[IGOTDIRT4U]

Originally Posted by Nose Nuggets

oh yeah, i know they CAN. But i cant think of any recent cases where they where. especially considered the guy was not harmed directly 'only' his rights were violated.

What greater harm can a man endure than a violation of his basic rights?

As for PNS25's comments he wasn't talking departmentally, he was referring to the court case that could be won on this illegal stop.

[coolusername2007]

Originally Posted by Nose Nuggets

oh yeah, i know they CAN. But i cant think of any recent cases where they where. especially considered the guy was not harmed directly 'only' his rights were violated.

Not true. Just recently in New Mexico the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals revoked the officers' qualified immunity. The plaintiff won a judgement of $21K, and chose not to take the officers to the cleaners. See http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gu...-carrying-guns

I also think I read/heard that the judge submitted this case so it is a citable case in federal court.

[Rob454]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

Appearantly not.....cuz those cops didn't seem to have learned anything in the academy except "I have the badge and the gun....I make the rules".
I wonder how the publix would react if the racial make-up of this incident were exactly opposite?

And that is the problem with a lot of cops IMO. As long as they have a badge and a gun they expect everyone to bow to their whim. Some cops simply are power hungry a holes. Not all of them. hell if that was the case you would have war in the streets. But there are cops that basically figure since I'm a cop and this is the way I interpret the law its the wayit is. I liked it when the guy was telling the woman cop I can legally OC in Ohio and she was saying no you cant. maybe the dummy should of thought about it a little bit and say hey maybe I should check with a superior. I think that would be a good idea. Nope I rather tell this guy what i think the law is. i have nothing to back it up and I dont even really know but Im a cop and I have a badge and i should be the only one carrying a gun.

I hope the dumb b***h learned something after that.

To all the cops that actually know the laws, study and research , and are out there to help and lay their lives on the line to save innocents and respect the citizens of this country NONE of the above statement was directed towards you. YOU guys and gals have my outmost respect. I respect LEO's and support them. But nothing makes me boil like a corrupt or power mad LEO who thinks he is right simply because he has a badge and a gun and power to arrest.

Originally Posted by greg36f

I have to say that although I have no desire to open carry, I support anyone’s right to do so.

Having said that, I feel that a lot of people that open carry; do so simply for the attention. Yes, it is your right, but you also KNOW that most people (including many police officers) have never seen this before and you KNOW that it is going to cause a commotion until open carry is prevalent.

At this point as an open carrier, you are on the cutting edge. You should expect the extra attention and hassle of being that person. Yes, there will be people (including police) that need to be educated. Yes, you may get guns pointed at you the first few times a police agency encounters one of you. Yes, at times (at least for now) it is going to be a huge hassle.

What bothers me is all the whining a lot of open carry guys do. You put yourself in that position to be "on the cutting edge".......You wanted the attention, well,,,You got it.......In this video, this guy was obviously one of the first in the area to open carry......Yep, big surprise, he got a gun pointed at him and the cops were not sure what was going on...... Sounds to me that it was a fairly quick detention (what 8 minutes long?), he got his gun back and he was sent on his way........If he had just shut the heck up during the take down, waited for the situation to stabilize and explained himself when things calmed down, it probably would have been a 6 minute detention. No one took his recorder or even objected to being taped.

Nate, I know that you have been doing this for a while and you have taken some lumps, but it seems to me that you are constantly looking for the next fight or at least celebrating when conflict arises. If you had a perfect encounter with law enforcement, you would go looking for a negative one. Or at least call dispatch looking for conflict related to the last perfect stop. I ‘m sure you are a hard working, dedicated guy and that you believe in this cause, but you seem to enjoy the conflict and attention a little too much…..

i agree with what you say. I don't care to OC but if anyone else wants to feel free to do so. but expect cops to be on edge at least at first. Cops come into some crazy a** situations. I took a few ride alongs and you get to see a side of your city that you rarely get to see. Some good some bad. My problem with this video was that the cops were basically telling the guy that we know the law you don't. And that was obviously not the case. The cops should of known that OC is legal. I mean cops have these morning meetings right . how hard would it be to say hey guys here's a law that is important. OC is legal and if you come across a situation detain be curteous calla watch commander get the info and whatever else cops do and let the guy go if he comes back with No Wants No Warrants. granted all the guy had to do was sit there quietly let the cops run around like a chinese fire drill and then when it was all said and done go to the lady cop and tell her . I guess you were wrong about the law? It would behoove you in the future to either learn the law or don't form a uneducated opinion. Then walk away.. That would probably piss her off to no end. But I bet she woudl remember the next time she came across a OC. The only thing I can blame the OC guy for is he wouldn't shut up. Cops were already on a adrenalin high. First cops don't like guns unless they're the ones holding them. The other is cops don't like when people argue or are anything but meek yes sir no sir ill be quiet sir.
Liek I said before there are cops i respect and there are cops that i think are worthless. Thank god there are very few worthless ones.
Thats what i would of done.

