-
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.
-
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.
Kicked out of Kroger in Richmond, threatened by LEO with arrest.
- Thread starter mercutio545
- Start date
JSK333
Regular Member
imported post
Re: Kroger being anti-gun... when Ohio passed its CHL law in 2004, Kroger immediately put up "no-guns" signs across Cincinnati.
After mass complaints from citizens across the State, including the sending of receipts of money spent at grocery stores in protest, Kroger finally changed their policy (it was statewide), and took down all of the signs.
So, it's interesting to note in light of this experience. They could possibly be anti-gun at their core, but once they realized the magnitude of the money lost, they chased the buck rather than having a principled change. Just one possibility...
Re: Kroger being anti-gun... when Ohio passed its CHL law in 2004, Kroger immediately put up "no-guns" signs across Cincinnati.
After mass complaints from citizens across the State, including the sending of receipts of money spent at grocery stores in protest, Kroger finally changed their policy (it was statewide), and took down all of the signs.
So, it's interesting to note in light of this experience. They could possibly be anti-gun at their core, but once they realized the magnitude of the money lost, they chased the buck rather than having a principled change. Just one possibility...
Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
I don't NEED any.
MeBaby
Regular Member
imported post
glockfan wrote:
glockfan wrote:
What.... was it 229 ??? :lol::lol:Sounds like him, ROFLMAO!!!
imported post
Deanimator wrote:
And when youcannotarticulateany probable reason to base this on... except... "He would not tell me his name!!" You are going to look like a friggin' idiot!!! :lol:
I can hear it now....
"Sir, because the officer would not give you his.... name....so you think he is not real? You're joking, right?Is there another adult there you can put on the phone?"
:lol::celebrate:lol:
Deanimator wrote:
When you call in and report a police officer in uniform is on the corner and you do not believe is real....the call taker is going to ask "why?"....
And when youcannotarticulateany probable reason to base this on... except... "He would not tell me his name!!" You are going to look like a friggin' idiot!!! :lol:
I can hear it now....
"Sir, because the officer would not give you his.... name....so you think he is not real? You're joking, right?Is there another adult there you can put on the phone?"
:lol::celebrate:lol:
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
That's never stopp....
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
He is acting in a very unprofessional manner, has tried to supress my civil rights and won't identify himself. I am fearful of thissuspected imposterand I am armed. If you will not come I will call the state police and use my best discression to defend myself until they arrive. (Just dial 511 for state police).
useful_idiot
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Is it true that uniformed police officers are not required to identify themselves when requested to do so? Are they required to wear a name tag?
SicSemperTyrannis
Regular Member
imported post
Back to Kroger: lots of us have open carried in Richmond area Krogers on a fairlyroutine basis without ever having a problem. The issue is this one officer. Chris (richarcm) and I will be that way Sunday night, and maybe we'll stop in to grab an item or two. The difference will be that we'll have audio and video recording equipment....
Back to Kroger: lots of us have open carried in Richmond area Krogers on a fairlyroutine basis without ever having a problem. The issue is this one officer. Chris (richarcm) and I will be that way Sunday night, and maybe we'll stop in to grab an item or two. The difference will be that we'll have audio and video recording equipment....
imported post
useful_idiot wrote:
They are likely required to wear a name tag so you know who the employee is.
The item in question is... do they have to tell you who they are and even write down their name or provide a business card.
Most departments are likely to require the employee to tell his last name and ever write it down if requested. If they are given business cards... they may be required to present one to you upon request.
I know of no state law that requires an employee to do this.
I have no problem doing any of this when asked. If you are nice about it.. I give you a business card. If you are a jerk.. I write it down when requested.
useful_idiot wrote:
Is it true that uniformed police officers are not required to identify themselves when requested to do so? Are they required to wear a name tag?
They are likely required to wear a name tag so you know who the employee is.
The item in question is... do they have to tell you who they are and even write down their name or provide a business card.
Most departments are likely to require the employee to tell his last name and ever write it down if requested. If they are given business cards... they may be required to present one to you upon request.
