Open Carry 2nd Experience

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

ib12025a wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

ib12025a wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

ib12025a wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

ib12025a wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

ib12025a wrote:

Post the recordings then. We would love to hear them.

I will bug Mykal about it then. Also, who is "we"?

If you don't mind me asking, what is your definition of "setting up/pouncing upon an officer"? As far as I am concerned, the only people getting set up (on a regular basis) are all the citizens that are legally exercising their rights and getting falsely arrested/imprisoned or their rights violated by agents of the state.

I don't think that most citizens are out to get cops. I do know for a fact, however, that cops are out to get citizens, as their job is to arrest.

"We" as is everyone who participates in this blog. Cops aren't out to get citizens, they are out to catch criminals.

But isn't one still technically a "citizen" until proven guilty or am I using the incorrect terminology?

Wow, you got me there. Let's get rid of all cops, and let everyone have a free for all, because we only arrest citizens. How bout this...a guy breaks into your house one evening, not knowing that you own as many guns as Rambo. You wake up to him making noise in the kitchen. You grab you pistol and sneek up behind him. When you are 21 feet away from him, you tell him that you will shoot him if he moves. He grabs a knife from the counter, turns and charges you. You fire two rounds, striking him in the arm and leg (you still had sleep in your eye, or else I'm sure you would have 10 ringed him). He is alive and bleeding on the kitchen floor as you dial 911. The police show up, but the cops said that he was not going to place him under arrest, because he is not a crimial (it hasn't been proven guilty), he's a citizen.

Dude... are you for real?

Hey pullnshoot25, don't you understand sarcasm when you see it. I guess not. Your are just an ignorant 22 year old kid.

You and CaCop must be friends, you both pull the "deflect and personal attack" strategy. Unfortunately, it never has nor will it ever work in avoiding the harsh light of reality.

I am very ignorant. In fact, I am so ignorant that I am able to school you at your own game. Yup.

Oh, that was sarcasm! Didn't know I had it in me.

You haven't schooled anyone. I didn't attack you personally. I just stated a fact that you are young and naive. Let me know where I can send you $100.00 so you can start saving for law school.

pullnshoot25@hotmail.com . Let me know your badge number and the name of your department so I can tell your supervisor that he needs to raise your department's teaching standards so that lawsuits brought on by police officers attempting to enforce a non-existent law using Constitutionally unauthorized force can be avoided.

Calling me ignorant, using my age to quantify your claim of my ignorance and then telling me that I am incapable of discerning a sarcastic comment is a personal attack, there is no way around that.

We are all still waiting for you to provide the requested case law citations. If you could, please quit beating around the bush and post them.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

Wow, this got horrible VERY fast.

I am sorry IB12025a, welcome to the OCDO forums, now check yourself before it gets worst.

If you are making a comment about the correctness or inaccuracy of a FACT then back it up with a link or some form of evidence. If you have no evidence to back up your assertions then you are not stating or offering FACT you are offering OPINION.

Be sure to understand the difference and observe the forum rules.

That being said, I have a bone to pick with you and your "it isn't seizing, it is inspecting" as well as the assertion that you are not to "close your eyes".

I will concede that you do unfortunately have the legal right to conduct a 12031(e) check. . . It wont be long now before you don't so enjoy it while it lasts...

The plain view doctrine is a concept in criminal law that allows a law enforcement officer to make a search and seizure without obtaining a search warrant if evidence of criminal activity or the product of a crime can be seen without entry or search. Here is what you require to make the "plain view" argument

REQUIREMENTS FOR SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE IN PLAIN VIEW:
1. Law enforcement authority to seize.
2. Law enforcement official must be in a place he/she has a right to be in.
3. Discovery of the evidence must be inadvertent.
4. It must be immediately apparent that what the official has discovered is evidence.

(Above quote obtained here.)

Under California Law:

1. You have authority to seize as a LEO.
2. You are assumed to have a right to be where you are. This is assumed because if I am somewhere you are not allowed or have the right to be you are not allowed to conduct a 12031(e) check as it is no longer a "public place".

I am a little fuzzy on 3 and 4. Did you discover the evidence inadvertently? I think not! You, under threat of arrest, forced the person to provide you the evidence!

Also, you will please kindly notice my use of a LINK as my evidence that I am not merely making up hurdles to the "plain view doctrine". I do not however know the exact PC that grants an LEO the power to seize or the right to be in a place and what ALL those restrictions are. I, for the purpose of demonstration assume that if there is a 12031(e) check being conducted the officer knows when he can and can not be in a place and when a 12031(e) check is authorized and legal as per California Penal Code.


