PDA

View Full Version : Posted my detainment story


pullnshoot25
04-24-2009, 4:45 PM
Posted my 4-07-09 UOC detainment story on the blog. I have another one in the works from El Cajon Police Department and that one shall be issued at a later date due to a possible pending lawsuit.

MP301
04-24-2009, 4:47 PM
Posted my 4-07-09 UOC detainment story on the blog. I have another one in the works from El Cajon Police Department and that one shall be issued at a later date due to a possible pending lawsuit.

Linky????

WokMaster1
04-24-2009, 4:55 PM
See the OPEN CARRY CALIFORNIA!!! below his post?;)

WokMaster1
04-24-2009, 5:08 PM
OP, I see you were alone on that occasion. No wonder they felt more daring because no one was watching & recording them.

You should have also asked them for a shift supe to complain to & ask for an incident number. Sad that these officers still don't get it.

ZRX61
04-24-2009, 5:15 PM
You OC'd a shotgun in Denny's?? LOL!

pnkssbtz
04-24-2009, 5:23 PM
He was detaining you to find out if you broke a law? WTF is that?

That guy was scum. A disgrace to the other upstanding officers. His partner is also scum for not stopping an illegal search and seizure.

CmpsdNoMore
04-24-2009, 6:13 PM
Hopefully this works out good for you.

I can't believe the officer could actually state he didn't know what the voice recorder was, but was able to disable it.

pnkssbtz
04-24-2009, 6:14 PM
Hopefully this works out good for you.

I can't believe the officer could actually state he didn't know what the voice recorder was, but was able to disable it.I'm more upset at the comment about him detaining to see if he did do anything wrong.

It's supposed to be the other way around.

Doggboy
04-24-2009, 6:23 PM
I like the line about being a slow writer as he writes down the serial number which his own OC memo says IS NOT allowed! Good job standing your ground and going after this punk.:thumbsup:

Untamed1972
04-24-2009, 6:34 PM
I'm more upset at the comment about him detaining to see if he did do anything wrong.

It's supposed to be the other way around.

Sounds like he admitted to not having any RS/PC. To bad it isn't on tape because I'm sure he'll deny saying that when he is questioned about it.

Cougar125
04-24-2009, 6:38 PM
I'd be wanting a new voice recorder saying he broke it.

xxdabroxx
04-24-2009, 7:20 PM
I'd be wanting a new voice recorder saying he broke it.

that would make no sense. :nono:

Keep up the good fight, because now we have one! :thumbsup::chris:

who is going around giving threads low ratings again, do you want to lose the feature again?

DDT
04-24-2009, 8:54 PM
It would be particularly nice if your students would file a claim for illegal search and detention.

nobody_special
04-24-2009, 8:59 PM
You had witnesses, right? I'd consider talking to a lawyer.

AEC1
04-24-2009, 9:33 PM
What an idiot...

ZRX61
04-24-2009, 11:09 PM
Re the OC shotgun in Denny's.... within 600ft of a K-12 school... Isn't that in violation of Fed law? Or am I talking thru my hat...

pullnshoot25
04-24-2009, 11:51 PM
OP, I see you were alone on that occasion. No wonder they felt more daring because no one was watching & recording them.

You should have also asked them for a shift supe to complain to & ask for an incident number. Sad that these officers still don't get it.

I had two kids with me (14 and 16) that I was tutoring in Spanish.

I got the complaint number before I left the scene.

I have Escondido by the balls, I am trying to be a guest lecturer for them so they know what the hell is going on.

In the words of the IA officer... "If your goal is to educate, you have our attention".... oh yeah. ;)

tankerman
04-25-2009, 5:43 AM
You OC'd a shotgun in Denny's?? LOL!
:useless:
:useless:
:useless:
:useless:
:useless:

Soldier415
04-25-2009, 6:16 AM
Definately need pics or vid of the shotgun in denny's

Midian
04-25-2009, 6:42 AM
In the words of the IA officer... "If your goal is to educate, you have our attention".... oh yeah. ;)

You did a great job of documenting this incident on your blog. Spreading the word is essential. Well done.

You might want to tell this story on some of the Patriot Movement radio shows. I'll wager Jones would have you on.

Vidiot
04-25-2009, 8:21 AM
Sounds like he admitted to not having any RS/PC. To bad it isn't on tape because I'm sure he'll deny saying that when he is questioned about it.

Seems like the takeaway from this is, if you can carry one voice recorder, you can carry two...or more. A big obvious one on your belt for them to remove and disable, and one or two small ones hidden under your clothes.

It would be truly entertaining to see the officer try to explain his actions when faced with another recording. And even if the second recorder didn't capture all the details of the stop, it might establish a timeline that conflicts with the officers statements or report.

PonchoTA
04-25-2009, 9:09 AM
Are you N8 on the blog? If so, great stories! Glad you stuck to your 'guns', so to speak!

Minor edit note: You mention several times about a "schpeal", it should be "spiel"! :rofl: Other than that, great writeup! Looking forward to reading more!

:cheers2:
Paul

MP301
04-25-2009, 9:50 AM
Posted my 4-07-09 UOC detainment story on the blog. I have another one in the works from El Cajon Police Department and that one shall be issued at a later date due to a possible pending lawsuit.

I listened to the recording of Ruff. I think everyone should listen to it because it shows a biased idiot in all his glory. I wouldnt elect this guy to dog catcher. He can say all he wants that he is pro-gun, but what I hear coming out of his mouth is anti gun BS...like more guns equal more crime... I find it interesting how he wants to use mexico as an example (in the wrong context even) but does not want to use examples of other states where open carry isnt an issue and LE in those states are not wetting down there legs when they have to talk to someone with a gun.

I want to point out...and I wish someone there would have brought up when Ruff said that gangbangers would have the same right to open carry that if you are a gangbanger, you are under CA law a criminal and dont have any gun rights in the first place...so it does not apply...

Anyone who votes for this guy has their head up their respective A**. He is another LE elitist who really doesnt have a clue.....He pisses me off.

pullnshoot25
04-25-2009, 9:51 AM
Are you N8 on the blog? If so, great stories! Glad you stuck to your 'guns', so to speak!

Minor edit note: You mention several times about a "schpeal", it should be "spiel"! :rolf: Other than that, great writeup! Looking forward to reading more!

:cheers2:
Paul

I am none other than N8!

Corrections inbound! I always strive for good grammar!

demnogis
04-25-2009, 11:02 AM
Pullnshoot25, after your adventures at Denny's the other day, I thought I would try OCing there. Went to lunch with a bunch of co-workers... No issues!

PonchoTA
04-25-2009, 11:26 AM
I am none other than N8!

Corrections inbound! I always strive for good grammar!
:thumbsup:

pullnshoot25
04-25-2009, 2:33 PM
Pullnshoot25, after your adventures at Denny's the other day, I thought I would try OCing there. Went to lunch with a bunch of co-workers... No issues!

Yay diggity!

Racefiend
04-25-2009, 2:43 PM
I want to point out...and I wish someone there would have brought up when Ruff said that gangbangers would have the same right to open carry that if you are a gangbanger, you are under CA law a criminal and dont have any gun rights in the first place...so it does not apply...




Actually, it kind of does. If the officer does not know him personally to be a ganbanger, he is just another citizen. The officer cannot ask for ID to find out. So while he does not have the right, he can do it without persecution.

wash
04-25-2009, 2:46 PM
I have Escondido by the balls, I am trying to be a guest lecturer for them so they know what the hell is going on.

In the words of the IA officer... "If your goal is to educate, you have our attention".... oh yeah. ;)
I hope you are getting the right kind of attention.

It might be time for a second, more discrete voice recorder.

In SF there is a spy shop, I'm sure you can find stuff on line. Perhaps a 900 mhz wireless mic with a receiver and recorder in your car/bag. Sew it in to your shirt and let the cops believe that they have disabled your only recording device.

Macadelic4
04-25-2009, 2:48 PM
I listened to the recording of Ruff. I think everyone should listen to it because it shows a biased idiot in all his glory. I wouldnt elect this guy to dog catcher...

Anyone who votes for this guy has their head up their respective A**. He is another LE elitist who really doesnt have a clue.....He pisses me off.

+1. Dude, this Ruff guy could not logic his way out of a paper bag. I was there with pullnshoot when he was "speaking" and I literally lost all faith in my elected officials.

EVERY CALGUNNER in San Diego should really listen to Ruff lecture us about how officers are justified in "do[ing] you".

demnogis
04-25-2009, 2:54 PM
This official sounds like Flynn.

LexRex
04-25-2009, 3:45 PM
"Don't reach for your gun or you'll get SHOT, OKAY?!"

LexRex
04-25-2009, 3:48 PM
oh, and for iphone users, there is a really good app called italk. its free, and its a voice recorder that works really well. start it up, press the lock button, and have the bottom of the phone sticking out of your pocket.

pullnshoot25
04-25-2009, 3:49 PM
"Don't reach for your gun or you'll get SHOT, OKAY?!"

One of my favorite lines.

By the way, I am not sure if you guys noticed but in the audio of the Escondido PD detainment you can hear a helicopter. I didn't notice it until I processed the audio but the police department really did launch a chopper when they got the MWAG call.

Theseus
04-25-2009, 4:09 PM
:ninja:

LexRex
04-25-2009, 4:14 PM
wait, you said you open carried into dennys and its 600' from a school? isnt that illegal? oh, and you should upload the audio of the Q&A, that would be helpful, or if you have any audio from lectures with the FAQ's....

pullnshoot25
04-25-2009, 5:06 PM
wait, you said you open carried into dennys and its 600' from a school? isnt that illegal? oh, and you should upload the audio of the Q&A, that would be helpful, or if you have any audio from lectures with the FAQ's....

I didn't have my recorder on during that, as I switched it on when I figured it would be really good to get some of Ruff's verbiage on record.

Carrying a long gun (barrel >16") within 1000' of a school is OK.

LexRex
04-25-2009, 5:14 PM
I didn't have my recorder on during that, as I switched it on when I figured it would be really good to get some of Ruff's verbiage on record.

Carrying a long gun (barrel >16") within 1000' of a school is OK.


REALLY?? wow, ok, so now i've got to add another question to my FAQ thread.

CmpsdNoMore
04-25-2009, 6:07 PM
the police department really did launch a chopper when they got the MWAG call.

Glad to see tax dollars are being put to good use... [/sarcasm]

pullnshoot25
04-25-2009, 6:40 PM
Glad to see tax dollars are being put to good use... [/sarcasm]

Yep. I was such a threat while walking from one store to another, waiting at the crosswalk in between.

Funny story: I told the Internal Affairs guy that I normally would have just jaywalked to cross the street to save me the distance, but if I were to do so then I might have had to produce my identification, thus I waited at the crosswalk. Despite my efforts though, my identification was pulled.

FAIL!

CitaDeL
04-25-2009, 7:34 PM
Glad to see tax dollars are being put to good use... [/sarcasm]

I agree- the police shouldnt chose to squander resources on investigating a non-crime.

MP301
04-25-2009, 9:49 PM
Actually, it kind of does. If the officer does not know him personally to be a ganbanger, he is just another citizen. The officer cannot ask for ID to find out. So while he does not have the right, he can do it without persecution.

I, and none of all of the LEO friends I have have never, ever seen a gangbanger open carry anything. And for that matter, LEO's can spot a gangbanger 99 out of 100 times by the way they dress and act... So no, the "just another citizen" thing doesnt fly... Could a gangbanger dress and act right? Sure, and Nancy Polisi could be the next pres. of the NRA... Lets stick with reality please...

