology, that is quite a reasonable demand and can likely be achieved inexpensively and expeditiously.
If Sam wants the officers kicked off the force he should expect to fund up front approximately 12-24 months of litigation, for perhaps a less than 25% chance of prevailing.
If Sam wants the State to pay him damages for the violation, he may be able to find an attorney who would take such a case on a contingency basis.
There are other options as well, but they would be case specific and therefore bordering on legal advice.
As a general aside to anyone who comes to these boards looking for legal advice, lawyers are specifically prohibited from “soliciting” business, meaning that they cannot contact you and try to convince you to be their client. If an attorney does approach you about your potential case, he is breaking law and/or ethical codes of the profession, which does not bode well for your future relationship with him or her.
If you want advice, you can contact the attorney directly.
As to mekender’s point, perhaps further explanation is in order. Terry, as applied, says that an officer with an articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed has a right to stop (without probable cause, and short of arrest) a “suspect” to ask them questions, and may frisk a person they’re questioning to determine whether weapons are present which would present a potential danger to the officer. Nothing that I have seen applied requires the “suspect” to be armed, dangerous, or any other condition besides articulably suspect.
This is irrelevant to the Sam’s issue, but remember in the context of GATP that “he fit the description of a suspect” applies to nearly everyone and is likely more than enough for “articulable suspicion.”
*How to get twelve people with their own ideological spins to agree that open carry should be defended is a very interesting question and I would love to discuss it further. I suspect that due to the facial unlikelihood of convincing a jury that they should apply their taxes to defend open carry, many attorneys would be unlikely to attempt it, but if this discussion group could formulate a method of convincing the populace of the merits of the position, it would be a huge benefit not only to the wrongly violated but to the cause in general.
Wrong...
Terry specifically says:
That is not a blanket right for an officer to search everyone they encounter as you have tried to describe, they may only do so if they have a reason to believe that the suspect is armed AND dangerous. And courts outside of NC have upheld that they must be both armed AND dangerous. That being armed legally does not automatically make one dangerous for the purposes of Terry.
Now, I argue that even with the GATTOP intact, simply a citizen complaining would be no grounds for an officer to believe that a lawfully carrying citizen was dangerous without any other factors being involved. If your interpretation was applied then the act of exercising your second amendment right would mean that you forfeit your 4th amendment right and that simply cannot be the case.
Terry specifically says:
That is not a blanket right for an officer to search everyone they encounter as you have tried to describe, they may only do so if they have a reason to believe that the suspect is armed AND dangerous. And courts outside of NC have upheld that they must be both armed AND dangerous. That being armed legally does not automatically make one dangerous for the purposes of Terry.
Now, I argue that even with the GATTOP intact, simply a citizen complaining would be no grounds for an officer to believe that a lawfully carrying citizen was dangerous without any other factors being involved. If your interpretation was applied then the act of exercising your second amendment right would mean that you forfeit your 4th amendment right and that simply cannot be the case.
Last edited: