• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Open Carry 2nd Experience

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
imported post

oilfieldtrash11 wrote:
pullnshoot25 wrote:
ib12025a wrote:
Sounds like the deputies did a good jobin determining thatyou were not in violation of any laws.
Are you F*****G insane? They did a horrible job!

You have to be a troll, a cop, or both.
i wouldnt go that far. i would say they are just misinformed. ill give them the benefit of the doubt.
Saying the cops did a good job in this situation is like saying that bombing a an orphanage to get one terrorist was a good tactical move.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

ib12025a wrote:
Sounds like the deputies did a good job in determining that you were not in violation of any laws.



Welcome ib,

Please meet ib12025(f)

If I ignored the 4th Amendment in my job just think of all the bad guys pockets, cars, and homes I could search and then seize without warrant any contraband found.

Can I start with your pockets, car, and home? What about that of your mother? I'll be there at 0300 and please have her assume the prone handcuffing position and don't move as my gunis loaded and I just want to go home to my family every night my oath of office be damned:p. Its for my safety and your mothers.

On a serious note when was the last parolee BG you found OCing in a holster just before committing a crime?


Oh ya, 1916 perhaps
 

ib12025a

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
29
Location
, ,
imported post

How did they do a horrible job? Were you there? If so, what did you see or hear? please inform us.
 

ib12025a

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
29
Location
, ,
imported post

Nope, that didn't work. I don't see any civil rights violation there.
 

Army

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
289
Location
San Luis Obispo, California, USA
imported post

ib12025a wrote:
How did they do a horrible job? Were you there? If so, what did you see or hear? please inform us.
They are ONLY allowed to check the weapon to see if it is loaded.........NOTHING ELSE.

That the incident took 1.5 hours, means the Police were ILLEGALLY detaining Indy.

So yeah, horrible job.
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

Hey Cato, What does Pancho Villa have to do with anything? are you taking a shot at us beaners in general or (more likely) makeing a relatively obscure historical reference to Villa's raid on Columbus, New Mexico
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

ib12025a wrote:
They were legally detained.
So his friend just being there was also detained for what reason again? For being his friend? He was forced to give the officer his information for NO REASON.



What do you have to say on that huh? Yah nothing. Thats what I thought.
 

ib12025a

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
29
Location
, ,
imported post

His friend wasn't detained. He was asked for his information (name, dob) to clear the call. He was free to leave at any time, again, because he wasn't detained.
 

ib12025a

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
29
Location
, ,
imported post

You can't even read name plates. Thereis no Dep. Peter or Dep. Atkins that work there. Call the station and find out for youself.
 

ib12025a

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
29
Location
, ,
imported post

Mykal, since Indy seems so versed in the law, I'm sure that an audio recording does not exist, because he knows that it is against the law to audio record a police officer in the state of California without his or her knowledge and permission.
 

flintlock tom

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
405
Location
San Diego, California, USA
imported post

ib12025a wrote:
Mykal, since Indy seems so versed in the law, I'm sure that an audio recording does not exist, because he knows that it is against the law to audio record a police officer in the state of California without his or her knowledge and permission.
Really? Yikes!
I thought that out in public there is no expectation of privacy so there is no requirement to notify.

Is there a P.C. code that covers this?
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

ib12025a wrote:
Mykal, since Indy seems so versed in the law, I'm sure that an audio recording does not exist, because he knows that it is against the law to audio record a police officer in the state of California without his or her knowledge and permission.

Lies, I tell you, blatant untruths and fabrications. :what:

There is nothing in the Penal Code that supports this statement.

The closest thing deals with "electronic communication" and even there, you can record it as long as you have permission from ONE of the people involved in the conversation. That means that you can record all your own phone calls (in California) without the permission of the other people on the line.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

630. The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and
technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques
for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that
the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing
use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to
the free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a
free and civilized society.
The Legislature by this chapter intends to protect the right of
privacy of the people of this state.
The Legislature recognizes that law enforcement agencies have a
legitimate need to employ modern listening devices and techniques in
the investigation of criminal conduct and the apprehension of
lawbreakers. Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to
place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and
techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the
effective date of this chapter.



631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or
contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any
unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically,
acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or
telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line,
cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication
system,
or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to
the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts
to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report,
or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any
wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place
within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner,
or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so
obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any
person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is
punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and
imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison. If the
person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section
or Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, he or she is punishable
by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment
in the county jail or in the state prison.
(b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged
in the business of providing communications services and facilities,
or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts
otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction,
maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of
the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment,
facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a
public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used
for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and
county, or city correctional facility.
(c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall
be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other
proceeding.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1994.



632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If
the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this
section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000),
by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the
state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) The term "person" includes an individual, business
association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or
other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for
or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether
federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all
parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or
recording the communication.
(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
(d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon
or recording a confidential communication in violation of this
section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative,
legislative, or other proceeding.
(e) This section does not apply (1) to any public utility engaged
in the business of providing communications services and facilities,
or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts
otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of
construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and
facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any
instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used
pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic
communication system used for communication exclusively within a
state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and
similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the
purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds
ordinarily audible to the human ear.


Wow, just like I said "Lies, I tell you, blatant untruths and fabrications."

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the Police have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY while performing there duty in PUBLIC, there is no way that any communication between them and a suspect held in public, can be considered a CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION.

:celebrate
 

ib12025a

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
29
Location
, ,
imported post

631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or
contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any
unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically,
acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or
telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line,
cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication
system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts
to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report,
or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any
wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place
within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner,
or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so
obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any
person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is
punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and
imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison.
 
Top