Calif. police claim a visible firearm is enough to detain a person for...


PDA






NavyLCDR
March 25, 2010, 12:45 PM
Calif. police claim a visible firearm is enough to detain a person for...
concealing a firearm! :scrutiny:

http://sfpublicdefender.org/media/2010/03/jury-acquits-honor-student-gun-charge/

“Despite officers describing the gun as immediately visible to justify the detention, Mr. Banks was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not a magic gun,” said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Maria Lopez.

At least there are 12 people in San Francisco with some common sense.

If you enjoyed reading about "Calif. police claim a visible firearm is enough to detain a person for..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dovedescending
March 25, 2010, 12:55 PM
LAME
the LEO took pictures AFTER moving the gun and handling it... what a waste of taxpayer money, both on his salary and the trial.

IdahoLT1
March 25, 2010, 01:03 PM
No counter suit? I'd totally support this guy in a counter suit. It may help him get through college.

ozarkgunner
March 25, 2010, 01:15 PM
Another example of LEO, good or bad, iver stepping their bounds and hasseling innocent law abiding citizens. For "good" LEO's on this site, this isn't badgering all LE, just the bad ones like these ones.
Asside for even making an arrest for some thing that wasn't illegal, or even coming close, they addmitied to evidence tampering. This guy gets put thru the ringer, will have his future possibly harmed, and more. And I bet no disaplinary action will be taken against the officers.

jnyork
March 25, 2010, 01:21 PM
Hard to believe our side actually won one in San Francisco. Whole thing was a sham and travesty.

wishin
March 25, 2010, 01:23 PM
Damned if you do, damned if you don't! Sounds like California.

rtroha
March 25, 2010, 01:46 PM
There have been at least two similar situations in Ohio.

About a year ago, a young man was arrested by Cleveland police for CCW while openly carrying a gun in a military-style flap holster. The young man chose to enter a diversion program rather then fight the CCW charge.

Recently. a man was arrested for CCW when Warren police saw him carrying Mexican style. The article writer mistakenly used the term "holstered" but there was no holster.

WARREN - Antonio M. Hernandez, 23, 1929 S. Feederle Drive S.E., was arrested on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon after police said he was seen with a handgun holstered at his waist about 4:30 p.m. Wednesday in the 2200 block of South Feederle Street S.E.

He was arraigned Thursday in Municipal Court and is in the Trumbull County Jail in lieu of a $5,000 bond. He has a preliminary hearing set for March 18.

A police report states that officers on patrol saw him standing on the sidewalk with the gun in plain sight in front of several people, including several children who were playing.

Police stopped and ordered Hernandez to come over to their cruiser, and officers took the gun, which was a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun. A records check revealed that Hernandez does not have a concealed weapon permit, the report states.

The weapon was loaded with a nine-round clip, the report states.


http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/534681.html

Owen Sparks
March 25, 2010, 02:18 PM
What about other Constitutionally protected items?

Can they arrest you for carrying a visible Bible or newspaper? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword and these contain many dangerous ideas that MIGHT prompt you to break some law.

NavyLCDR
March 25, 2010, 02:40 PM
The weapon was loaded with a nine-round clip, the report states.

AAAAAAAAAGH! :cuss: :banghead: :fire:

Zoogster
March 25, 2010, 02:45 PM
He is just lucky the officers didn't invent other probable cause, which does happen. Or his entire defense would have been ruined.

Had they said something like "smelled odor of marijuana", or "in a high drug trafficking area", or "suspicious in area with high gang activity" or "patted something and believed to be instinctively feeling for his weapon" or one of the similar blanket excuses often used instead of honestly saying they saw the openly carried firearm his defense would have faltered.

Essentially if the officers had made up any other reason for probable cause except for seeing an openly carried firearm they could have claimed they found the concealed firearm afterwards. Which would have made his defense much more difficult.

Had he lost his case he would have become a prohibited person in California.


Officers are also free to stop anyone to check if the gun is loaded under California law per the penal code. So they can harass people legally carrying an unloaded firearm each time they see them without any additional probable cause.