[BananaTyrant]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

The part I found interesting is that they wouldn't look at anything the "suspect" had and yet claimed "WE know the law like you think you do."

If the man had a valid CCW permit wouldn't that instantly answer the question of whether he was a prohibited person or not? If you are investigating someone....why would you chose to ignore the thing that would answer your questions the fastest?....Oh yeah....I forgot...they had the badges and the guns.....they get to make the rules.

Of course they would investigate him still. Just because he looked like who he is doesn't mean he has a permit to carry a weapon, remember? They thought that he was a felon.

Originally Posted by Rob454

I mean cops have these morning meetings right . how hard would it be to say hey guys here's a law that is important. OC is legal and if you come across a situation detain be curteous calla watch commander get the info and whatever else cops do and let the guy go if he comes back with No Wants No Warrants.

What you're outlining there is illegal/unconstitutional. To borrow an analogy from another poster in this thread, would you want to be pulled over for no reason except to make sure you had a valid license/insurance? Or stopped if your walking past a school to make sure you're not a sex offender? It really boils down to the same thing, your 4A rights were violated only because the police were ignorant/uncaring.

Originally Posted by Rob454

granted all the guy had to do was sit there quietly let the cops run around like a chinese fire drill and then when it was all said and done go to the lady cop and tell her . I guess you were wrong about the law? It would behoove you in the future to either learn the law or don't form a uneducated opinion. Then walk away.. That would probably piss her off to no end. But I bet she woudl remember the next time she came across a OC.

And next time she'd take her anger out on him. Sure, she might not be able to do much, but she could probably find more ways to make that ones life a little less fun for 10min to a couple hours... Perhaps confiscate his gun on "suspicion" of it being stolen property, or take him to be fingerprinted to make sure he is who he says he is and not someone using a really good fake ID. Maybe even drum up some "Resisting Arrest" type charges if he even moves while on the ground.

[pullnshoot25]

Originally Posted by greg36f

Nate, I know that you have been doing this for a while and you have taken some lumps, but it seems to me that you are constantly looking for the next fight or at least celebrating when conflict arises. If you had a perfect encounter with law enforcement, you would go looking for a negative one. Or at least call dispatch looking for conflict related to the last perfect stop. I ‘m sure you are a hard working, dedicated guy and that you believe in this cause, but you seem to enjoy the conflict and attention a little too much…..

Someone must have pissed in your cheerios. Allow me to neutralize the urea for you.

The only perfect encounter with law enforcement is not having one at all. In all of my encounters, I never asked them to break the law nor did I ask them to come on over and act like pathetic morons. If they feel that they "need" to come question or molest me in the course of a duty they are NOT REQUIRED to perform and is INHERENTLY ILLEGAL (at least on a federal level) they had damn well better do their job ACCORDING TO THE LAW and then leave me alone. However, that is rarely the case because most of the cops I have met seem to be rejected applicants to the Babysitter's Club TV show with the personalities to match.

I do not celebrate the conflict, I only celebrate the END of the conflict. I am naturally a peaceful person but gosh dammit, when I or others are wronged I will step in to the best of my ability. You may think that what I do is for attention and you are entitled to your opinion. However, you don't know me on a personal level and I don't recall ever asking for a pshrink.

That whole calling dispatch thing... THAT WASN'T ME! However, I wish it would have been me. You may think that is creating conflict but I see it as a way to test how well these cops are retaining basic information. I get tested all the time (insert a preemptive strike on STD jokes here) and I feel that as public servants I should be able to test them whenever I feel like. They are under NO obligation to respond to ANY call that is put through to them so if they want to get all uppity about it then that is their issue.

Time to go back to my cell bio.

[greg36f]

Originally Posted by pullnshoot25

Someone must have pissed in your cheerios. Allow me to neutralize the urea for you.

The only perfect encounter with law enforcement is not having one at all. In all of my encounters, I never asked them to break the law nor did I ask them to come on over and act like pathetic morons. If they feel that they "need" to come question or molest me in the course of a duty they are NOT REQUIRED to perform and is INHERENTLY ILLEGAL (at least on a federal level) they had damn well better do their job ACCORDING TO THE LAW and then leave me alone. However, that is rarely the case because most of the cops I have met seem to be rejected applicants to the Babysitter's Club TV show with the personalities to match.

I do not celebrate the conflict, I only celebrate the END of the conflict. I am naturally a peaceful person but gosh dammit, when I or others are wronged I will step in to the best of my ability. You may think that what I do is for attention and you are entitled to your opinion. However, you don't know me on a personal level and I don't recall ever asking for a pshrink.