MP301
04-25-2009, 9:52 PM
I hope you are getting the right kind of attention.

It might be time for a second, more discrete voice recorder.

In SF there is a spy shop, I'm sure you can find stuff on line. Perhaps a 900 mhz wireless mic with a receiver and recorder in your car/bag. Sew it in to your shirt and let the cops believe that they have disabled your only recording device.

I have an idea...new rule for open carry...a second (hidden) recorder or a second person with one.....it would be a nice surprise to play the secret recording in court...Peace officers have no legal expectation of privacy while coming into contact with citizens anymore then citozens do...

MP301
04-25-2009, 9:53 PM
+1. Dude, this Ruff guy could not logic his way out of a paper bag. I was there with pullnshoot when he was "speaking" and I literally lost all faith in my elected officials.

EVERY CALGUNNER in San Diego should really listen to Ruff lecture us about how officers are justified in "do[ing] you".

Yeah, wasnt that a stupid ignorant thing to say? F him...

HkUSP45
04-25-2009, 10:17 PM
Yep. I was such a threat while walking from one store to another, waiting at the crosswalk in between.

Funny story: I told the Internal Affairs guy that I normally would have just jaywalked to cross the street to save me the distance, but if I were to do so then I might have had to produce my identification, thus I waited at the crosswalk. Despite my efforts though, my identification was pulled.

FAIL!

When the next open carry, I'm down. South OC

pullnshoot25
04-25-2009, 10:42 PM
I, and none of all of the LEO friends I have have never, ever seen a gangbanger open carry anything. And for that matter, LEO's can spot a gangbanger 99 out of 100 times by the way they dress and act... So no, the "just another citizen" thing doesnt fly... Could a gangbanger dress and act right? Sure, and Nancy Polisi could be the next pres. of the NRA... Lets stick with reality please...

According to Ruff, gangbangers open carry all the time.

When asked for an example, he said that he saw a group of 5 get out of a car and "open carry" their rifles to a bank to rob it.

Ummm....

nick
04-25-2009, 10:46 PM
According to Ruff, gangbangers open carry all the time.

When asked for an example, he said that he saw a group of 5 get out of a car and "open carry" their rifles to a bank to rob it.

Ummm....

Which he, of course, single-handedly prevented, right?

ZRX61
04-25-2009, 10:51 PM
Carrying a long gun (barrel >16") within 1000' of a school is OK.

Not according to the Feds...

nick
04-25-2009, 10:58 PM
He was still on private property though, and he wasn't asked to leave and assumed invited/welcome.

avdrummerboy
04-25-2009, 10:58 PM
I heard the chopper in the audio, but did not know that they sent it for you, thats great, you were such a threat walking around with everyone around you wanting to take your gun from you that they needed air support. Guess someone was having a boring day.

As for the Ruff audio, all I can say is WOW!!!!! That is so sad, these are the people who do not help us out in any way. Get rid of 'em.

N6ATF
04-26-2009, 12:25 AM
One of my favorite lines.

By the way, I am not sure if you guys noticed but in the audio of the Escondido PD detainment you can hear a helicopter. I didn't notice it until I processed the audio but the police department really did launch a chopper when they got the MWAG call.

Hilarious, you got ASTREA'd.

Wonder if they dumped the video recorder at EOS or landing.

PRAR!

Racefiend
04-26-2009, 12:50 AM
I, and none of all of the LEO friends I have have never, ever seen a gangbanger open carry anything. And for that matter, LEO's can spot a gangbanger 99 out of 100 times by the way they dress and act... So no, the "just another citizen" thing doesnt fly... Could a gangbanger dress and act right? Sure, and Nancy Polisi could be the next pres. of the NRA... Lets stick with reality please...

OF course not, why the heck would they UOC? The question that prompted that answer in the audio was posed as "what if LOC was legal". Now, I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if there's some kind of "looks like a gangbanger" exception to proper PC (I would hope not), but if one were to LOC, a cop would not know he were a gangbanger without checking his record. And if he cannot make him produce ID to do a background check, he cannot prove he's a gangbanger. So technically (based on my assumption about looking like a ganbanger and PC) one could LOC without issue. What's the likelyhood? Probably not much. But my point is it could happen, so there is SOME validity to RUFF's point. Not much, but some.

MP301
04-26-2009, 6:06 AM
According to Ruff, gangbangers open carry all the time.

When asked for an example, he said that he saw a group of 5 get out of a car and "open carry" their rifles to a bank to rob it.

Ummm....


HAHAHAH! Now that is an example...NOT! What an A**. Im telling you, this guy is bad news if he is that stupid or that dishonest... "yes, these 5 obvious gangbangers carrying rifles may not have been stopped if we didnt treat all open carriers as guilty until proven innocent" Puleeeze!

MP301
04-26-2009, 6:30 AM
OF course not, why the heck would they UOC? The question that prompted that answer in the audio was posed as "what if LOC was legal". Now, I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if there's some kind of "looks like a gangbanger" exception to proper PC (I would hope not), but if one were to LOC, a cop would not know he were a gangbanger without checking his record. And if he cannot make him produce ID to do a background check, he cannot prove he's a gangbanger. So technically (based on my assumption about looking like a ganbanger and PC) one could LOC without issue. What's the likelyhood? Probably not much. But my point is it could happen, so there is SOME validity to RUFF's point. Not much, but some.


I disagree. That is such an ignorant stretch of the facts on his part...only because you can spot a gangbanger 999 time out of 1000. They are usually registered so that they get enhancements on their punishment when they commit a crime, and are usually on probation or parole or have a record. They are all photographed with their pictures available on the MDC in the patrol vehicles.

They virtually always have tatoos which is required by their gang, which is probable cause to take things further then a simple loaded/unloaded weapons check as gangbangers are prohibited from having firearms.

