Kicked out of Kroger in Richmond, threatened by LEO with arrest.

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Was there a valid reason for the contact? Yes.. the officer apparently was told of a policy prohibiting guns in the business.

Really? WHO told him this?

It's just as likely that he pulled said "policy" out of his rectum. You know, like the imaginary "laws" another cop made upthat allegedly prohibit concealedcarry across state lines and possessing hollowpoints?

But hey, if the officer can do no wrong, by definition everything he does is right... no matter what.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

DrMark wrote:

Note that, despite the above misdirection, no one has suggested calling 911 to complain.

I've never known a legitimate officer refuse to identify himself; calling the police to report a potential imposter is a fairly serious matter.

Besides, local officers have told me and others that calling 911 is no big deal -- for non-emergencies you can be easily transferred to a non-emergency line. When asked for the non-emergency number, I've heard local officers actually say to call 911 and asked to be transferred. Things may be different in the metropolis that is Richmond.

No misdirection intended... just something to think about BEFORE you use 9-1-1 for a NON EMERGENCY event.

Calling regardless to complain or "report" that a uniformed officer has refused to tell you his name is not a 9-1-1 worthy event.

Not giving you his name somehow means he is not a real cop??You are going to need more than that. If he is faking it... why not say he is "Joe Friday". How would you ever know.

Face it... calling 9-1-1 is just an easy way to complainhe did not give his name. There is no other legitimate reason.

 

[DrMark]

imported post

DrMark wrote:

Note that, despite the above misdirection, no one has suggested calling 911 to complain.

I've never known a legitimate officer refuse to identify himself; calling the police to report a potential imposter is a fairly serious matter.

Besides, local officers have told me and others that calling 911 is no big deal -- for non-emergencies you can be easily transferred to a non-emergency line. When asked for the non-emergency number, I've heard local officers actually say to call 911 and asked to be transferred. Things may be different in the metropolis that is Richmond.

No misdirection intended... just something to think about BEFORE you use 9-1-1 for a NON EMERGENCY event.

Calling regardless to complain or "report" that a uniformed officer has refused to tell you his name is not a 9-1-1 worthy event.

Not giving you his name somehow means he is not a real cop??You are going to need more than that. If he is faking it... why not say he is "Joe Friday". How would you ever know.

Face it... calling 9-1-1 is just an easy way to complainhe did not give his name. There is no other legitimate reason.

More misdirection, with the implication that such a call would be simply to complain...

Sorry, but the police officers I know are professionals. Someone presenting himself as a police officer, yet refusing to identify himself during a professional contact would be a huge red flag to me, raising enough suspicion that I'd feel warranted following up with the police by phone to make sure this person presenting himself as a police officer was legit. 911 or non-emergency number, it wouldn't make much difference in my AO.

mercutio545, was this officer in full uniform, with Richmond insignia and nametag?

 

[taurusfan]

imported post

mercutio545 wrote:

"The officer was caucasian, looked to be in his early 40's, somewhat short, and looked like he was balding."


I know who you mean he is a bastard.

Such is the peril of open carry.

Just CC and he can't do a thing.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

DrMark wrote:

More misdirection, with the implication that such a call would be simply to complain...

Sorry, but the police officers I know are professionals. Someone presenting himself as a police officer, yet refusing to identify himself during a professional contact would be a huge red flag to me, raising enough suspicion that I'd feel warranted following up with the police by phone to make sure this person presenting himself as a police officer was legit. 911 or non-emergency number, it wouldn't make much difference in my AO.

mercutio545, was this officer in full uniform, with Richmond insignia and nametag?

Once again you are play the "misdirection" claim game.

What is misdirected. I openly and plainly posted my opinion and expanded on why. Do not try toplay that an explanation is somehow misdirection. :lol:

Most fakers do so in civilian clothes and claim to be a cop. Having nothing to back it up. Not giving your name means nothing if you are in uniform. Look at the name tag if you want to know.

Even a fake cop does not merit a emergency call to 9-1-1.

See for yourself

§ 18.2-426. "Emergency call" and "emergency personnel" defined.

