imported post
para_org wrote:
BCLS is absolutely correct when he states the deputy has an ID card; on it it will have his photo and wording to the effect that the named person is acting under(in the mame of)the authority(power) of the Sheriff. I know this to be fact as it is an identical ID we carried while serving on the Sheriff's Posse(not in your area); the only difference is that our's read, "Posse', and the green shirt's reads, "Certified".
Your situation is actually a pradox: A paradox because the deputy was deamdning of you an "permit' which under law does not exist; one cannot display/offer up something which does not exist. Perhaps you may wish to consider thsi; if and when a situation such as thsi were to occur again, submit to the LEO that in so far as you are aware there is not "statutory" requirement for a permit to OC, I'm unable to show/give you what the law, as I understand it,does not require of me; therefore would you please cite for me the specific "statute"that requires such a permit. You've now placed the onus on him to qaulify, legally/lawfully his contact with you. Will this make him go away, perhaps not; they do not like to lose a dog fight to the dumb citizen. However, in this phrasing, your request to him/her you've been polite(always be polite), and are requesting, respectfully, for him/her to cite the law to you. When you speak there language one generally will gain a bit more of their attention, and hopefully they'll stand down a bit and become less of a "belligerent" and a bit more civil. They are to accustomed to the willing, complacent citizen.
On a side note, everyone speaks about "probable cause"; many stops/contacts with LEOs' now take place under "probable suspicion", thats their new excuse to harass. Were this deputy dragged into court the defending county counsel would ask him, on the witness stand, why he dealt with you, and his response would relate to some gobbly-gook probable suspicion....guy's got a gun...most folks don't carry guns around in a civilzed society..., ect., and so I felt compelled to check him out, AND, most juries will buy that line; you lose; go home; and have spent a lot of money on an attorney for nothing, UNLESS one is competent enough as a pro-se to deal with it by one's self.
However if one does file a civil suit, the sheriff must also be named, in addition to the deputy, because the deputy acts ONLY under and in the name of the sheriff; the deputy is his, sheriff's, agent. This is what is referred to in alw as the "principle and agent"; the priciple, sheriff, is responsible(laible) for the act(s) of his agent(deputy). The deputy does not hold or exercise a constitutional office, only the sheriff does.
para_org wrote:
BCLS is absolutely correct when he states the deputy has an ID card; on it it will have his photo and wording to the effect that the named person is acting under(in the mame of)the authority(power) of the Sheriff. I know this to be fact as it is an identical ID we carried while serving on the Sheriff's Posse(not in your area); the only difference is that our's read, "Posse', and the green shirt's reads, "Certified".
Your situation is actually a pradox: A paradox because the deputy was deamdning of you an "permit' which under law does not exist; one cannot display/offer up something which does not exist. Perhaps you may wish to consider thsi; if and when a situation such as thsi were to occur again, submit to the LEO that in so far as you are aware there is not "statutory" requirement for a permit to OC, I'm unable to show/give you what the law, as I understand it,does not require of me; therefore would you please cite for me the specific "statute"that requires such a permit. You've now placed the onus on him to qaulify, legally/lawfully his contact with you. Will this make him go away, perhaps not; they do not like to lose a dog fight to the dumb citizen. However, in this phrasing, your request to him/her you've been polite(always be polite), and are requesting, respectfully, for him/her to cite the law to you. When you speak there language one generally will gain a bit more of their attention, and hopefully they'll stand down a bit and become less of a "belligerent" and a bit more civil. They are to accustomed to the willing, complacent citizen.
On a side note, everyone speaks about "probable cause"; many stops/contacts with LEOs' now take place under "probable suspicion", thats their new excuse to harass. Were this deputy dragged into court the defending county counsel would ask him, on the witness stand, why he dealt with you, and his response would relate to some gobbly-gook probable suspicion....guy's got a gun...most folks don't carry guns around in a civilzed society..., ect., and so I felt compelled to check him out, AND, most juries will buy that line; you lose; go home; and have spent a lot of money on an attorney for nothing, UNLESS one is competent enough as a pro-se to deal with it by one's self.
However if one does file a civil suit, the sheriff must also be named, in addition to the deputy, because the deputy acts ONLY under and in the name of the sheriff; the deputy is his, sheriff's, agent. This is what is referred to in alw as the "principle and agent"; the priciple, sheriff, is responsible(laible) for the act(s) of his agent(deputy). The deputy does not hold or exercise a constitutional office, only the sheriff does.