In addition, checking the weaon to see if its loaded will most likely result in the arrest for a loaded weapon (they dont UOC) or the banger doing something suspicious during the encounter to warrant further action...

To top it all off, lets say none of this stuff was present in the extreme unlikely case...then there is nothing in the law that says that the LE cant watch and standby and wait for probable cause if he really thinks he has a problem... If he feels that strongly that there truly is a problem, a little bit of work and diligence goes a long way. 99 times out of a hundred, he will find something wrong if there is something to find.

If the last scenario fails and that 1/100 of 1 percent gest away with carrying an unloaded gun and doesnt do anything wrong with it, then gee, im willing to risk that so that our rights dont get trampled on.

When I went to the police academy, what they taight us is that YOU come first, your partner second and the general population a distant 3rd. They try to drum into you officer safety in many ways to the point of treating everyone like a criminal first... They were really bad on crushing any idealistic or do good thoughts and tainting everyone to look at things in the negative.

The reality is that they teach CA (and im sure many other areas) cops to look at any gun not carried by the police as evil. its either a criminal or an idiot citizen that doesnt know what they are doing and is just as dangerous. CA cops are trained to basically wet down thier leg and over react when a gun, legal or otehrwise, is involved. One only has to look at the free states and how LE deals with guns to see that this is overkill and very wrong.

As a rule, you will have better odds getting srtuck by lightening then running across a criminal or gangbanger open carrying his illegal weapon for all to see. Unloaded? Not to freakin likely! That is the reality and these things need to be based on reality and not the endless "What ifs"

TheBundo
04-26-2009, 6:36 AM
Gangbangers would be scared of getting caught with a stolen or otherwise ill-gotten gun if they were stopped for anything while open carrying

JohnnyRooks
04-26-2009, 6:59 AM
i listened to the audio of that ruff dude and i can't help myself but to roll eyes and facepalm. :43:

pullnshoot25
04-26-2009, 7:45 AM
Gangbangers would be scared of getting caught with a stolen or otherwise ill-gotten gun if they were stopped for anything while open carrying

That is what I usually say to the officers conducting 12031 checks on me and each one has been stumped every time, without fail.

Racefiend
04-26-2009, 9:26 AM
I disagree. That is such an ignorant stretch of the facts on his part...only because you can spot a gangbanger 999 time out of 1000. They are usually registered so that they get enhancements on their punishment when they commit a crime, and are usually on probation or parole or have a record. They are all photographed with their pictures available on the MDC in the patrol vehicles.

They virtually always have tatoos which is required by their gang, which is probable cause to take things further then a simple loaded/unloaded weapons check as gangbangers are prohibited from having firearms.

In addition, checking the weaon to see if its loaded will most likely result in the arrest for a loaded weapon (they dont UOC) or the banger doing something suspicious during the encounter to warrant further action...

To top it all off, lets say none of this stuff was present in the extreme unlikely case...then there is nothing in the law that says that the LE cant watch and standby and wait for probable cause if he really thinks he has a problem... If he feels that strongly that there truly is a problem, a little bit of work and diligence goes a long way. 99 times out of a hundred, he will find something wrong if there is something to find.

If the last scenario fails and that 1/100 of 1 percent gest away with carrying an unloaded gun and doesnt do anything wrong with it, then gee, im willing to risk that so that our rights dont get trampled on.

When I went to the police academy, what they taight us is that YOU come first, your partner second and the general population a distant 3rd. They try to drum into you officer safety in many ways to the point of treating everyone like a criminal first... They were really bad on crushing any idealistic or do good thoughts and tainting everyone to look at things in the negative.

The reality is that they teach CA (and im sure many other areas) cops to look at any gun not carried by the police as evil. its either a criminal or an idiot citizen that doesnt know what they are doing and is just as dangerous. CA cops are trained to basically wet down thier leg and over react when a gun, legal or otehrwise, is involved. One only has to look at the free states and how LE deals with guns to see that this is overkill and very wrong.

As a rule, you will have better odds getting srtuck by lightening then running across a criminal or gangbanger open carrying his illegal weapon for all to see. Unloaded? Not to freakin likely! That is the reality and these things need to be based on reality and not the endless "What ifs"


Once again you base your points off of UOC, when Ruff's comment was regarding legal LOC, which would invalidate an (e) check. You bring up some points about gangbanger profiling I was not aware of, which definitely makes it less likely one could LOC successfully. However, in improbable comment does not equal in invalid comment, which is what you accused his comment of being.

Don't get me wrong, I agree it's a stupid reason to be against OCing. But I find it odd that you guys are willing to dismiss this guy as a candidate for Sheriff so easily based on these comments. Yes, he's ignorant on some laws, but what LEO looking for a political position such as Sheriff isn't. He's against LOC. Who cares! LOC will be decided in the legislature or in the courts, it's not up to him. He's pro CCW and that is a good thing. He's willing to come to a small time unpublicized meeting of gun owners to discuss things with them, thats also a good thing. I don't know what other people are in the running, and what efforts they've made on behalf of 2A, but I say take your wins where you can get them.

demnogis
04-26-2009, 9:49 AM
Keep in mind that when someone is part of a gang and has been arrested, convicted of a crime and classified as associated with a gang they lose their 2A rights. It is unlawful for them to even possess ammunition.

The arguments about "gang bangers will LOC or UOC" are only half-truths. Yes, they may attempt to do it... But if they are recognized and identified as a convicted criminal involved in gang activity before an officer makes a detention, they have the ability to make a lawful arrest at that point.

Can a law ever prevent a criminal from doing something? No. That is where the progressive gun-haters keep messing up. They continually make laws that make specific actions illegal, yet those [criminals] who do not care for the law do not stop. Course of action? Make it illegaler!

pullnshoot25
04-26-2009, 11:46 AM
keystone cops once again, well actually I should say keystone politicians and management. In defense of the cops they are just doing as they are told.
Here in this State we are going bankrupt and so many good paying jobs have been lost to unenforced immigration laws. I bet the cops that did your 12031 check haven't checked one immigration status since they have been employed. Oh well selective enforcement you know.