KBintheSLC
March 25, 2010, 03:02 PM
This is great news... aside from the wasted tax dollars of course. Many of us are hoping to build up enough momentum to push for "shall issue" and reciprocity laws soon. Even though this case has nothing to do with CCW permits, the fact that a CA jury actually sided with the gun owner is a giant leap in the right direction.

Had they said something like "smelled odor of marijuana", or "in a high drug trafficking area", or "suspicious in area with high gang activity" or "patted something and believed to be instinctively feeling for his weapon" or one of the similar blanket excuses often used instead of honestly saying they saw the openly carried firearm his defense would have faltered.

Sad but true. And a lot of the cops in CA do these scandalous things with frightening regularity (especially in cities like SF). This is the price we pay for having our KGB liberal mafia state... the cops are not defenders of society, they are defenders of the elite.

denfoote
March 25, 2010, 03:09 PM
This is an example of why Yuma Arizona is gonna be the new sea coast!!!!!

This level of stupidity must eventually be terminally painful!!!

Nature abhors stupid, it's called natural selection!!

Zip7
March 25, 2010, 03:12 PM
It's really illegal to carry a loaded gun in your car in California? Geez! How do they get away with those drive by shootings then?

jnyork
March 25, 2010, 03:45 PM
This is an example of why Yuma Arizona is gonna be the new sea coast!!!!!


It has started already, for several years now we have had a large influx of California residents moving here, not only into Yuma but throughout Arizona and other western states as well.

SharpsDressedMan
March 25, 2010, 04:05 PM
Common sense is not common. Perhaps they should include a psych test for common sense to further screen SF police officers.

Gouranga
March 25, 2010, 04:20 PM
Wait a second. Did that article from Ohio state he was wearing a gun in plain...in front of...children who were playing? Dear God!! Will the madness ever end!?

If that is not an attempt by the media to totally (and in as lame a manner as possible), to paint open carry advocates in an extremely negative light I do not know what is. That is almost the exact way they describe a perv flashing people.

ArfinGreebly
March 25, 2010, 04:26 PM
Perhaps they should include a psych test for common sense to further screen SF police officers.

:scrutiny:

Oh, gawd.

:neener:

I . . . just . . . can't . . .

Bear 45/70
March 25, 2010, 04:44 PM
One of these days The Peoples Republic of Kalfornia will be forced to rejoin the United States of America. Until then I just refuse to go there for any reason.

Officers'Wife
March 25, 2010, 04:51 PM
Hi SharpsDressedMan,

Perhaps they should include a psych test for common sense to further screen SF police officers.

In California? Sounds like a job for a latter day Diogenes.

Steve C
March 25, 2010, 05:18 PM
A lawyer who had many successful concealed carry cases told me that any case where the police claim to have seen a concealed weapon is very easy case to win. He said the same thing as the lawyer in the article, concealed means "not visible" so you can't "see" a concealed weapon. He said a good concealed weapons charge is ancillary to another legitimate reason to search an individual and they happen to find a weapon by a method other than viewing it.

Webbj0219
March 25, 2010, 05:46 PM
Ive read how our first president George Washington carried a dress sword on his person at all times, when he was out. That would just be ..... If our president open carried a dress pistol when he went out in public. Not sure how the perception in this country has gotten so that carrying a weopon in public all in itself makes you evil. Our first prez was a General and the sword was part of his dress attire. So he wore that same attire as president. I guess America has become more civilized since then? Nowadays you have to worry about having the police called on you if your open carrying. And potentially getting CC charges if your holster isnt deemed proper. Like you were really trying to hide it. Had someone mention that to me while OCing my S&W 442. Its a small gun and I have a small holster, Im not trying to conceal it. If I wanted to do that I would just put it in my pocket, it would be much easier.

Zoogster
March 25, 2010, 05:57 PM
A lawyer who had many successful concealed carry cases told me that any case where the police claim to have seen a concealed weapon is very easy case to win. He said the same thing as the lawyer in the article, concealed means "not visible" so you can't "see" a concealed weapon. He said a good concealed weapons charge is ancillary to another legitimate reason to search an individual and they happen to find a weapon by a method other than viewing it.

