Rexburg Idaho robbery and telling officers no

[Beantownfan321]

An M4 expels "big bullets?" Unless you are firing a .50 beowulf conversion or something similiar, it definately does not expel "big bullets."

I have no problem with officer's carrying M4s, as I keep one in my vehicle every where I go myself. I have a problem when an officer uses that M4 maliciously, believing he will simply be protected by qualified immunity [Waco].

Should we militarize our police? Hell no! But I do believe we should allow them sufficient tools to properly execute their posistion -- so long as they do so legally.

Big bullets compared to say, a 9mm. Of course, big meaning velocity and power, not physical size or diameter.

(My bolding)

How did the officer use the M4 maliciously? By carrying it? Did I miss something?

Militarize? Can you expand on that for me? I want to be clear on your meaning.

You say let them do their job with sufficient tools, but have a problem with an M4. Do you not see the flawed logic in that?

I encounter, on a regular basis, people who outgun me. Regularly. Why shouldn't I be, at minimum, similarly armed?

 

[skidmark]

What idiots! If you are suspect they need to read you your rights and the number one right is to remain silent. Just because a incident happened in a place does not give officers RAS. Now if you fit the description that might be different, they then would have RAS to ask for name or ID, but that is it.

Sorry, but cops can arrest you, book you, and feed you your 1-week/month/year in jail anniversary meal without ever needing to Mirandize you. The requirement is when they get aound to interrogating you - asking you questions about the crime, your possible involvement in it, or what sort of alibi you would like to try for. Asking you for your name, address, shoe size or if the cuffs are tight enough does not require having the Miranda notice provided.

As for "reading your rights to you" - that's not required, either. Cops read the card at you for two reasons - first to capture on some sort of recording that they in fact made you aware of those rights, that you understood them, and that you waived them, and second to make sure they do not screw up and void the bust of the century on a technicality.

There is no actual "right" to remain silent, or any of the other things lised in the Miranda warning. The right is to not incriminate yourself. The things in the Miranda warning are just the means of making you aware of how you can stop the cops from forcing you to incriminate yourself. The old third degree, with the desk lamp shining in your face, is now a thing of the past - but there is nothing that prevents the cops from holding you in the interrogation room and talking to you about the weather and the Cubbies while everybody is waiting for your attoney to show up.

stay safe.

 

[KYGlockster]

Big bullets compared to say, a 9mm. Of course, big meaning velocity and power, not physical size or diameter.

(My bolding)

How did the officer use the M4 maliciously? By carrying it? Did I miss something?

Militarize? Can you expand on that for me? I want to be clear on your meaning.

You say let them do their job with sufficient tools, but have a problem with an M4. Do you not see the flawed logic in that?

I encounter, on a regular basis, people who outgun me. Regularly. Why shouldn't I be, at minimum, similarly armed?

Ok, you are not making sense to me.

Did I state that the officer in question used an M4 maliciously? Nope, perhaps you should read my post for the cited incident.

Here is the definition for "big": large, as in size, height, width, or amount: a big house; a big quantity.

You referenced "big bullets" in your previous post when discussing the M4; you did NOT mention velocity or energy on target. If you were attempting to use the adjective "big" to reference a paticular caliber's velocity then you certainly chose incorrect terminology. Perhaps "excessive" or "astounding" would have been better.

Did I say I have a problem with officer's carrying an M4 in their vehicle? NO! I plainly stated that I DID NOT have a PROBLEM with them doing so! So why you stated that I have a problem with such an action is beyond me.

How can you NOT clearly understand the meaning of "militarize?"

Its meaning is as "clear" as it can be:

1: to give a military character to


2: to equip with military forces and defenses


3: to adapt for military use

Perhaps you should have read my post before you attempted to critique it.

 

[Beantownfan321]

Ok, you are not making sense to me.

Did I state that the officer in question used an M4 maliciously? Nope, perhaps you should read my post for the cited incident.

Here is the definition for "big": large, as in size, height, width, or amount: a big house; a big quantity.