As Macadelic4 calls it, "LHF," or Low-Hanging Fruit.

N6ATF
04-26-2009, 12:00 PM
keystone cops once again, well actually I should say keystone politicians and management. In defense of the cops they are just doing as they are told.

"I was only following orders" didn't fly for the Nazis at Nuremberg, and it doesn't fly here. They swore an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution (supreme law of the land), and they would have opportunity to violate it daily if enough people were UOCing (or LOCing like Wisconsin and Virginia).

Someone on the forum posted that chiefs have no authority to order their subordinates around (especially not for unlawful and unconstitutional acts) because everyone is a fully-sworn peace officer and on the same level of authority as everyone else. Suggestions can be made from above, authorization from higher-ups asked for by subordinates to do specific things within policy of the department, yes.

If "I was only following orders" is used as an excuse, the officer either...
1) Has no testicular fortitude to do the right thing when fully empowered to act independently.
2) Agrees with the unlawful and unconstitutional orders and takes joy in using the excuse, because he will never truly be held to account for his actions.

avdrummerboy
04-26-2009, 1:53 PM
If "I was only following orders" is used as an excuse, the officer either...
1) Has no testicular fortitude to do the right thing when fully empowered to act independently.
2) Agrees with the unlawful and unconstitutional orders and takes joy in using the excuse, because he will never truly be held to account for his actions.

I like these two options. :) :)

Shadowdrop
04-26-2009, 2:06 PM
Just some general info, I work with gang members on a daily basis and get to look through their files. If they are on gang-related probation, they are prohibited from owning a gun, period. If they are on gang terms, a weapons charge carries much higher penalties. Gang units and gang officers know their areas so well, they can drive down the street and identify gang members by name.

Now, with all that information in mind, why the hell would a gang member walk around with a gun in plain sight when it isn't any more illegal for him to load it and conceal it? He's still violating, so why wouldn't he conceal it? I've NEVER read a report or even heard of a gang-related arrest involving open carry. Just lots and lots of illegal concealed carry.

TheBundo
04-26-2009, 10:38 PM
Keep in mind that when someone is part of a gang and has been arrested, convicted of a crime and classified as associated with a gang they lose their 2A rights. It is unlawful for them to even possess ammunition.

The arguments about "gang bangers will LOC or UOC" are only half-truths. Yes, they may attempt to do it... But if they are recognized and identified as a convicted criminal involved in gang activity before an officer makes a detention, they have the ability to make a lawful arrest at that point.

Can a law ever prevent a criminal from doing something? No. That is where the progressive gun-haters keep messing up. They continually make laws that make specific actions illegal, yet those [criminals] who do not care for the law do not stop. Course of action? Make it illegaler!

Yep. At some point, we may have to adopt summary execution as the law of the land, and write off part of a generation to halt this slide into anarchy. For example, if you are caught making graffiti, you're gone forever. This would NOT be unfair, if there was plenty of warning, say 1 year, with huge publicity in every language. Some would say what if they did that for speeding, etc? That is different, since traffic violations can be accidental (everyone can miss a stop sign). But it could apply to drunk driving, which is deliberate, as is graffiti, robbery, car-jacking, etc. The lack of severe punishment is a green light to many of these clowns.

Theseus
04-26-2009, 11:54 PM
I'm in a gang. . .

We call ourselves the SoCal Calgunners! We drop it like an OLL!

:gunsmilie:

Come mess with these boys!

Seriously though, I can't wait until the time comes where the police and us open carriers can lovingly hold hands skipping down the street taking down criminals together.

Can't we all get just along?

Just some general info, I work with gang members on a daily basis and get to look through their files. If they are on gang-related probation, they are prohibited from owning a gun, period. If they are on gang terms, a weapons charge carries much higher penalties. Gang units and gang officers know their areas so well, they can drive down the street and identify gang members by name.

Now, with all that information in mind, why the hell would a gang member walk around with a gun in plain sight when it isn't any more illegal for him to load it and conceal it? He's still violating, so why wouldn't he conceal it? I've NEVER read a report or even heard of a gang-related arrest involving open carry. Just lots and lots of illegal concealed carry.

MP301
04-27-2009, 12:10 AM
Once again you base your points off of UOC, when Ruff's comment was regarding legal LOC, which would invalidate an (e) check. You bring up some points about gangbanger profiling I was not aware of, which definitely makes it less likely one could LOC successfully. However, in improbable comment does not equal in invalid comment, which is what you accused his comment of being.

Don't get me wrong, I agree it's a stupid reason to be against OCing. But I find it odd that you guys are willing to dismiss this guy as a candidate for Sheriff so easily based on these comments. Yes, he's ignorant on some laws, but what LEO looking for a political position such as Sheriff isn't. He's against LOC. Who cares! LOC will be decided in the legislature or in the courts, it's not up to him. He's pro CCW and that is a good thing. He's willing to come to a small time unpublicized meeting of gun owners to discuss things with them, thats also a good thing. I don't know what other people are in the running, and what efforts they've made on behalf of 2A, but I say take your wins where you can get them.

A couple of points here.

First, forget ther UOC vs LOC thing. What we are talking about is an exposed firearm. He gave a lame reason for not carrying an exposed firearm. Now being that it is improbable and an over the top stretch, does it invalidate it? Lets look at that for a second...

One can come up with any reason for anything. The problem I had with his comment was that it was so far fetched and not based in reality, that someone with his puported knowledge, background and experience would not have said it...unless he was being dishonest or not as smart as previously thought. I could be a devil's advocate and come up with much more realistic and valid reasons against open carry then Ruff did and im not against OC. Comments that are not based in reality are in my honest opinion, invalid.