That whole calling dispatch thing... THAT WASN'T ME! However, I wish it would have been me. You may think that is creating conflict but I see it as a way to test how well these cops are retaining basic information. I get tested all the time (insert a preemptive strike on STD jokes here) and I feel that as public servants I should be able to test them whenever I feel like. They are under NO obligation to respond to ANY call that is put through to them so if they want to get all uppity about it then that is their issue.

Time to go back to my cell bio.

Yes Nate, it was you..This is taken from your own web site....Corey did not decide to call on her own.......She did not even know about open carry until you introduced her......

The walk back to the truck was uneventful and I took the opportunity to shoot some video of Corey in her ensemble. Hooray iPhone 3Gs!


On the drive home, Corey called the non emergency police number and spoke to the dispatcher.


Corey: (Aghast) Hi, I was just down in Pacific Beach and there was a couple walking around with guns on their hips!

Dispatch: Yeah, it's actually legal.

C: (Appalled) What do you mean it's legal?

D: Well, there has actually been a lot of them lately. A lot of groups gather and they wear their guns out in the open.

C: How is that possible?

D: They're actually exercising their right to bear arms. They've even been on the news.

C: I've never heard of such a thing.

D: Well, were they doing anything? Were they pointing their guns at each other or making a disturbance?

C: No, they were just strolling along, southbound on Mission Boulevard. They were actually nicely dressed and everything.

D: Yes, well there is nothing illegal about that. We're seeing more and more of that. It's their right to keep and bear arms.

C: It IS? Oh yeah, the second amendment, right?

D: Right. I will let the officers in the area know just so they're aware but again, it's not illegal.

C: OK thank you for the information and thank you for your time. I guess it's pretty cool if you ask me. Have a good night.

D: Thank you for calling SDPD. Good night.

FREAKING FINALLY! I've said time and again that on these Man With Gun calls they ought to ask WHAT the subject is doing before automatically freaking out.

To say that the police are not obligated to respond to ANY call is ignorant.....They are gonna get their butts sued off if that don't respond and the "man with a gun" kills someone.....oops' he really was a criminal, not a legal open carry guy......Sorry store clerk that just got shot........The job always entails striking a balance between the public's safety and respecting a citizens rights...It's not always as easy as it looks Nate......Sometimes those two goals rub up against each other........

The world does not revolve around the open carry movement....There is give and take in every right......

If you don't believe me, go shout that "bikers are whimps" at the next meeting of your local HA.......Yep, it’s your right, but this is gonna hurt......

I will say it again, You put yourself out there at the tip of the spear......Just because you are right does not mean that you are not gonna run into some ignorance, hard times and / or difficulties at times.......You put yourself out there.

Again, I do respect your right to open carry, I just think that you lean a bit towards the angry, confrontational side of the movement. You seem angry at anyone that does not see it exactly your way.....

I respect you dedication and resolve though, no enough of that in today’s world.....

And Nate, it's corn flakes, not cheerio's.....and my urea thanks you.....

[KylaGWolf]

Originally Posted by greg36f

I have to say that although I have no desire to open carry, I support anyone’s right to do so.

Having said that, I feel that a lot of people that open carry; do so simply for the attention. Yes, it is your right, but you also KNOW that most people (including many police officers) have never seen this before and you KNOW that it is going to cause a commotion until open carry is prevalent.

At this point as an open carrier, you are on the cutting edge. You should expect the extra attention and hassle of being that person. Yes, there will be people (including police) that need to be educated. Yes, you may get guns pointed at you the first few times a police agency encounters one of you. Yes, at times (at least for now) it is going to be a huge hassle.

What bothers me is all the whining a lot of open carry guys do. You put yourself in that position to be "on the cutting edge".......You wanted the attention, well,,,You got it.......In this video, this guy was obviously one of the first in the area to open carry......Yep, big surprise, he got a gun pointed at him and the cops were not sure what was going on...... Sounds to me that it was a fairly quick detention (what 8 minutes long?), he got his gun back and he was sent on his way........If he had just shut the heck up during the take down, waited for the situation to stabilize and explained himself when things calmed down, it probably would have been a 6 minute detention. No one took his recorder or even objected to being taped.

Nate, I know that you have been doing this for a while and you have taken some lumps, but it seems to me that you are constantly looking for the next fight or at least celebrating when conflict arises. If you had a perfect encounter with law enforcement, you would go looking for a negative one. Or at least call dispatch looking for conflict related to the last perfect stop. I ‘m sure you are a hard working, dedicated guy and that you believe in this cause, but you seem to enjoy the conflict and attention a little too much…..