You referenced "big bullets" in your previous post when discussing the M4; you did NOT mention velocity or energy on target. If you were attempting to use the adjective "big" to reference a paticular caliber's velocity then you certainly chose incorrect terminology. Perhaps "excessive" or "astounding" would have been better.

Did I say I have a problem with officer's carrying an M4 in their vehicle? NO! I plainly stated that I DID NOT have a PROBLEM with them doing so! So why you stated that I have a problem with such an action is beyond me.

How can you NOT clearly understand the meaning of "militarize?"

Its meaning is as "clear" as it can be:

1: to give a military character to


2: to equip with military forces and defenses

3: to adapt for military use

Perhaps you should have read my post before you attempted to critique it.

Sorry, I did use the incorrect words, which I tried to qualify, and explain, but apparently you're looking for an argument based on terminology. That's my bad. And no, excessive is not a term I would use to describe the projectile of the M4. Unless I am hunting rabbits or rats of course.

I politely asked you to explain what you mean by militarize. Do you consider a sniper to be militarizing? Do you consider an M4 to be militarizing? I'd like your opinion as to what you mean and why, as this is a discussion board, and we're here to discuss. I'd like to get your opinion, and offer mine, as it seems that most people's experience with LEO's is negative. Perhaps getting an insiders view and experience would be helpful.

When you say things like you have a problem with officers using M4's maliciously, (which I have a problem with, no matter what the gun. Heck, if he uses a paperclip maliciously, I have a problem with that too) with regards to the OP, nothing he did was malicious as far as I read. Maybe I missed something.
In regards to Waco, that is a whole nother ball of F-up. People should have been tried and put to death for that mess. It just confused me why you would bring up Waco in this thread.

Sorry that my post confused you. I just like to get other people's opinion, no matter if they are in line with mine or not.

Cheers sir!

 

[OC for ME]

Is it typical for cops to carry M4 rifles to conduct a general canvassing of a area looking for a someone or someones? The militarization of LE is evident not in the tools used, but the tactics used. Back in the day, it used to be that a couple of two or three cops would just drive around and try to find a fella who might be the guy they were looking for. Today, as a result of the militarization of LE, overwhelming force of numbers (Aurora) is brought to bear. Where it should be obvious that a couple of two or three cops could have been used.

As to Waco, it is relevant simply because there were very little if any substantive consequences levied on government agents for the deaths of 15 children under the age of 10. As there will be no consequences for the actions of the two cops referenced in the OP.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

This is really bad advice. VERY BAD. Trying to take an officer's firearm is a hugely stupid idea, and will get you killed dang near every time.

Not to mention it's a crime in most places, sometimes a felony.

I often carry an M4. Why can't I carry one? Because it shoots big bullets? Because it holds a lot of them? Why?

YOU can carry in your vehicle a loaded M4, why can't the police? What makes you any different than a LEO?

Using this post to discuss something only vaguely connected. What are your feelings on the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest?

 

[Beantownfan321]

Using this post to discuss something only vaguely connected. What are your feelings on the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest?

Can you cite a source for this? Thanks.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Can you cite a source for this? Thanks.

He was ASKING YOU a QUESTION!! What are you wanting him to cite?

http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Well.......

Considering how many snakes live in Rexberg This ordeal with the OP doesn't surprise me one bit.

I think the OP handled it well though, I don't know if I would've done that considering the circumstances, but I think the OP did well in standing up for his rights.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Can you cite a source for this? Thanks.

Bad Elk vs. U.S. is one.

“One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”

United States v. Di Re,

 

[sudden valley gunner]

He was ASKING YOU a QUESTION!! What are you wanting him to cite?

http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

He's new so I give him the benefit of not knowing what we have discussed here many times over the years.

Plus he's an officer his training and education may have never mentioned much of our common law rights. So this may be a new idea to him, maybe he will learn something and be able to share it with fellow officers, it appears by his other posts he isn't a willy nilly must obey my command I am going to write you up for every little positive law broken type of guy. It does us well to ally ourselves with officers like this.