I know of no state law that requires an employee to do this.
I have no problem doing any of this when asked. If you are nice about it.. I give you a business card. If you are a jerk.. I write it down when requested.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
How do you know the "cop in unitorm" wasn't this guy (or someone like him)? I guess the victim in this story should not have called 911 either?
http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-03-15/leszkiewicz-fakecops
LEO 229 wrote:
How do you know the "cop in unitorm" wasn't this guy (or someone like him)? I guess the victim in this story should not have called 911 either?
http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-03-15/leszkiewicz-fakecops
imported post
buster81 wrote:
How do you know the guy openly packing a gun is not a Felon?
YOU DON'T!!!
Does this mean the police should start stopping Ocers?
Go to DC and start calling 9-1-1 andI hope your battery is fully changed.... There are 4000 cops you can call on because you think they are not real.
Or New York where you can call on 40,000 :shock:
There are plenty of fakers out there. I do not know of any that dressed in a uniform. This is extremely rare. Most have a car with lights and they pull you over in civilian clothing.
buster81 wrote:
How do you know the guy openly packing a gun is not a Felon?
YOU DON'T!!!
Does this mean the police should start stopping Ocers?
Go to DC and start calling 9-1-1 andI hope your battery is fully changed.... There are 4000 cops you can call on because you think they are not real.
Or New York where you can call on 40,000 :shock:
There are plenty of fakers out there. I do not know of any that dressed in a uniform. This is extremely rare. Most have a car with lights and they pull you over in civilian clothing.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
So the answer is... he should not have called 911?
So the answer is... he should not have called 911?
imported post
buster81 wrote:
IMO.... A cop in full uniform you think it fake that is just standing around is not a 9-1-1 type call.
You have to at least have a reason to believe he is not real. The police do not have the time to respond to calls that have little standing.
A cop not providing his name is far from a crime or an indication he is fake. Some cops chose not to help you create problems for them.
Think about it.... How many people on here freak when a cop asks for their ID??
buster81 wrote:
To call 9-1-1 you need to be reporting an emergency.
IMO.... A cop in full uniform you think it fake that is just standing around is not a 9-1-1 type call.
You have to at least have a reason to believe he is not real. The police do not have the time to respond to calls that have little standing.
A cop not providing his name is far from a crime or an indication he is fake. Some cops chose not to help you create problems for them.
Think about it.... How many people on here freak when a cop asks for their ID??
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Fellas,
I'm not the only one who considers an authoritative/commanding tone an indication of a Terry Stop.
The US Supreme Court had this to say inUS vs Mendenhall:
...Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled... (emphasis added)
LEO229 uses a straw man argument. He asserts that the Kroger officer "asked" and positions me as though I asserted the Kroger officer didn't. Yet, as my post clearly shows, I wrote, "if." He's making up my argumentso he can then makehis.
He also asks, "...this is a violation?" Yet, I never said it was a violation. I urged formal complaint for an attempted violation,if there was authoritative/commanding tone of voice. You or I can be arrested for merely attempting to bring a gun somewhere its not allowed. I see no reason why citizens can't decry attempted abuses by police. We're supposed to let them go on attempting and succeeding unless they occasionally encounter a citizen who knows his rights and asserts them?
It gets better. LEO229 has been over this subject matter before. He knows the score. He's read the case law beforeright here on this veryforum, plus one can assume that hewas trained on itat the police academy. Plus years ofapplying it on the job.
Basically, he's a cop. He knows the whole point of using an authoritative orcommanding tone of voice is to assert authority and to get compliance. Its a control technique. The intention behind it is to bypass your power of choice--the very heart of consent. He knows all this.
So, (rhetorical questions coming) why the mini-rant? What does he gain by having others believe or accept his mis-information?
Link to US vs Mendenhall at Cornell University Law School: http://tinyurl.com/42trgn
LEO 229 wrote:
(sigh)
Fellas,
I'm not the only one who considers an authoritative/commanding tone an indication of a Terry Stop.