OK first off you are wrong on a few points. Not all that open carry do it for attention as you assume. Secondly Nate as well for most others of us that open carry do NOT go looking for a negative encounter with LEO. Trust me a successful open carry outing is one that has NO police encounter what so ever. Any time there is a stop that is beyond what is legal for a stop it is a problem. Perfect example I was with Nate my other half and another I wasn't even open carrying and had MY fourth amendment rights violated in a couple of ways. Trust me I did not want that kind of attention.

The officers in the case of this thread were told disregard their rights use violence its OK even if they are not doing anything wrong. This is where the problem lies. You stated had he kept his mouth shut during the take down it would have been shorter....please tell me your kidding. Using that as an excuse had they tried to take me down in that stop I mentioned above they more than likely would have broken my shoulder or arm trying to put my arms behind my back and I wouldn't have been trying to fight them I have a disability that won't let one arm go behind my back without forcing it pretty hard.

[Fjold]

Originally Posted by 7x57

Irrelevant, maybe. Reports are that it is the Ohio Constitution, not statute law, which ultimately protects Open Carry. Every state has preemption for Constitutional issues.

7x57

An Ohio Court just threw out Ohio's Preempton law for everything except CCW laws.

[greg36f]

Originally Posted by KylaGWolf

OK first off you are wrong on a few points. Not all that open carry do it for attention as you assume. Secondly Nate as well for most others of us that open carry do NOT go looking for a negative encounter with LEO. Trust me a successful open carry outing is one that has NO police encounter what so ever. Any time there is a stop that is beyond what is legal for a stop it is a problem. Perfect example I was with Nate my other half and another I wasn't even open carrying and had MY fourth amendment rights violated in a couple of ways. Trust me I did not want that kind of attention.

The officers in the case of this thread were told disregard their rights use violence its OK even if they are not doing anything wrong. This is where the problem lies. You stated had he kept his mouth shut during the take down it would have been shorter....please tell me your kidding. Using that as an excuse had they tried to take me down in that stop I mentioned above they more than likely would have broken my shoulder or arm trying to put my arms behind my back and I wouldn't have been trying to fight them I have a disability that won't let one arm go behind my back without forcing it pretty hard.

No, I was not kidding about "shutting up"........When excited, agitated people (police in this case) are pointing guns at you and telling you what to do.....DO IT!!!!....worry about explaining, sueing (SP), filing a complaint later...Your safety is paramont...............You have a right away in a crosswalk too,,,,,,,I don't recomend stepping in front of a bus......Right but dead is not a victory.......There is a time for making a point.....during a felony take down is not the time......No matter who was in the right or the wrong.....Just my two cents worth......

[7x57]

Originally Posted by Fjold

An Ohio Court just threw out Ohio's Preempton law for everything except CCW laws.

Indeed. But I assume that means preemption of local statutes where state statutes are intended to fully occupy the space--striking down preemption simply means that local jurisdictions may pass laws in the firearms space. But if the Ohio Supreme Court holds that the Ohio Constitution directly protects OC, then how is it a preemption question at all? Neither state nor local statutes may contradict the constitution--otherwise, it would not be a constitution.

I suppose it may depend on precisely what SCOO (nice acronym ) held--if it said the constitution protects OC "subject to reasonable restrictions" then perhaps local ordinances would qualify as "reasonable restrictions" and so allow local meddling through that clause.

That would be a funny, and somewhat pointless notion of a right however if it covered a guy walking down the street. There would still be the matter of the level of scrutiny. One can imagine a local ordinance about OC in the usual roster of (what someone thinks should be) "sensitive areas"--school or courthouse. Unless SCOO intends to basically nullify the constitution by judicial fiat, though, they can't let local ordinances to create arbitrary restrictions. That would be a rational basis test, and it simply wouldn't qualify as a right.

7x57

[IrishPirate]

soooooo sweeeeeeeettttt!!!!! this guy is going to live off of the ohio police for years to come. Thank God he was willing to do the right thing and help end all this anti gun BS.

[Liberty1]

Originally Posted by IrishPirate

soooooo sweeeeeeeettttt!!!!! this guy is going to live off of the ohio police for years to come. Thank God he was willing to do the right thing and help end all this anti gun BS.

No, but his attorneys are going to get paid, and we'll be a little safer OCing in Ohio and other jurisdictions where firearm possession is no crime. He might get $1.00 thought.

[Liberty1]

Originally Posted by greg36f

Yes Nate, it was you...

Actually that was a write up by another contributor to his blog.



Nate,

Nate you need to talk nicer to your friends on the internet. Now go finish your homework.

[pullnshoot25]

Originally Posted by greg36f

Yes Nate, it was you..This is taken from your own web site....Corey did not decide to call on her own.......She did not even know about open carry until you introduced her......

The walk back to the truck was uneventful and I took the opportunity to shoot some video of Corey in her ensemble. Hooray iPhone 3Gs!


On the drive home, Corey called the non emergency police number and spoke to the dispatcher.