This is the same process the anti's use that pisses us all off, but it works for getting other stupid people to buy into it. I have a problem with this.


I spent much time in states like Arizona and Nevada where you see people regularly OCing...during the years before they had CCW permits...and they virtually never had any issues between LE and the general public. It was a "non-issue". Cops there dont went down there leg at the mention of a gun. This mentality has got to go...Is there any difference between the people there then the people here, aside from the anti-gun BS? No, they put there pants on the same way we do. If your too afraid to do your job because you might get shot if you dont prone out every person you see with a gun before that evil gun shoots you, then maybe you should rethink your career choice.

With that said, my personal preference is CCW over open carry, hands down.

CCW gives me advantages the OC does not, which to me are more important. But I have a great deal of experience and training and am very predatory when it comes to the bad guy. I prefer the element of surprise in the event of a problem then the possible deterent effect of OC. I guess im always thinking of the small percentage of BG's that will not be deterred and now have the advantage of knowing what you have when you dont know what they have.

As far as fairness to Ruff, I wouldnt have been so hard in my comments if not for the fact it feels like he is being dishonest. Yes, there are good points with him as far as CCW, if he is being honest about that....but see, when my BS detector went off, until proven otherwise, anything else he says is suspect.

Do you see major problem with his integrity when he wants to use the Mexico propaganda crap in his reasoning, but wont listen about other states right here in his own country that refute his information?

Food for thought...

N6ATF
04-27-2009, 12:12 AM
Seriously though, I can't wait until the time comes where the police and us open carriers can lovingly hold hands skipping down the street taking down criminals together.

Write it down and shove it in a time capsule for after you die... far too many police are "just following orders" and harassing/disarming/discouraging law-abiding citizens, to try and achieve the goal of total victim disarmament.... FOR THE CRIMINALS!

markw
04-27-2009, 12:15 AM
I'm having trouble finding a link on your blog to the Ruff audio. Not seeing any obvious links like the one for your friends in the Escondido PD.

pullnshoot25
04-27-2009, 8:15 AM
I'm having trouble finding a link on your blog to the Ruff audio. Not seeing any obvious links like the one for your friends in the Escondido PD.

PM inbound.

nick
04-27-2009, 10:14 AM
A couple of points here.

First, forget ther UOC vs LOC thing. What we are talking about is an exposed firearm. He gave a lame reason for not carrying an exposed firearm. Now being that it is improbable and an over the top stretch, does it invalidate it? Lets look at that for a second...

One can come up with any reason for anything. The problem I had with his comment was that it was so far fetched and not based in reality, that someone with his puported knowledge, background and experience would not have said it...unless he was being dishonest or not as smart as previously thought. I could be a devil's advocate and come up with much more realistic and valid reasons against open carry then Ruff did and im not against OC. Comments that are not based in reality are in my honest opinion, invalid.

This is the same process the anti's use that pisses us all off, but it works for getting other stupid people to buy into it. I have a problem with this.


I spent much time in states like Arizona and Nevada where you see people regularly OCing...during the years before they had CCW permits...and they virtually never had any issues between LE and the general public. It was a "non-issue". Cops there dont went down there leg at the mention of a gun. This mentality has got to go...Is there any difference between the people there then the people here, aside from the anti-gun BS? No, they put there pants on the same way we do. If your too afraid to do your job because you might get shot if you dont prone out every person you see with a gun before that evil gun shoots you, then maybe you should rethink your career choice.

With that said, my personal preference is CCW over open carry, hands down.

CCW gives me advantages the OC does not, which to me are more important. But I have a great deal of experience and training and am very predatory when it comes to the bad guy. I prefer the element of surprise in the event of a problem then the possible deterent effect of OC. I guess im always thinking of the small percentage of BG's that will not be deterred and now have the advantage of knowing what you have when you dont know what they have.

As far as fairness to Ruff, I wouldnt have been so hard in my comments if not for the fact it feels like he is being dishonest. Yes, there are good points with him as far as CCW, if he is being honest about that....but see, when my BS detector went off, until proven otherwise, anything else he says is suspect.

Do you see major problem with his integrity when he wants to use the Mexico propaganda crap in his reasoning, but wont listen about other states right here in his own country that refute his information?

Food for thought...

I agree with pretty much everything you said there except for one point. While CCW would also be my preference most of the time, there're times when LOC is preferable. For instance, hiking and generally going out of the city. Another thing is carrying in SoCal, where it's hot most of the time. Given that most police departments here look for any excuse (or lack of thereof) to punish gun owners, and that avoiding the gun printing whenyou wear shorts and a light T-shirt is pretty complicated (I think, it's not like I've ever had a CCW), that'd be another source of contention if LOC banned. Finally, there's the educational value in LOC. One of the reasons the people, especially in SoCal, get hysterical when seeing a gun not carried by a police officer or anyone in uniform is that they don't see it too often. Infact, most of them have never seen it. To humans unusual spells trouble. Add to it all the anti-gun propaganda, and there you have it. Now, if they saw guns carried by regular non-uniformed people on a daily basis, their reaction would likely be, "So what? I see it all the time, it doesn't bother anyone, so why should it bother me? Why should it be banned? It doesn't bother anyone".

pullnshoot25
04-27-2009, 10:22 AM
I agree with pretty much everything you said there except for one point. While CCW would also be my preference most of the time, there're times when LOC is preferable. For instance, hiking and generally going out of the city. Another thing is carrying in SoCal, where it's hot most of the time. Given that most police departments here look for any excuse (or lack of thereof) to punish gun owners, and that avoiding the gun printing whenyou wear shorts and a light T-shirt is pretty complicated (I think, it's not like I've ever had a CCW), that'd be another source of contention if LOC banned. Finally, there's the educational value in LOC. One of the reasons the people, especially in SoCal, get hysterical when seeing a gun not carried by a police officer or anyone in uniform is that they don't see it too often. Infact, most of them have never seen it. To humans unusual spells trouble. Add to it all the anti-gun propaganda, and there you have it. Now, if they saw guns carried by regular non-uniformed people on a daily basis, their reaction would likely be, "So what? I see it all the time, it doesn't bother anyone, so why should it bother me? Why should it be banned? It doesn't bother anyone".