Or it could be I am not the greatest at expressing my thoughts through my keyboard and he wants clarification.

 

[Freedom1Man]

He's new so I give him the benefit of not knowing what we have discussed here many times over the years.

Plus he's an officer his training and education may have never mentioned much of our common law rights. So this may be a new idea to him, maybe he will learn something and be able to share it with fellow officers, it appears by his other posts he isn't a willy nilly must obey my command I am going to write you up for every little positive law broken type of guy. It does us well to ally ourselves with officers like this.

Or it could be I am not the greatest at expressing my thoughts through my keyboard and he wants clarification.

SVG, please notice, I was nice and linked him to a stack of cases. I sometimes bookmark links like that to educate others in the future.

 

[Beantownfan321]

He was ASKING YOU a QUESTION!! What are you wanting him to cite?

http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

I am fully aware of him asking me a question, thanks. No need to shout at me.

Anyway, thank you for the citation, as I had not know much about it, nor do I still. I'll look at the cases more in depth.

As it stands right now, I am ok with it, if the USSC is. I'll read more about the cases you cited.

 

[Beantownfan321]

He's new so I give him the benefit of not knowing what we have discussed here many times over the years.

No, I had not known that. Thanks.

Plus he's an officer his training and education may have never mentioned much of our common law rights.

Hey, I resent that sir! This just isn't something that I had heard of.

So this may be a new idea to him, maybe he will learn something and be able to share it with fellow officers,

I did, and I most certainly will! Good to know!! I will of course spread the word to my fellow officers.

it appears by his other posts he isn't a willy nilly must obey my command I am going to write you up for every little positive law broken type of guy. It does us well to ally ourselves with officers like this.

Thank you. And no, I am not one of the stereotypical cops that many hate. Not even close.

Or it could be I am not the greatest at expressing my thoughts through my keyboard and he wants clarification.

No, I understood what you were saying, but I wanted to read up on it, and give you an honest, well researched opinion. Plain and simple.

Cheers SVG!!

 

[OC for ME]

Using this post to discuss something only vaguely connected. What are your feelings on the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest?

Please qualify this statement. In Missouri it is unlawful to resist arrest or interfere with a arrest.

Resisting or interfering with arrest--penalty.

575.150. 1. A person commits the crime of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop if,.....

4. It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000150.HTM

There is common law and then there is the written law. YMMV.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

SVG, please notice, I was nice and linked him to a stack of cases. I sometimes bookmark links like that to educate others in the future.

Yes, I didn't mean to contest your post just clarify what could be a misunderstanding.

Hey, I resent that sir! This just isn't something that I had heard of.

No offense meant that was just a bit of teasing , which appears to me you realized, I think we'll get along good.

Please qualify this statement. In Missouri it is unlawful to resist arrest or interfere with a arrest.

There is common law and then there is the written law. YMMV.

Our state supreme court has effectively made it illegal too, overruling previous cases that affirmed our right to resist unlawful arrest, to me because a state or court outlaws a right doesn't take that right away.

I can't put it any better than the lone dissent of Justice Sanders in State vs Valentine.....

http://justicesanders.com/opinions/select/valentine.html

Sanders, J. (dissenting) Ronald Valentine was brutally beaten during the course of an unlawful arrest for a minor traffic infraction. Now this court affirms the criminal conviction of the victim despite the common law rule which clearly provides Valentine a viable legal defense. Mr. Valentine would not give up his liberty without a fight. Neither should we.

This dissent is worth the fight because a great and fundamental principle is at stake. The majority retraces this principle 300 years to The Queen v. Tooley, 2 Ld. Raym. 1296, 92 Eng. Rep. 349, 353 (William Green & Sons 1909) (K.B. 1710). Majority at 17. Then-Chief Justice Holt recognized false arrest and imprisonment are offenses against the Magna Charta itself. The Queen v. Tooley, 92 Eng. Rep. at 353 ("But sure a man ought to be concerned for Magna Charta and the law; and if anyone against the law imprisons a man, he is an offender against the Magna Charta."). The Magna Charta is the earliest and perhaps greatest statement of English-speaking people that even the King is not a law unto himself. Providence help us if the majority is correct that such a "theoretical footing" has "eroded with the passage of time." Majority at 16.