"Emergency call" means a call to report a fire or summon police, or for medical aid or ambulance service, in a situation where human life or property is in jeopardy and the prompt summoning of aid is essential.

If the fake cop is about to do harm... OK...

But a cop in full uniform not givinghis name? Please!!! :lol:

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

longwatch wrote:

Lets find out if Kroger is anti gun before we brand them so. Often enough, underlings act beyond their authority in these matters.

I've gone Krogering many times without an incident and never have seen a no-guns sign at any of their stores.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

DrMark wrote:

More misdirection, with the implication that such a call would be simply to complain...

Sorry, but the police officers I know are professionals. Someone presenting himself as a police officer, yet refusing to identify himself during a professional contact would be a huge red flag to me, raising enough suspicion that I'd feel warranted following up with the police by phone to make sure this person presenting himself as a police officer was legit. 911 or non-emergency number, it wouldn't make much difference in my AO.

mercutio545, was this officer in full uniform, with Richmond insignia and nametag?

Once again you are play the "misdirection" claim game.

What is misdirected. I openly and plainly posted my opinion and expanded on why. Do not try toplay that an explanation is somehow misdirection. :lol:

Most fakers do so in civilian clothes and claim to be a cop. Having nothing to back it up. Not giving your name means nothing if you are in uniform. Look at the name tag if you want to know.

Even a fake cop does not merit a emergency call to 9-1-1.

See for yourself

§ 18.2-426. "Emergency call" and "emergency personnel" defined.

"Emergency call" means a call to report a fire or summon police, or for medical aid or ambulance service, in a situation where human life or property is in jeopardy and the prompt summoning of aid is essential.

If the fake cop is about to do harm... OK...

But a cop in full uniform not givinghis name? Please!!! :lol:

And this "fake cop", was he carrying... A GUN???

Hmmm, let's see:

On the one hand we have the 911 report of a Black man LAWFULLY carrying a gun openly on public transportation - Kosher

On the other hand we have the SUGGESTED 911 report of someone possibly impersonating a police officer WHILE ARMED - NOT Kosher

Makes a person think, DOESN'T it...

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

If there was a tone of command in his voice where you write that he asked for the ID, I might suggest also finding out who he is and send a formal complaint against an extra-legal ID demand.

If there was any tone of authority in his voice, I would think it makes also foran attemptedTerry Stop with that bit about checking to make sure you are allowed to carry a gun. Psuedo-reasonable articulable suspicion, I'm thinking.

Forum,

This is the classic mentality of Citizen with his Anti attitude.

He would actually have you file a complain on the officer forhis tone ofvoice. The officer "asked" for ID and there is nothing wrong in asking.

If his tone was one of authority... while still asking mind you.... somehow THIS is a violation?

I can see it now..

"Yes, I want to file a complaint. I did not like how the asked me for my ID and I think he was trying to Terry stop me. Well, he seemed to speak with some level of authority and I did not like it! No.. I did not show it to himmy ID and he allowed me to leave."

So to the Antis... the police are in violation if:

• They ask for ID
• They speak with authority
• They change their tone of voice
• They attempta Terry stop

UNREAL!!!! :lol:

Well LEO229, I'm not anti-cop in any sense but the tone in which someone says something is very important as to the meaning and connotation of what is said. If he asks politely with a calm voice is one thing, but he could also use a different voice with the exact same words and have the meaning be "if you don't comply you're going to find yourself on the ground with a knee in your back".

Of course as you point out how are you going to prove this later on, unless you have a voice recorder?? Still, it really is improper for him to even ask for ID, even if done nicely, if he has no legal reason to be doing so. Is it not? To prey upon someone hoping they don't know their rights is wrong unless they have actually done something demonstrably wrong. Edit: It's sort of like a citizen walking up to some stranger and asking them, "Are you gay?" (Or even, "Can I see your ID?") Nothing wrong with either of those questions from a legal stand point but a little improper I think.

 

[DrMark]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

DrMark wrote:

More misdirection, with the implication that such a call would be simply to complain...