Which is why all they have to do is approach them, and do a terry frisk, which requires no probable cause per our SCOTUS, and then "discover" the concealed weapon they could see all along.
At which point they can write it up as coming across a concealed weapon while doing a routine terry frisk for officer safety.

Officers abuse the "terry frisk" to discover drugs and other things all the time when actually doing it for that purpose is illegal. They may know someone clearly does not have a weapon in a tiny little pocket, or in their skin tight clothing, but they are going to check it anyways to "accidentally" stumble across contraband during their permitted terry frisk.
They have even done a "terry frisk" in some cases on people legally carrying a loaded firearm (either openly where legal, or with a concealed permit) everyone knows about to look for contraband.
Clearly a joke in that case because the guy has an obvious lethal weapon on him known to everyone, but the officer is going to use the pretense of making sure he has no dangerous weapons (purpose of the Terry frisk) to explore what is in his pockets?


The "terry frisk" is routinely used in California and other places to explore the contents of pockets when probable cause does not exist. If they then "stumble" across contraband they write it up as an accident. Or they can retroactively create probable cause. Like saying they smelled marijuana if they find marijuana. Or saw symptoms of some narcotic if they find narcotics. It may be untrue, but it is routine and nobody in a court of law is going to know any better.

Bear 45/70
March 25, 2010, 06:07 PM
Which is why all they have to do is approach them, and do a terry frisk, which requires no probable cause per our SCOTUS, and then "discover" the concealed weapon they could see all along.
At which point they can write it up as coming across a concealed weapon while doing a routine terry frisk for officer safety.

Officers abuse the "terry frisk" to discover drugs and other things all the time when actually doing it for that purpose is illegal. They may know someone clearly does not have a weapon in a tiny little pocket, or in their skin tight clothing, but they are going to check it anyways to "accidentally" stumble across contraband during their permitted terry frisk.
They have even done a "terry frisk" in some cases on people legally carrying a loaded firearm (either openly where legal, or with a concealed permit) everyone knows about to look for contraband.
Clearly a joke in that case because the guy has an obvious lethal weapon on him known to everyone, but the officer is going to use the pretense of making sure he has no dangerous weapons (purpose of the Terry frisk) to explore what is in his pockets?


The "terry frisk" is routinely used in California and other places to explore the contents of pockets when probable cause does not exist. If they then "stumble" across contraband they write it up as an accident. Or they can retroactively create probable cause. Like saying they smelled marijuana if they find marijuana. Or saw symptoms of some narcotic if they find narcotics. It may be untrue, but it is routine and nobody in a court of law is going to know any better.
You are wrong on several counts. First the cop must have "articulable reason " to do a Terry stop and if he doesn't the the cop is violating the law. Second, carrying an unconcealed weapon in a holster, or at least not in your hand, is not even reason for a Terry stop. Why are you giving cops powers they do not have?

Zoogster
March 25, 2010, 06:16 PM
You are wrong on several counts. First the cop must have "articulable reason " to do a Terry stop and if he doesn't the the cop is violating the law. Second, carrying an unconcealed weapon in a holster, or at least not in your hand, is not even reason for a Terry stop. Why are you giving cops powers they do not have?

They are powers they use all the time. They harass teenagers with it everyday (as teenagers, are responsible for a lot of certain types of crime.)
Who are being "suspicious" or "loitering" or other regular things teens do when just hanging out with friends.
Teenagers (or parents on their behalf) don't sue over minor things very often either so make ripe targets of abuse.
The burden of proof for a terry is almost non-existant and any officer can create a reason on the spot for anyone. Unlike probable cause.

They are a little slower to harass adults, but if they really want to do a terry they can create a reason. It does not even require probable cause and if they know it will result in a charge (like a concealed weapon charge from a weapon they can plainly see) they will proceed.

Maybe your area is different, but in many areas I have lived, especially in California, and most especially in lower income areas (which incidentally are the high gang and crime areas) , they do these things regularly.

