Maplewood 911 Call and Dispatch Audio from Open Carry Incident

[xc9subcompact]

We have previously discussed the existence of the video/audio in the time from Brett being placed in the car and it begins to roll. You can ignore it, you can doubt it. But it supports everything he has told us. I hear the police telling his he can't OC, then that he can't OC without a permit. Then he is in the car. Then the car is moving, then the warrant confirmation is heard.

Was his bond not refunded? Really? Is that your attempt at comedy?

How does them firing the individual responsible help Brett? The city and other similar entities are responsible fo the actions of their employees.
The ultimate reason for arrest, as they finally decided by the time they all got to jail was for the warrant. But they lucked out (or at least they think they lucked out) in that they would have looked really bad if they got to the jail and then changed their minds about locking him up.

I think I can summarize your position as compared to mine:
If one were to try and put an price on one's freedom, I think mine has a higher price than you own.

 

[lancers]

I don't think you're getting it. When dispatch shows in their records that there is an active warrant that is probable cause to arrest. The police officers have limited resources in the field and utilized dispatch. Dispatch says it shows active the cops take it as verified or validated. At this point even if you dont agree this wasnt enough verification the police has reasonable suspicion to detain you, until they verified, which they did, which turned out to be facially valid. So despite all of the above the point it moot because the result would have remained the same. You were arrested on a warrant that the officers had no way of knowing would later be dismissed. Where we disagree is on what verification is.

And you say the initial dispatch response was not verification enough, yet they pursued further verification which also listed as solid. You were arrested on an active warrant. Period. What came after with a different agency is a separate matter between you and that agency.


They believed in good faith that warrant was valid and they had cause to arrest. Further validation in the car simply reinforced or reaffirmed their initial action.

They ran your name and dispatch showed and active warrant, how is this not confirmation that you have a warrant.

If they check, and their records show an active warrant, how is that not confirmation that you have a warrant? I'm not familiar with specific systems it just seems logical that a modern police database that showed you having an active warrant wasnt going to be wrong, and it wasnt.

I see what you are arguing but I think it is stupid, as the fundamental point is, the officers and chief stated they arrested you when your identification came back saying you had a warrant. This is what the records will show, you were arrested on an active warrant, a warrant that was shown to be legit and that the officers had no way of knowing wasnt legit. Your policy argument is simply pointless. This is how i see it,

"oh they arrested me on a warrant before taking more in depth steps to verify beyond a reasonable doubt that the warrant was valid at that exact point during an in-field on-the-job location stop! However, when they did take the more in depth steps moments later, they found the warrant to be valid and their arrest to be completely legitimate given the circumstances"

My question is what difference does it make? What point are you trying to make? If you arent going to pursue a civil case why even post such a moot point?

"If the warrant is not verified, the officer will not arrest based on the warrant"

Please explain to me what that means then? The way you see, finding out about the warrant is confirmation. Does that mean that policy means don't arrest someone off the street and take them to jail for a warrant when you have no idea if they have a warrant?

That would be like if I asked you if I just randomly asked someone you know, without ever asking you, if you graduated high school. If they say, "yes". Is that confirmation?

You also completely ignore the fact the two police officers asked for "confirmation". Did you miss that? The problem is you just don't understand how the system works. The whole point of confirmation is because the database is often times wrong. The running a suspect's name through the system is the "check" and the calling the department is the "confirmation/validation"

Like I said, ask any police officer what it means to confirm a warrant. It certainly does mean to check for one.

My question is what difference does it make? What point are you trying to make? If you arent going to pursue a civil case why even post such a moot point?

The point is I was going to jail, warrant or not, for open carrying.

 

[lancers]

ChiangShih, follow this thread:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/sh...-confirm-a-warrant-quot&p=2723147#post2723147

 

[Citizen]

ChiangShih, follow this thread:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/sh...-confirm-a-warrant-quot&p=2723147#post2723147

Muhahahahahaha!! We must be slowly assimilating them--they have switched to vBulletin.

 

[Tony4310]

Lol, this is true, and there is less over all regulation on OC in the KC and mid-mo region.

That is because St.Louis and the County are run by liberals!

 

[mspgunner]

That is because St.Louis and the County are run by liberals!

YES THEY ARE! Oh, I put another post on the maplewood "patch". I suggested the people of Maplewood speak at the public comment portion of their City Council meeting. They stated they don't give rats Ax what the people out side of Maplewood think. Maybe there are some folks in the City of Maplewood who do care about their 2A rights. we'll see. It would take a packed city council chamber to change the "ban" on OC, I don't predict that will happen. SHEEEP!

 

[MK]

It amazes me that the people who are giving Brett a hard time about the warrant being the cause of the arrest when its clear that he was already detained, cuffed, disarmed, forced to ID and then physically taken for the scene of the initial detention (which in effect is an arrest) before the warrant ever even came into play.

Even if Brett gave them all the reason in the world (fictional scenario) after he was in that police car traveling from the scene by doing something like trying to fight, spitting in the car, threatening or whatever they could have legally arrested him and charged him for, nothing changes that the initial detention, the disarming, forcing him to ID was still a violation of his rights if RAS wasn't established which I have yet to see one bit of evidence that it was. This doesn't even take into account that he was actually being arrested for a weapons violation that didn't even exist and still doesn't exist, that was due to the initial detention in the first place.

What was the case from New Mexico again? St John vs Alamogardo:

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...olice-pay-21-000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit

On September 8, 2009, Federal District Judge Bruce D. Black, issued an order previously examined here, that concluded as a matter of law that Alamogordo police officiers violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate court rulings, including the United States Supreme Court, holding that there is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment.

What part of this do some of you OC'ers not respect or at least understand?