Exactly. I was explaining this to the people at the SDCGRC meeting. I said it is like bringing a puppy to a bar... you are going to get phone numbers. Same with UOC. Most of my my interactions have been ones of curiosity (no real hysterical ones yet) from various people and these conversations would have never happened had I not had my gun displayed. You wouldn't believe the looks of astonishment people get when I tell them it is perfectly legal. There are also a great many people that have said "Well, I have a gun and I've always wanted to carry it but I never knew that I could. Everyone has always told me there was no way to do it." All of my UOC adventures have not only been adventurous but highly educational for all those involved.

GuyW
04-27-2009, 11:28 AM
Hey - PM me the name of the Officer, please....
.

GuyW
04-27-2009, 11:34 AM
Someone on the forum posted that chiefs have no authority to order their subordinates around (especially not for unlawful and unconstitutional acts) because everyone is a fully-sworn peace officer and on the same level of authority as everyone else. Suggestions can be made from above, authorization from higher-ups asked for by subordinates to do specific things within policy of the department, yes.


I have posted here before, that Chief Maher of Escondido publicly stated in my presence (and before about 70 people) that UOC is legal...

This interaction is the officer's failing...
.

Liberty1
04-27-2009, 12:11 PM
I have posted here before, that Chief Maher of Escondido publicly stated in my presence (and before about 70 people) that UOC is legal...

This interaction is the officer's failing...
.

The officer's names are in PnS25's narrative and complaint (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfd4dr97_0c3cf2vfj) near the beginning.

It's a decent read too and covers the law and case laws well. I'd be surprised if he is bothered again in Escondido as he now has a civil case nicely framed. I think however he would just prefer the officer respect the law but sometimes it takes a legal spanking to get through to some government types (and even then...Wash. DC/San Fran comes to mind - but small cities don't have their bank)

Nodda Duma
04-27-2009, 12:26 PM
Hey pullnshoot, any updates? Heard back from the police department or anything? Keep us posted on updates...I'm interested in hearing how this resolves itself.

-Jason

pullnshoot25
04-27-2009, 1:03 PM
Just got a call from Escondido PD and they said my incident report is ready, I will pick it up tomorrow first thing in the morning.

No calls back from internal affairs (I have called 5 times already) and I am getting a little impatient.I am seriously considering Liberty1's advice and pursuing this matter legally.

I like to think on it like this... I mess up one iota, I am in the slammer' my studies are interrupted, attorneys fees must be paid, etc.They mess up a lot and just get off with a warning? Screw that.

I just want to be left alone. If a lawsuit will accomplish that
then so be it.

Untamed1972
04-27-2009, 1:20 PM
"In the words of the IA officer... "If your goal is to educate, you have our attention"

My reply would have been "you are the law enforcement professionals, it's not my job to educate you on how to do your job or teach you the law. If you're going to enforce laws don't you first need to know what they are?"

N6ATF
04-27-2009, 2:03 PM
I have posted here before, that Chief Maher of Escondido publicly stated in my presence (and before about 70 people) that UOC is legal...

This interaction is the officer's failing...
.

So he talks the talk, let's see if he walks the walk.

There are some possibilities for the Chief:
1) Officer(s) put on desk duty
2) Officer(s) sent through academy again
3) Officer(s) fired and reported to POST for revocation
4) He does not stand in the way of civil settlement that ends up docking officer(s) pay directly instead of department as a whole

Any other ideas?

Untamed1972
04-27-2009, 2:11 PM
So he talks the talk, let's see if he walks the walk.

There are some possibilities for the Chief:
1) Officer(s) put on desk duty
2) Officer(s) sent through academy again
3) Officer(s) fired and reported to POST for revocation
4) He does not stand in the way of civil settlement that ends up docking officer(s) pay directly instead of department as a whole

Any other ideas?

5) Chief calls press conference to make public apology to the victim for the actions of his officers and issues statement that UOC is legal and officers may not detain for longer then 1 minute to do "e" check.

wash
04-27-2009, 2:12 PM
I would say that changing the ciriculum at the academy would be a good start.

demnogis
04-27-2009, 2:14 PM
Incarceration.

Not for Pullnshoot25.

pullnshoot25
04-27-2009, 2:34 PM
I would say that changing the ciriculum at the academy would be a good start.

+1. I think these guys need a good refresher course in the Constitution, not to mention rudimentary logic and people skills.

Funny story... my brother was at court and asked if a bailiff had ever read the Constitution and the response was "No." My brother then asked how he could take an oath for something he knew nothing about and the bailiff just walked away.

FAIL!

N6ATF
04-27-2009, 2:36 PM
5) Chief calls press conference to make public apology to the victim for the actions of his officers and issues statement that UOC is legal and officers may not detain for longer then 1 minute to do "e" check.

How much you want to bet that they will ignore that speech?

I think this wasn't the first time that EPD officers didn't follow the chief's talking points. Time for talk is OVER. It's time for punishment.

MP301
04-27-2009, 2:56 PM
I agree with pretty much everything you said there except for one point. While CCW would also be my preference most of the time, there're times when LOC is preferable. For instance, hiking and generally going out of the city. Another thing is carrying in SoCal, where it's hot most of the time. Given that most police departments here look for any excuse (or lack of thereof) to punish gun owners, and that avoiding the gun printing whenyou wear shorts and a light T-shirt is pretty complicated (I think, it's not like I've ever had a CCW), that'd be another source of contention if LOC banned. Finally, there's the educational value in LOC. One of the reasons the people, especially in SoCal, get hysterical when seeing a gun not carried by a police officer or anyone in uniform is that they don't see it too often. Infact, most of them have never seen it. To humans unusual spells trouble. Add to it all the anti-gun propaganda, and there you have it. Now, if they saw guns carried by regular non-uniformed people on a daily basis, their reaction would likely be, "So what? I see it all the time, it doesn't bother anyone, so why should it bother me? Why should it be banned? It doesn't bother anyone".