Corey: (Aghast) Hi, I was just down in Pacific Beach and there was a couple walking around with guns on their hips!

Dispatch: Yeah, it's actually legal.

C: (Appalled) What do you mean it's legal?

D: Well, there has actually been a lot of them lately. A lot of groups gather and they wear their guns out in the open.

C: How is that possible?

D: They're actually exercising their right to bear arms. They've even been on the news.

C: I've never heard of such a thing.

D: Well, were they doing anything? Were they pointing their guns at each other or making a disturbance?

C: No, they were just strolling along, southbound on Mission Boulevard. They were actually nicely dressed and everything.

D: Yes, well there is nothing illegal about that. We're seeing more and more of that. It's their right to keep and bear arms.

C: It IS? Oh yeah, the second amendment, right?

D: Right. I will let the officers in the area know just so they're aware but again, it's not illegal.

C: OK thank you for the information and thank you for your time. I guess it's pretty cool if you ask me. Have a good night.

D: Thank you for calling SDPD. Good night.

FREAKING FINALLY! I've said time and again that on these Man With Gun calls they ought to ask WHAT the subject is doing before automatically freaking out.

To say that the police are not obligated to respond to ANY call is ignorant.....They are gonna get their butts sued off if that don't respond and the "man with a gun" kills someone.....oops' he really was a criminal, not a legal open carry guy......Sorry store clerk that just got shot........The job always entails striking a balance between the public's safety and respecting a citizens rights...It's not always as easy as it looks Nate......Sometimes those two goals rub up against each other........

The world does not revolve around the open carry movement....There is give and take in every right......

If you don't believe me, go shout that "bikers are whimps" at the next meeting of your local HA.......Yep, it’s your right, but this is gonna hurt......

I will say it again, You put yourself out there at the tip of the spear......Just because you are right does not mean that you are not gonna run into some ignorance, hard times and / or difficulties at times.......You put yourself out there.

Again, I do respect your right to open carry, I just think that you lean a bit towards the angry, confrontational side of the movement. You seem angry at anyone that does not see it exactly your way.....

I respect you dedication and resolve though, no enough of that in today’s world.....

And Nate, it's corn flakes, not cheerio's.....and my urea thanks you.....

Whoa there il castrato, do you have any proof of which you speak? Show me where in the law it says that police are LEGALLY OBLIGATED AND REQUIRED to respond to a call or protect another's life and I will Gunpal you 10 dollars. No joke.

Also, for the last time, the story with Corey was not me, that was my brother Sam. He posts on the blog as well. If you take even a perfunctory read of two different blog posts, you can tell just based on sentence structure that the Corey story isn't written by me. However, that may be asking a little much so I will just put SAM'S name at the end of the blog post.

I am angry that police officers have had 40+ years to figure out a VERY BASIC SET OF LAWS, so basic that a 5 year old could figure them out. What is even more frustrating is that little statists such as yourself are right there giving them "atta boys" for it and justifying their attitudes towards citizens committing NO CRIMES.

I understand I have put myself out there. However, I know that basic 1/2/4/5A issues are just that, BASIC, and cops have not only had plenty of time to figure it out but also plenty of exposure on any of these facets of law. Asking to not be molested, harassed and nearly buggered by police officers is not too much to ask. However, that may seem like a foreign concept to you...

[greg36f]

Originally Posted by pullnshoot25

Whoa there il castrato, do you have any proof of which you speak? Show me where in the law it says that police are LEGALLY OBLIGATED AND REQUIRED to respond to a call or protect another's life and I will Gunpal you 10 dollars. No joke.

Also, for the last time, the story with Corey was not me, that was my brother Sam. He posts on the blog as well. If you take even a perfunctory read of two different blog posts, you can tell just based on sentence structure that the Corey story isn't written by me. However, that may be asking a little much so I will just put SAM'S name at the end of the blog post.

I am angry that police officers have had 40+ years to figure out a VERY BASIC SET OF LAWS, so basic that a 5 year old could figure them out. What is even more frustrating is that little statists such as yourself are right there giving them "atta boys" for it and justifying their attitudes towards citizens committing NO CRIMES.

I understand I have put myself out there. However, I know that basic 1/2/4/5A issues are just that, BASIC, and cops have not only had plenty of time to figure it out but also plenty of exposure on any of these facets of law. Asking to not be molested, harassed and nearly buggered by police officers is not too much to ask. However, that may seem like a foreign concept to you...

Man, you are one angry person Nate,,,,,,That’s not good for your long term health...........Lighten up....Take a yoga class next semester or something....