The US Supreme Court had this to say inUS vs Mendenhall:
...Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled... (emphasis added)
LEO229 uses a straw man argument. He asserts that the Kroger officer "asked" and positions me as though I asserted the Kroger officer didn't. Yet, as my post clearly shows, I wrote, "if." He's making up my argumentso he can then makehis.
He also asks, "...this is a violation?" Yet, I never said it was a violation. I urged formal complaint for an attempted violation,if there was authoritative/commanding tone of voice. You or I can be arrested for merely attempting to bring a gun somewhere its not allowed. I see no reason why citizens can't decry attempted abuses by police. We're supposed to let them go on attempting and succeeding unless they occasionally encounter a citizen who knows his rights and asserts them?
It gets better. LEO229 has been over this subject matter before. He knows the score. He's read the case law beforeright here on this veryforum, plus one can assume that hewas trained on itat the police academy. Plus years ofapplying it on the job.
Basically, he's a cop. He knows the whole point of using an authoritative orcommanding tone of voice is to assert authority and to get compliance. Its a control technique. The intention behind it is to bypass your power of choice--the very heart of consent. He knows all this.
So, (rhetorical questions coming) why the mini-rant? What does he gain by having others believe or accept his mis-information?
Link to US vs Mendenhall at Cornell University Law School: http://tinyurl.com/42trgn
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Also, notice LEO229 didn't directly address my actual argument. He didn't offer case law to show error on my part.
His commentary is almost entirely an ad hominem attack. Attack the man, rather than his arguments.
Also, please note how he worked in tarring me with our label for the gun controllers--"anti-".
Also, notice LEO229 didn't directly address my actual argument. He didn't offer case law to show error on my part.
His commentary is almost entirely an ad hominem attack. Attack the man, rather than his arguments.
Also, please note how he worked in tarring me with our label for the gun controllers--"anti-".
paramedic70002
Regular Member
imported post
You really want to get that cop by the chandeliers? Forget harassment. Ask him if he pays taxes on his moonlighting job. Then report him to the IRS.
When I worked as a security officer, I met lots of cops that did security, but not one that reported their income. They made a lot more than I did, got to sit around and consume coffee and doughnuts while I was outside in the heat and cold, and to top it off, my @#$% taxes were paying for their uniforms, gun, car, gas, etc. But I'm not bitter.
You really want to get that cop by the chandeliers? Forget harassment. Ask him if he pays taxes on his moonlighting job. Then report him to the IRS.
When I worked as a security officer, I met lots of cops that did security, but not one that reported their income. They made a lot more than I did, got to sit around and consume coffee and doughnuts while I was outside in the heat and cold, and to top it off, my @#$% taxes were paying for their uniforms, gun, car, gas, etc. But I'm not bitter.
kenny
Regular Member
imported post
Off duty employment of personnel is coordinated through police headquarters. Taxes are taken out. It is a liability thing also.
Off duty employment of personnel is coordinated through police headquarters. Taxes are taken out. It is a liability thing also.
imported post
paramedic70002 wrote:
Most locations pay by check and take out taxes. Very, very few actually pay cash. Keeping in mind that you do not have to pay taxes on the first $600 made for each employer either.
Those that pay cash and have officers returning over and over often take down the SSN andif an officerhit $600+ they send the officer a tax form advising their income was reported to the IRS. The business does this so they can get the tax write off on salary.
So feel free to report the cop to the IRS. But unless you have some type of proof that the officer has made a substantial income that was not reported... the heavily burdened IRS will have little interest.
paramedic70002 wrote:
Wow.. vindictive, huh?! :lol:
Most locations pay by check and take out taxes. Very, very few actually pay cash. Keeping in mind that you do not have to pay taxes on the first $600 made for each employer either.
Those that pay cash and have officers returning over and over often take down the SSN andif an officerhit $600+ they send the officer a tax form advising their income was reported to the IRS. The business does this so they can get the tax write off on salary.
So feel free to report the cop to the IRS. But unless you have some type of proof that the officer has made a substantial income that was not reported... the heavily burdened IRS will have little interest.