Sorry, but the police officers I know are professionals. Someone presenting himself as a police officer, yet refusing to identify himself during a professional contact would be a huge red flag to me, raising enough suspicion that I'd feel warranted following up with the police by phone to make sure this person presenting himself as a police officer was legit. 911 or non-emergency number, it wouldn't make much difference in my AO.

mercutio545, was this officer in full uniform, with Richmond insignia and nametag?

Once again you are play the "misdirection" claim game.

What is misdirected. I openly and plainly posted my opinion and expanded on why. Do not try toplay that an explanation is somehow misdirection. :lol:

Most fakers do so in civilian clothes and claim to be a cop. Having nothing to back it up. Not giving your name means nothing if you are in uniform. Look at the name tag if you want to know.

Even a fake cop does not merit a emergency call to 9-1-1.

See for yourself

§ 18.2-426. "Emergency call" and "emergency personnel" defined.

"Emergency call" means a call to report a fire or summon police, or for medical aid or ambulance service, in a situation where human life or property is in jeopardy and the prompt summoning of aid is essential.

If the fake cop is about to do harm... OK...

But a cop in full uniform not givinghis name? Please!!! :lol:

The "officer" in question did not behave like a professional officer would commonly be expected to. Was he in full uniform with a nametag? mercutio545 doesn't know his name. glockfan seems to know who he is, though.

Your misdirection is your repeated deflection from the officer's behavior to unsupported references to 911 calls for the purpose of complaining. No one has suggested 911 be used to complain.

No biggie, though. We're used to your tactics. We know you like to "stir the pot."

Hey, look at it this way: We're giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you willfully stir the pot, and are not as obtuse as you appear.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

And this "fake cop", was he carrying... A GUN???

Hmmm, let's see:

On the one hand we have the 911 report of a Black man LAWFULLY carrying a gun openly on public transportation - Kosher

On the other hand we have the SUGGESTED 911 report of someone possibly impersonating a police officer WHILE ARMED - NOT Kosher

Makes a person think, DOESN'T it...

You mean the cop in uniform?

The one that refused to tell you his name? You have no reason to believe the guy in uniform is NOT a cop.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

Skeptic wrote:

I had no idea Kroger were anti gun nazis.

No more money for them.

Kroger is a GCO corporate Sponsor. Check out the corporate sponsor page at www.GeorgiaCarry.Org

I carry openly there in Georgia all the time.

With that having been said, GCO just filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff in Richmond County for violating the Fourth Amendment and seizing a firearm (that was openly carried). It is the top post on the web page, with a link to the complaint. This occurred in the parking lot of Kroger in Augusta, but we do not have any reason to believe that Kroger had anything to do with the deputy's actions.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

And this "fake cop", was he carrying... A GUN???

Hmmm, let's see:

On the one hand we have the 911 report of a Black man LAWFULLY carrying a gun openly on public transportation - Kosher

On the other hand we have the SUGGESTED 911 report of someone possibly impersonating a police officer WHILE ARMED - NOT Kosher

Makes a person think, DOESN'T it...

You mean the cop in uniform?

The one that refused to tell you his name? You have no reason to believe the guy in uniform is NOT a cop.

No, the guy in a uniform WHICH YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT WAS OBTAINED who CLAIMED to be a cop but wouldn't ID himself. His refusal to identify himself is evidence either that he's NOT a cop, that he knows he's doing something wrong, or BOTH.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

Skeptic wrote:

I had no idea Kroger were anti gun nazis.

No more money for them.

Kroger is a GCO corporate Sponsor. Check out the corporate sponsor page at http://www.GeorgiaCarry.Org

I carry openly there in Georgia all the time.

With that having been said, GCO just filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff in Richmond County for violating the Fourth Amendment and seizing a firearm (that was openly carried). It is the top post on the web page, with a link to the complaint. This occurred in the parking lot of Kroger in Augusta, but we do not have any reason to believe that Kroger had anything to do with the deputy's actions.

More to it....

They took his gun and wanted him to prove he owned it. Might be a good reason to always get a sales receipt during a private purchase. :uhoh:

Then you can sue AND have your gun. Kinda like having your cake and eating it too. :lol:

In closing... they should not have done that... if it does not return as stolen... you gotsta' give it back!!