You worry so much about the fine points, that you miss the big picture......There may be a loop hole somewhere where the police are not "LEGALLY OBLIGATED AND REQUIRED" to respond to protect another persons life, but they certainly are morally and ethically required to do so. 40 years of "man with a gun" calls being a bad thing is a hard habit to break overnight....But is is happening......When they get there and is a nice normal guy just exercising his rights; that goes a long way to furthering the open carry cause.

To ask anyone to analyze sentence structure to determine if it was you that wrote on your blog is kind of picky. It's your blog, Nate,,,,,you own what’s on it.......Having said that, if it was not you, I stand corrected.

The world, to include laws and rules are made up of lots of fine points that form a big picture.......Sometimes one of those fine points can be overlook by someone dealing with the big picture...

Also if you were nearly buggered by a police officer, please report that immediately! An attempted buggering is still a crime. An unpleasant one I would imagine….

P.S. Thanks for using "statists". I learned a new word today.....Sorry, but that is not me.....I fall firmly into the Libertarian camp.....I just know that real life often intrudes into ideals.....

[pullnshoot25]

Originally Posted by greg36f

Man, you are one angry person Nate,,,,,,That’s not good for your long term health...........Lighten up....Take a yoga class next semester or something....

You worry so much about the fine points, that you miss the big picture......There may be a loop hole somewhere where the police are not "LEGALLY OBLIGATED AND REQUIRED" to respond to protect another persons life, but they certainly are morally and ethically required to do so. 40 years of "man with a gun" calls being a bad thing is a hard habit to break overnight....But is is happening......When they get there and is a nice normal guy just exercising his rights; that goes a long way to furthering the open carry cause.

To ask anyone to analyze sentence structure to determine if it was you that wrote on your blog is kind of picky. It's your blog, Nate,,,,,you own what’s on it.......Having said that, if it was not you, I stand corrected.

The world, to include laws and rules are made up of lots of fine points that form a big picture.......Sometimes one of those fine points can be overlook by someone dealing with the big picture...

Also if you were nearly buggered by a police officer, please report that immediately! An attempted buggering is still a crime. An unpleasant one I would imagine….

P.S. Thanks for using "statists". I learned a new word today.....Sorry, but that is not me.....I fall firmly into the Libertarian camp.....I just know that real life often intrudes into ideals.....

I can manage my emotions just fine, thank you.

I corrected you last time and you still accused me one last time. Glad to see that you stopped short of the charm inherent to the third iteration.

There is no "loophole," it is called SCOTUS case law and it is specifically included in our own state's Government Code.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

SCOTUS case law...
Warren v. District of Columbia
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

Here is a fun one!

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Quoted from the first link in google when you search "police have no obligation to protect"

Morals and ethics have nothing to do with it. Morally and ethically they should be following and upholding the law as it is written but that is rarely the case. If you can show me where morals and ethics are written requirements, I would love to see it.

MWAG calls don't have to culminate in violating my civil rights. In fact, it is REQUIRED that they do not culminate into civil rights molestation. Being the libertarian that you claim to be you should understand that.

[someR1]

those cops obviously don't understand the law

i hope he wins a **** load of money...and I hope it opens up a lot of minds...

[yellowfin]

It would be nice for us to prosecute "man with a gun" callers for maliciously giving false information to the police.

[Liberty1]

Originally Posted by yellowfin

It would be nice for us to prosecute "man with a gun" callers for maliciously giving false information to the police.

Well, people get to call the police. We've received calls that... "there are black people walking in front of my house".

If it's on 911 and they are repeatedly calling on an issue that they know to be false then there is a remote possibility, perhaps, might be, could some how be, a crime (which very few officers would write a report on and almost no DAs would prosecute without the most damning of evidence).

It basically falls to the dept. and the officers (the end users of discretion and policy) to do the right thing (or to do nothing) no matter what the caller is calling about.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by yellowfin

It would be nice for us to prosecute "man with a gun" callers for maliciously giving false information to the police.

One can not be prosecuted for making a true statement.

-Gene

[Mayhem]

Not to be devil's advocate but this is a nation wide problem.

You have laws wrote so it takes a BAR certified Attorney with an expensive 6-8+ year higher education to understand the law.

LEOs are not attorneys they have no where near the legal expertise to know the law. What LEOs have is a working knowledge of the law and the bare basic principles of the legal system. Some states have higher requirements as you get into states that have lower requirements lower pay and less required training you run into more issues like these.

Having personally known LEO's who have lost their lives in the line of duty, gunned downed by some slime ball, I can tell you it makes every individual LEO very nervous when they see a guy walking down the street with a firearm.

To be honest no LEO is truly trained and prepared for such a confrontation, and it scares the hell out of them. Your adrenaline kicks in your heart starts pumping so hard you can hear the blood flow in your ears. Everything slows down. You start trying to run scenarios and "what ifs" threw your mind but due to the adrenaline its hard to think your instincts tell you to react not think. Your training guides you to take control and dominate the situation, violently if necessary.