This whole event shouldn't have even happened in the first place and in my opinion its a slap to the face of every law abiding OCer in our State.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

I'd love to see that play out. And I think he may win.

If he had a lawyer ....

 

[xc9subcompact]

The illegal seizure may not be diminished because you refuse to reclaim your property.

With the utmost respect for your opinion, I don't see it that way. If part of his claim for damages were to include the value of the gun, an XD9Subcompact is worth $300-450 used. It is hard to claim a damage where you have basically abandoned the property.

If it were me, I would pick it up with a witness who would accompany me all the way to a FFL where I would trade it in for a new one. And I would video the entire show. Then I would mail a copy of the video to the Maplewood Police Department in C/O the Chief. Then I would upload that video to youtube. I think that would put any shenanigans regarding any later ballistics "match" in some crime to rest as far as I was concerned.

 

[nrepuyan]

Dude, Chiang and I have argued with this guy and his cohorts for a while now, there is no use. You are completely right, he does have a tendency to do retarded things and it actually causes really heated discussion. These kind of people make it difficult to associate ones self with this effort. We see one major difference between the KC side and STL side: KC tries to change public opinion through demonstrating normal armed daily life. STL tries to change legislation by baiting LEOs and suing municipalities. Results are pretty clear, we haven't caused any ordinances to be passed against our side.

guess we should have called a news crew to video tape us at a starbucks instead.....i knew we should have gone for the 15 secs of fame on tv and a piss poor reporting job.....

 

[lancers]

They would probably try to hand it over to me in plain site and then charge me with open carry as soon as I touch it.

 

[mspgunner]

Some people just don't get it. If the OC crowd is challenging to LEOs all the publicitity is negative. That wil lget the OC movement no where. I spoke with many legislators in Jeff City on many seperate occassions. Many flat out said the incident in Maplewood obliterated any chance of chance of changing the Missouri Statutes regarding OC.
Not being critical here, just stating the facts. KC does a great job of promoting OC, this side of the state has less participants and bad press. To change the course of events here will take a while....

 

[xc9subcompact]

KC has more participants because?????

 

[LMTD]

KC has more participants because?????

Because OC opinions vary significantly and some of the cowboy methods, attitudes, and expressed ideals do not fit well within the political climate. Some folks seemed at first to be forgetting but it is clear now they are pretty much ignorant of some real simple facts. Instead of recognizing that the political climate is indeed liberal they act like jack asses and say that anyone whom respects it is a sympathizer, simply because they are ignorant.

It certainly was no secret that STL most certainly was responsible for the defeat of the popular vote for CCW. If you think that it is going to be a highly accepted practice to openly carry firearms in the metro are, you are remaining to stay ignorant.

Welcome to the lime light, the reality is there are one hell of a lot more folks whom are going to boo than there are whom are going to cheer.

Legislatively, it is OVER until next February.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

Because OC opinions vary significantly and some of the cowboy methods, attitudes, and expressed ideals do not fit well within the political climate. Some folks seemed at first to be forgetting but it is clear now they are pretty much ignorant of some real simple facts. Instead of recognizing that the political climate is indeed liberal they act like jack asses and say that anyone whom respects it is a sympathizer, simply because they are ignorant.

It certainly was no secret that STL most certainly was responsible for the defeat of the popular vote for CCW. If you think that it is going to be a highly accepted practice to openly carry firearms in the metro are, you are remaining to stay ignorant.

Welcome to the lime light, the reality is there are one hell of a lot more folks whom are going to boo than there are whom are going to cheer.

Legislatively, it is OVER until next February.

EXACTLY ! :exclaim:

 

[xc9subcompact]

Looking back on what OC practices I can find in the STL area, it appears that nearly any OC practice is met with a challenge by the police. This seems to be the norm for any OC regardless of 1 person or a small group. Why do they seem to avoid the challenge in the KC area?

 

[nrepuyan]

Some people just don't get it. If the OC crowd is challenging to LEOs all the publicitity is negative. That wil lget the OC movement no where. I spoke with many legislators in Jeff City on many seperate occassions. Many flat out said the incident in Maplewood obliterated any chance of chance of changing the Missouri Statutes regarding OC.
Not being critical here, just stating the facts. KC does a great job of promoting OC, this side of the state has less participants and bad press. To change the course of events here will take a while....

yes...kc has done such a great job with promoting oc....jesus...you make it sound like it's a bunch of kids running around passing out fliers for a rave or something..... kc has no better or worse chance at oc than you or i or the next guy. the only difference is they managed to get a poorly reported upon "get together" shown on tv. i believe someone said it best when....people oc everyday and things happen, it just doesn't always make the news. anyone who participates participates in oc knowing what kinds of extreme anti 2A people are out there, in their own minuscule way baits a response even if unintentional...whether from police or the public....the only difference i see between stl and kc is, kc managed to do their baiting at one event with a news crew present and stl well, hasn't. big deal. to change the course of events here? really? stl co has long been on the verge of banning oc...and the fact that stlcopd wants to eliminate every single municipality's departments and take over proves that....

 

[mspgunner]

because oc opinions vary significantly and some of the cowboy methods, attitudes, and expressed ideals do not fit well within the political climate. Some folks seemed at first to be forgetting but it is clear now they are pretty much ignorant of some real simple facts. Instead of recognizing that the political climate is indeed liberal they act like jack asses and say that anyone whom respects it is a sympathizer, simply because they are ignorant.

It certainly was no secret that stl most certainly was responsible for the defeat of the popular vote for ccw. If you think that it is going to be a highly accepted practice to openly carry firearms in the metro are, you are remaining to stay ignorant.

Welcome to the lime light, the reality is there are one hell of a lot more folks whom are going to boo than there are whom are going to cheer.

Legislatively, it is over until next february.

excactly