GCO Sues over “Man with a Gun” Incident[/u]October 4th, 2008

GCO filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against the Sheriff of Richmond County and a Richmond County deputy who detained a GCO member and seized his legally-carried pistol. After checking it to see whether it was stolen, the deputy confiscated the firearm until “proof of purchase” could be provided, and the Sheriff’s Department then refused to return it. The deputy insisted that it is against the law to carry a pistol openly.
This sort of police misconduct is fortunately rare, but it is becoming more common as more Georgians begin carrying firearms.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

In closing... they should not have done that... if it does not return as stolen... you gotsta' give it back!!

Truthfully, they should not have run it in the first place. If the law is that they cannot even seize firearms at a traffic stop without specific facts establishing that the driver is dangerous to the officer, see State v. Jones (cite below), then why would they be permitted to do so for no reason at all in the openly carried firearm pedestrianscenario?



Oh, I almost forgot- http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

Truthfully, they should not have run it in the first place. If the law is that they cannot even seize firearms at a traffic stop without specific facts establishing that the driver is dangerous to the officer, see State v. Jones (cite below), then why would they be permitted to do so for no reason at all in the openly carried firearm pedestrianscenario?



Oh, I almost forgot- http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm

Thanks for the court case.

But do not read into that case the way you think. It is not a law.. it is a court decision.

The court case is about suppressing evidence based on the fact that the officer did not have a valid reason to seize a firearm causing him to find contraban.

The courts stated... "and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous"

Had the officer testified he feared the driver.. the courts would have ruled differently.

So an officer will always have the option to seize a firearm if he feels the the subject in possession is dangerous.

The guy in the video below had a rifle in his car too. He could have waited for the officer to speak to him and return to his cruiser but he did not even let things get that far.

[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/rgqrt67CP7U&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

And this "fake cop", was he carrying... A GUN???

Hmmm, let's see:

On the one hand we have the 911 report of a Black man LAWFULLY carrying a gun openly on public transportation - Kosher

On the other hand we have the SUGGESTED 911 report of someone possibly impersonating a police officer WHILE ARMED - NOT Kosher

Makes a person think, DOESN'T it...

You mean the cop in uniform?

The one that refused to tell you his name? You have no reason to believe the guy in uniform is NOT a cop.

No, the guy in a uniform WHICH YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT WAS OBTAINED who CLAIMED to be a cop but wouldn't ID himself. His refusal to identify himself is evidence either that he's NOT a cop, that he knows he's doing something wrong, or BOTH.

I have no idea how you obtained that gun!!!

So..... your refusal you identify yourself is evidence you are a criminaland doing something wrong!!

If you OC and refuse to identify who you are... you are doing something illegal...

Do I have it correct?

I am sure the OC movement will back you on this.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The courts stated... "and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous"

Had the officer testified he feared the driver.. the courts would have ruled differently.

So an officer will always have the option to seize a firearm if he feels the the subject in possession is dangerous.

Well, no, not exactly. "I feared the driver" is not a specific and articulable fact, much specific and articulable facts based uponconduct on the part of the occupants of the car. You kind of need to put your quote in context.

Georgia decisions agree that in order to justify a search of a vehicle for weapons, some conduct on the part of the occupants such as furtive movements or other indications of danger to the officer must be shown, and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous." Silva v. State, 278 Ga. 506, 508 (604 SE2d 171) (2004) (driver leaned under seat as if to conceal weapon and drove recklessly while in that position, then offered implausible explanation for his conduct.) Here, no evidence was presented of furtive movements or danger.

But I know what you meant.

This is a sea change in the way things are done here in Georgia, as it is common police practice to assume a carte blanche authority on the part of the officer to secure all weapons at a routine traffic stop, and State v. Jones clearly disapproves of this practice. It also overrules a terrible case in Georgia that was never binding precedent. State v. Jones is binding precedent in Georgia.

 

[taurusfan]

imported post

I live just a mile from this Kroger and I'm well familiar with the handful of Richmond police they have working there. They always have a Richmond cruiser parked in front of the store as they work in the evenings.