Their is a saying in the military and I've even seen it used in LEO training.

Your best performance in a High stress situation is going to be about as good as your performance in your worse day of training.

This is why training is so important to LEO's yet the average LEO get about 40 hours at best additional training per year. That training has to cover allot. Changes to policy, procedures, and the law as well as Weapons self defense and driver training just to name a few.

We expect our LEO's to preform like they have a 4 year Administration of Justice degree with 4 years military weapons and combat training and an additional 160 hours of annual training all at a wage your typical pole climber at the phone/cable company makes.

Again I'm not defending these particular officers but I'm pointing out the reasons for some these incidents.

LEO's Need more and better training both pre-employment (the academy) and Post-employment (supplementary) . They need more Supervised time on the streets before they are allowed to work alone - I honestly believe no Leo should ever work alone. They need to be properly equipped and trained with said equipment. Every patrol vehicle should have at minimum forward Looking Video recorders with audio. Unfortunately with the recession one area that is seeing massive cuts is LE budgets. We are again seeing falling back on the technological edge.

several Mistakes I see made by LEO's leading to unemployment, criminal charges, injury, and death. because they don't fallow these basic rules

1) Always behave as if your on camera and being recorded because you never know when you are. (This is one reason I feel all Patrol vehicles should have cams because this way they KNOW they are being recorded all the time).

2) always assume that every one out there is potentially armed as the person that you think is unarmed thats most likely going to kill you.

3) Always be mindfully of your surroundings More officers are killed every year during routine traffic stops by another vehicle then they are by an armed criminal in the vehicle they are stopping.

4) Never take it personal and don't loose your temper it's just a job that you can loose with one simple "Defiance of COP syndrome" incident.

One thing I will point out is that in this recording both sides seemed confrontational and both sides should have been more polite to each other.

[trashman]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

One thing I will point out is that in this recording both sides seemed confrontational and both sides should have been more polite to each other.

From a non-legal perspective, I agree completely -- from the standpoint of just exiting the stop with as little hassle as possible a "yes sir" and "yes ma'am" thrown in here and there wouldn't have killed him, nor would it have killed him to abstain from antagonizing the cops by implying they were Nazis after they detained him.

But fom a legal perspective this is gonna be really interesting. Thanks for the post Liberty1!

--Neill

[Mayhem]

I see no problem in exercising ones constitutional muscles. But you don't need to be rude dork about it.

This guy sounds like he went out of his way to get a little drama. The LEO's didn't do much better and sounded like they were on the verge of getting a bad case of "Defiant of Cop" syndrome. The Female sounded like a school yard duty worker dealing with a bunch of unruly school children.

NO ONE in this seemed to have any professional etiquette at all.

It's an embarrassment to LEO's and Its an embarrassment to 2a and UOC advocates.

[pullnshoot25]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

I see no problem in exercising ones constitutional muscles. But you don't need to be rude dork about it.

This guy sounds like he went out of his way to get a little drama. The LEO's didn't do much better and sounded like they were on the verge of getting a bad case of "Defiant of Cop" syndrome. The Female sounded like a school yard duty worker dealing with a bunch of unruly school children.

NO ONE in this seemed to have any professional etiquette at all.

It's an embarrassment to LEO's and Its an embarrassment to 2a and UOC advocates.

Gotta show the injustice first in order to get it to stop.

These guys were OCing, not UOCing.

These cops knew the law but chose to abuse it, as usual.

[cineski]

I love that line: "The law's in my pocket."

[Mayhem]

Originally Posted by pullnshoot25

Gotta show the injustice first in order to get it to stop.

Ya but it looks better when you are polite

These guys were OCing, not UOCing.

I did not know this. I don't think it was specified on the recording. personally its irrelevant if the state allows LOC. in either event this guy had a CCW he should be covered in so many ways. I feel the LEO was taken by surprise and was not up to date on state and local firearms restrictions causing him to overreact. However once the man was Identified and the LEO saw his CCW and ran his check it should have been over with. His Supe or some other higher up should have been on hand to confirm the open carry laws. The Leo should have given this guy his stuff back and sent him on his marry way. They second officer should have just kept her mouth shut. This entire confrontation just screams lack of training.

These cops knew the law but chose to abuse it, as usual.

again I feel this was more of a lack of training then an abuse.

Again No cop KNOWS the law (Cept maybe a FBI agent)... If he or she did they would be an attorney (or a FBI agent) not a cop.

LEOs only have a basic working knowledge of the law. They do not know it. One of my instructors in the academy told me "when in Doubt - arrest them all let the DA Judge and Jury sort them out."

This is one reason why LEOs have slightly different powers of arrest then civilians. 1) they are expected to enforce the law yet 2) they do not know the law but have what is considered a working knowledge of the law.