I agree my friend, 100% on your reasoning. I do perfer CCW but not when hiking or otherwise out in the wilderness. CCW is just my personal preference in day to day general carry, not necessarily all of the time... thats why I support OC..

Shadowdrop
04-27-2009, 3:08 PM
In regards to the officer removing the recording device...what's to prevent us from doubling up on devices or having a highly visible dummy device? If the officer is informed he is being recorded and thinks he just removed the recorder, we aren't obligated to tell him his mistake. Maybe run a hidden mic to a recorder in your pocket and then wear a visible device on your belt or around your neck?

I know this seems a bit silly and redundant, but this isn't the first time I've read of the recorder being confiscated.

N6ATF
04-27-2009, 3:42 PM
Remember, ANYONE with a gun and no badge is a criminal and subject to any loss of freedom they want to perpetrate.

Step 1 of 2A harassment: disarm criminal, pretend not to know how the holster or the gun works to be able to perform the E check within 5 seconds
Step 2 of 2A harassment: pat down criminal to find ID to run, recording devices to disable
Step 3 of 2A harassment: write down and triple check serial number
Step 4 of 2A harassment: run serial number, triple check
Step 5 of 2A harassment: run criminal through every single database known to man, and triple check
Step 6 of 2A harassment (insert between any of the previous steps): claim to be the ultimate arbiter of the law and deny every statement, department or attorney's memo, and printout of the Constitution, PC and case law of the criminal's
Step 7 of 2A harassment: take as much time as humanly possible keeping the criminal effectively under arrest
Step 8 of 2A harassment: leave the criminal a parting gift, such as dropping his gun in a puddle of mud, in dirt, sand, on grass, pavement, stick it under their carseat or in their glovebox to illegally conceal it... or prosecute them months later for carrying in a non-existent school zone

JDay
04-27-2009, 4:18 PM
Step 2 of 2A harassment: pat down criminal to find ID to run, recording devices to disable

Leave DL/ID in vehicle or at home. There is no law requiring you to carry ID in California.

Untamed1972
04-27-2009, 4:20 PM
Leave DL/ID in vehicle or at home. There is no law requiring you to carry ID in California.

Then you find yourself getting detained even long till they can determine your identity to make sure you're not someone phohibited from posessing a firearm. Not saying it's right.....but likely what would happen.

JDay
04-27-2009, 4:23 PM
Then you find yourself getting detained even long till they can determine your identity to make sure you're not someone phohibited from posessing a firearm. Not saying it's right.....but likely what would happen.

That would open them up for one hell of a lawsuit. The only thing that the police are allowed to do is check if the weapon is unloaded.

N6ATF
04-27-2009, 4:25 PM
They are not sued nearly often enough for them to think there is NOTHING they are not allowed to do.

pullnshoot25
04-28-2009, 12:18 PM
Copy of the police report. I love the brevity of it all, not even a mention of all the laws that Officer Martin broke.

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/incidentreport1.jpg

N6ATF
04-28-2009, 12:21 PM
Of course not. Maher doesn't walk the walk. Best way to support badge-wearing criminals is to deny (or have your subordinate "jdj" deny) they even broke the law.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-28-2009, 1:19 PM
Copy of the police report. I love the brevity of it all, not even a mention of all the laws that Officer Martin broke.

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/incidentreport1.jpg


That's pathetic.

JDay
04-28-2009, 1:31 PM
You should CPRA the audio/video recordings that were likely made.

pullnshoot25
04-28-2009, 1:46 PM
Of course not. Maher doesn't walk the walk. Best way to support badge-wearing criminals is to deny (or have your subordinate "jdj" deny) they even broke the law.

jdj is the police report transcriptionist for this report.

I wonder how much of it is doctored up...

GuyW
04-28-2009, 2:50 PM
I vaguely remember the allegation that LE is not subject to the Public Records Act in the same way that every other CA government agency is...but I never looked into it.

A filed suit and a supena is the only avenue to get the reports, I think...
.

grambo
04-28-2009, 3:57 PM
Wow N8-
Great work in exercising your 2A rights and documenting the aftermath! After reading your story, I might have to revise/reconsider my voice recorder placement options.

Sorry to pick at nits, but in your letter to OPD, you incorrectly refer to Scalia's opinion in Hicks as "her" opinion.

pullnshoot25
04-28-2009, 4:25 PM
Wow N8-
Great work in exercising your 2A rights and documenting the aftermath! After reading your story, I might have to revise/reconsider my voice recorder placement options.

Sorry to pick at nits, but in your letter to OPD, you incorrectly refer to Scalia's opinion in Hicks as "her" opinion.

CRAP! I have always thought Scalia was a woman for some reason... changing now!

zcrehan
04-28-2009, 4:42 PM
haha pullnshoot I am a big fan of you and your blog and thank you for doing what you are doing... but not knowing that Antonin Scalia was a man made me laugh :p

pullnshoot25
04-28-2009, 4:47 PM
haha pullnshoot I am a big fan of you and your blog and thank you for doing what you are doing... but not knowing that Antonin Scalia was a man made me laugh :p

I never heard the first name! The surname totally sounds like a girl's name to me!

Glad I could bring a good chuckle to someone. Back to the drawing board... ;)

donstarr
04-28-2009, 4:54 PM
Copy of the police report. I love the brevity of it all, not even a mention of all the laws that Officer Martin broke.

They're all summed up in the "Crime Type".