Italics mine.

The law has, from the start, deemed an unlawful arrest an assault and battery. State v. Rousseau, 40 Wash. 2d 92, 95, 241 P.2d 447 (1952). ("’An illegal arrest is an assault and battery,‘") (citing State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72 A.2d 260, 262 (1950)).

Italics mine.

Because this is so, the common law recognized the victim’s legal right to forcibly resist. "Both American and English courts reached the same conclusions concerning the right to resist an unlawful arrest: an assertion of arbitrary authority was a provocation to resist." Chevigny, The Right to Resist an Unlawful Arrest, 78 Yale Law J. 1128, 1132 (1969). The right was recognized long ago as common citizens came to understand they had rights of personal liberty against lords, Crown, and state. Id. at 1137-38. This right to resist unlawful arrest "memorializes one of the principle elements in the heritage of the English revolution: the belief that the will to resist arbitrary authority in a reasonable way is valuable and ought not to be suppressed by the criminal law." Id.; see also L. B. Horrigan & Seymour D. Thompson, Select American Cases on the Law of Self-Defence 716 (1874) ("The law sets such a high value upon the liberty of the{*34} citizen, that an attempt to arrest him unlawfully is esteemed a great provocation . . . .").

 

[sudden valley gunner]

N



I did, and I most certainly will! Good to know!! I will of course spread the word to my fellow officers.

Thank you, I believe the culture currently in place in many LEA's will only change when LEO's change it.

Thank you. And no, I am not one of the stereotypical cops that many hate. Not even close.

As a member of the public , thank you.

No, I understood what you were saying, but I wanted to read up on it, and give you an honest, well researched opinion. Plain and simple.

Cheers SVG!!

Cheers to you too!

 

[OC for ME]

It is a terrible choice to make in the heat of a moment, resist what we perceive is a unlawful arrest and suffer the possible consequences of that resistance. Or, do not resist a perceived unlawful arrest and diminish the number and severity of the possible consequences for our capitulation to the unlawful arrest.

My state has clearly placed LE on notice, if they will take heed of course, via the language of the statute that a unlawful arrest may have severe civil penalties. Though criminal penalties are not explicitly mentioned in the statute, that avenue seems to be gaining some momentum in certain quarters. It seems that some LEAs are more inclined to dole out harsh punishments to those officers who clearly violate existing law via criminal sanctions.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It is a terrible choice to make in the heat of a moment, resist what we perceive is a unlawful arrest and suffer the possible consequences of that resistance. Or, do not resist a perceived unlawful arrest and diminish the number and severity of the possible consequences for our capitulation to the unlawful arrest.

My state has clearly placed LE on notice, if they will take heed of course, via the language of the statute that a unlawful arrest may have severe civil penalties. Though criminal penalties are not explicitly mentioned in the statute, that avenue seems to be gaining some momentum in certain quarters. It seems that some LEAs are more inclined to dole out harsh punishments to those officers who clearly violate existing law via criminal sanctions.

Yep you may beat the rap but you are not going to beat the ride.

It is a terrible place to be put by our government and their agents.

I feel though that if cops knew that the common law right to resist arrest up to fully defending yourself that they would take arrests more seriously and think twice about it.

I personally advocate not physically resisting but also non compliance.

 

[Deanimator]

Yep you may beat the rap but you are not going to beat the ride.

Take the "ride" if necessary, then go on a vendetta limited only by the law.

Police won't obey the law themselves until we start imposing an awesome penalty for them not doing so.

File complaints. Sue. Blacken their names. Don't settle. Don't accept non-disclosure clauses. Make them too expensive to employ. Spread their reputations to make them unemployable in law enforcement.

It they want to act like a hostile army of occupation, make them feel like one.

Actions have consequences.