There is a LOT of theft at this store, I have seen people being arrested several times.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

And this "fake cop", was he carrying... A GUN???

Hmmm, let's see:

On the one hand we have the 911 report of a Black man LAWFULLY carrying a gun openly on public transportation - Kosher

On the other hand we have the SUGGESTED 911 report of someone possibly impersonating a police officer WHILE ARMED - NOT Kosher

Makes a person think, DOESN'T it...

You mean the cop in uniform?

The one that refused to tell you his name? You have no reason to believe the guy in uniform is NOT a cop.

No, the guy in a uniform WHICH YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT WAS OBTAINED who CLAIMED to be a cop but wouldn't ID himself. His refusal to identify himself is evidence either that he's NOT a cop, that he knows he's doing something wrong, or BOTH.

I have no idea how you obtained that gun!!!

So..... your refusal you identify yourself is evidence you are a criminaland doing something wrong!!

If you OC and refuse to identify who you are... you are doing something illegal...

Do I have it correct?

I am sure the OC movement will back you on this.

Nor, absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, is it any business of yours where I got my gun.

Absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, there's no reason for me to identify myself, to you or anyone else.

The SUPPOSED cop initiated the contact, not the OP.

The SUPPOSED cop's behavior was suspect, not the op's.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Thundar wrote:

I would make a huge complaint to Kroger.

This police officer:

1) Was rude - No excuse for this sort of behavior. He needs to learn that while the city of Richmond may tolerate rude public employees, retail employees will not.

2) Threatened misdemeanor arrest when State code calls for a citation for misdemeanors.

3) Police Officer tried to illegally detain you via unwarranted seizure of your drivers license.

4) Ejected you from the store and did not let you return - leave the gun in the car and then come back and finish shopping - (not that you would or should, but your letter does not have to address this.)

5) Police officer immediate ejection did not permit you to come to an amicable solution with the store management.

6 ) Police officer refused to give his name when requested.

Come on!!!! :lol:

1. I did not read anything to show he was "rude."

2. I can tell you I will lock you up if I catch you again... it is not a threat.. It is a promise. To tell someone you will arrest them... can happen in two ways... summons or physical. He did not identify either so you can assume the guy will be gettinga ticket as required by state code.

3. How was he being detained? The cop spoke to him and never stopped him from leaving. There is no seizure if you provide an OL when asked.

4. He can probably ban you from the property as well so why let you back in when you confront him andsay what the OP said. The OP was OK up to a point when he tried to correct the cop.

Had he played it differently.. he could have stored his gun and came back in. I would have done the same thing as the cop and kicked him out for what he said. Someone please QFT this so citizen does not have to. :lol:

5. The officer is an employee of the store and was likely permitted to kick you out immediately. If you have a problem... Call or write the store. Nothing says you get to stay LONGER because you want to complain to the store.

6. Finally... something that is valid!!! :lol: The officer should have given his name. I understand why he did not.. in this situation... but when asked... you are required to do so.


EDIT: Remove sign reference done in error

1) The officer, while operating as a store employee did not start with sir, excuse me. The officer, while operating as a store employee was not courteous toward the customer.

2) The threat of arrest is different than the threat of getting a ticket. As an employee who should be courteous he should be specific in his language.

3) The police officer, acting as an employee took his I.D. That is detained. If you don't believe me just ask Citizen.:lol:

4) The store employee with a badge needed correcting. Tsk, Tsk there is a difference between a cop acting as an employee enforcing store policy and a cop enforcing the law. If you would kick somebody out then you would also need some basic store employee courtesy training.

5) How rude, see complaint #1 above.

6) We still do not know if the rude dude WAS actually a police officer. Call 911 if this happens to you. There are police impostors out there. It is reasonable to assume that a person claiming to be a police officer, but refusing to identify himself is either not an active police officer -maybe suspended, a police officer under the influence or not a police officer. All reasons to summon the police. This is also where I make a plug for Virginia to adopt a mandatory police identification law. It works in states like N.H. and frankly I am shocked that it isn't the law here.