AND I AM SORRY FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THREAD JACKING! (Caps for emphasis.) I just thought this pesky irritation and misuse of "plain sight doctrine" needed to be addressed.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

This thread has been hijacked. I asked once that you not feed the trolls. Now we have 3 pages of threadjacking.

This is disrespectful to the original poster. You all should apologize, and take the argument to PMs. Better still, just stop talking to the trolls.

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

This thread has been hijacked. I asked once that you not feed the trolls. Now we have 3 pages of threadjacking.

This is disrespectful to the original poster. You all should apologize, and take the argument to PMs. Better still, just stop talking to the trolls.

You are right. My apologies to all.

-N8

 

[Evil Tyler Durden]

Man this was a very interesting read to say the least. I am here just looking into UOC for the first time and trying to get info on Long Beach but this was very information filled I thank you all (EXCEPT IB). I felt that this guy was the same D bag that would piss on an electric fence for a Pall Mall. See link for reference. http://cheezburger.com/View/2859646976 :banghead: Anyways, from the stand point I have this "officer" since that is what they are claiming to be is harassing persons on this forum by coming on here and making their statements the way they are. Let it be known that you claiming to be an officer in standing in the state of California, and found to be lying about it is known as :exclaim: IMPERSONATING A PEACE OFFICER and IS a FELONY. :exclaim: Also I would say you really need to work on your communication skills as you are not properly equipped with talking to people. If you would like I can have my 2 year old set you down and teach you PROPER ETIQUETTE. I can also tell your not a peace officer by the way you handled yourself here. Oh and son before you come on here talking trash to me you should learn some act right, obviously your parents didn't teach you a thing when you were growing up because....
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO ACT RIGHT.

Anyways SORRY for the rant and Thread Jacking. I hope I get to OC with some of you very soon, as I would like to gain some experience in this matter.

Check the link out too, I bet it was ib.

 

[MKEgal]

...under exigent circumstances... your scope of search is limited to the safety of other people who may be inside of the apartment.

Cool! Could you post or PM the link to your reference materials for this?

...Regal Cinemas... strict no-guns policy. Even applies to LEOs. I would dislike being an officer and responding to a call there... "Yeah, I'd love to come in and help but... Your company does not allow anyone with firearms in. Can you tell the bad guy(s) to come out here?" :lol:

That would be great to witness, but I think the officer would probably get in trouble for it.
That is, however, an excellent scenario to raise when asking companies to change their policies.
Also, remind them that by prohibiting your own self-defense, they're increasing their liability, which their insurance co. may not like.

My only issue i had was being detained just because i 'knew' Indy, and he used that as an excuse to ID me.

Known associate of a dangerous criminal, donchaknow?

I would be tempted to ask, "What facts can you articulate that would lead a reasonable person to believe the property is stolen?

Pretty soon that unconstitutional law will go away, and hopefully CA will eventually allow its citizens the same rights as most of the rest of the country has.

His friend wasn't detained.

The officer said he was.
Even though it wasn't legal, he was detained.

The only problem I have is that you try to target the police into doing something you believe is wrong.

While I've never carried in CA (and probably never will even visit unless they get their laws in line with the US Constitution) I've had several interactions with officers while carrying.
I've never done anything to tempt or bait or coerce them into breaking laws - they did it all on their own. I was peacefully and legally exercising whatever Constitutionally-protected rights I felt like at the time. They broke laws.
One federal civil rights suit (1983) won, the second is in the works.

Even the unconstitutional e-check there in CA does not require officers to perform the unwarranted search, only permits it to be done. So if there's some reason to think that a person is carrying loaded (oh, say, there's a magazine inserted?) then there's reasonable articulable suspicion of a "crime", & therefore the search is legal.

 

[donny]

Lmao. The thread is 3 years old. And Evil is obviously no older than 16...

 

[Gunslinger]

Very amusing thread. Now for the quiz:

A> Kalifornia kops are your friends and support your rights.
B> Kalifornia kops can't spell for poop and don't know what 'syntax' means.
C> The average IQ of a Kalifornia Kop is 83.
Which is/are the correct statement/s?

A.
B.
C.
both B and C

Prize for the right answer: You get to OC an unloaded gun...and give up your 4th Amendment rights