It's kinda jacked when you think about it.

only an attorney knows the law. most if not all State and Federal Laws are so damn convoluted and confusing you need a 6-8+ year expensive higher education to know the law. To a certian degree even attorneys have limits and have to specialize (criminal law, family law, civil law etc.) this is why we have a huge legal system. made up of criminal(superior), federal, civil, traffic, and family courts, overseen by judges with an appellate court system and SCOUTUS as back up.

Cops do not know the law but have a working knowledge of the law yet they are expected to enforce the law.

We the citizens are neither expected to know the law or have a working knowledge of the law but are expected to obey the law and Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating the law.

Look up 3 felonies a day.

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

Cops do not know the law but have a working knowledge of the law yet they are expected to know the law.

No....they're not expected to know the entire body of law as well as a judge or an attorney. But they should be expected to know what are arrestable/detainable offenses, especially for simply things like whether or not your state's law allows for open carry of a firearm or not. I don't think it's unreasonable for a citizen of Ohio to expect every LEO in the state to know that one w/o having to look it up in the PC or ask a supervisor.


As for "if in doubt arrest them and let the DA/judge sort it out." That's just effed up BS right there. If you're going to use your authority to deprive someone of their liberty and saddle them with an arrest record and legal bills and everything else that goes along with getting arrested you'd better make damn sure you have the legal grounds to do it on. Anything less is just being lazy and not living up to your oath of service, not to mention an abuse of your authority.

[greg36f]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

No....they're not expected to know the entire body of law as well as a judge or an attorney. But they should be expected to know what are arrestable/detainable offenses, especially for simply things like whether or not your state's law allows for open carry of a firearm or not. I don't think it's unreasonable for a citizen of Ohio to expect every LEO in the state to know that one w/o having to look it up in the PC or ask a supervisor.


As for "if in doubt arrest them and let the DA/judge sort it out." That's just effed up BS right there. If you're going to use your authority to deprive someone of their liberty and saddle them with an arrest record and legal bills and everything else that goes along with getting arrested you'd better make damn sure you have the legal grounds to do it on. Anything less is just being lazy and not living up to your oath of service, not to mention an abuse of your authority.

I think that a clearer view of "If in doubt, arrest them and let the DA/judge sort it out" is this. There are tens of thousands of laws out there, Hundreds, if not thousands covering theft alone. I have had a couple of criminal law classes and have been on some ride alongs and this is what I have seen. Often time, an officer knows that a crime has been committed (theft, battery, ect.) but he is not sure what the exact crime title will be...... (this depends on the final value of the property, extent of injury, changing stories, ect.). In that case, you would book for simple theft or battery and let the DA, Judge, Jury determine what the final crime was based on witness cooperation, extent of injury or final value of the property.

Booking someone for a crime when you know or should have known that no crime occurred is another issue that is not excusable.

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by greg36f

I think that a clearer view of "If in doubt, arrest them and let the DA/judge sort it out" is this. There are tens of thousands of laws out there, Hundreds, if not thousands covering theft alone. I have had a couple of criminal law classes and have been on some ride alongs and this is what I have seen. Often time, an officer knows that a crime has been committed (theft, battery, ect.) but he is not sure what the exact crime title will be...... (this depends on the final value of the property, extent of injury, changing stories, ect.). In that case, you would book for simple theft or battery and let the DA, Judge, Jury determine what the final crime was based on witness cooperation, extent of injury or final value of the property.

Booking someone for a crime when you know or should have known that no crime occurred is another issue that is not excusable.

Well when that officer writes up his crime/arrest report how in does he know what to write in his report if he's not even sure what crime was committed or what PC section he's actually arresting the person for.

Granted a DA may add or subtract charges against a person later based on additional investigation, evidence or witness statements gathered after the initial arrest.....but the LEO on the street making the initial arrest better know what he's making that initial arrest for other then "I think a crime was committed but I'm not sure, so I'll make something up and let the DA sort it out."

[greg36f]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

Well when that officer writes up his crime/arrest report how in does he know what to write in his report if he's not even sure what crime was committed or what PC section he's actually arresting the person for.

Granted a DA may add or subtract charges against a person later based on additional investigation, evidence or witness statements gathered after the initial arrest.....but the LEO on the street making the initial arrest better know what he's making that initial arrest for other then "I think a crime was committed but I'm not sure, so I'll make something up and let the DA sort it out."

From what I have seen, if the officer is not 100 percent sure that a crime occurred, you simply don't make the arrest. You write it up and submit it. Let the DA decide if HE wants to go forward.

It sounds like this is what happened to Thesus.

If you KNOW a crime occurred, but are not sure how it will eventually shake out (due to a variety of factors) you can arrest and file on a broad charge that you KNOW fits the crime (theft, battery ect.).