Bear 45/70
March 25, 2010, 06:24 PM
They are powers they use all the time. They harass teenagers with it everyday (as teenagers, are responsible for a lot of certain types of crime.)
Who are being "suspicious" or "loitering" or other regular things teens do when just hanging out with friends.
Teenagers (or parents on their behalf) don't sue over minor things very often either so make ripe targets of abuse.
The burden of proof for a terry is almost non-existant and any officer can create a reason on the spot for anyone. Unlike probable cause.

They are a little slower to harass adults, but if they really want to do a terry they can create a reason. It does not even require probable cause and if they know it will result in a charge (like a concealed weapon charge from a weapon they can plainly see) they will proceed.

Maybe your area is different, but in many areas I have lived, especially in California, and most especially in lower income areas (which incidentally are the high gang and crime areas) , they do these things regularly.
If they are doing it they are breaking the law and need to be stopped. Cops are not omnipotent and do not possess those powers. Oh and they would never get away with it with any of my kids or me. If you let them do it, you are not much of a citizen or a parent if let them get away with it.

Webbj0219
March 25, 2010, 06:25 PM
Recently. a man was arrested for CCW when Warren police saw him carrying Mexican style. The article writer mistakenly used the term "holstered" but there was no holster.

Ive heard that it may be a valid CC charge because part of the gun is hidden. But seriously someone with a gun sticking out of their pants wants to be seen with the gun. The guy probably thought he was Clint Eastwood, hopeing for someone to make his day. Some laws make no sense. If that even is law. Im not condoning that kinda behavior. Getting a gansta ego boost through your gun. O.G. Loke probably had something coming, just makes no sense that it would be a CC charge. Maybe he just got the gun, didnt have a CCW yet and spent all his money and couldnt afford a holster? Dont know the case.

I think a valid CC charge would entail things like what I heard another member talking about here maybe a month ago. I think the story had him getting out of his vehicle with a gun in holster, then going back to put on a jacket that covered the firearm. A cop saw him do this and asked him if he had a permit. Thats valid in my opinion. Its usually obvious if someones trying to hide it and their doing a bad job. Or maybe they get a gust of wind or print somehow or theyre adjusting themselves and the cop picks it up, etc..... Maybe in a valid Terry frisk. Cop finds that they have no permit, alla CC charge. There you go.

SharpsDressedMan
March 25, 2010, 07:54 PM
Some you have missed my point. San Francisco cops go through a lengthy hiring process, like most cops do. Written test, psych test, physical and agility test, background check, maybe several interviews, maybe even a polygraph. After all of that, they STILL end up hiring guys like the ones "testifying" against the poor guy above. They got on the stand, and stated that the "concealed" weapon was in plain view (and apparently testified to such with a straight face). Sorry folks. I could never do that. First of all, I'd be LYING if I said an openly displayed gun was concealed. So, these cops would either have to lie on the stand, or display stupidity beyond comprehension. I would think that this could hurt their credibility in court for the rest of their careers, if a sharp defense attorney knew to bring it up in subsequent cases.

Resto Guy
March 25, 2010, 08:02 PM
I wonder what the kids were playing. Maybe "Cops and Robbers" because of the negative influence of the accused? Now they know how to play "Keystone Cops".
I also wonder if those children will now need several years of counseling because of all of this.

Jim K
March 25, 2010, 08:48 PM
Most of us like to pretend there are only a few bad cops, but in fact people tend to join the police force because they want the power to harass and intimidate "ordinary" people. There is a theory in psychology that all human drive is about power; not sex, not food, not money - but power. The others are either the outcome of power or a means of getting it.

Cops have power and most are only too eager to let people know it. Many don't know the law and don't care about it; they will make up laws to suit the situation, even making arrests or using deadly force to support their ideas of what the law should be.

Jim

glockman19
March 25, 2010, 08:54 PM
Californian Police are retarded and in good company with retarded DA's, CA's and AG's, Robert-Roos list, Safe handgun list, ammo registration requirements and other draconian laws and safety issues.

Enachos
March 25, 2010, 09:08 PM
+1 Jim Keenan

Someone finally had the cajones to say it. But of course, that does not apply to all or most cops. I personally know lots of cops and they're just honest people. But I have run into the power-hungry ones before... it's a shame. I understand that policemen do have to be assertive because they're job requires it (after all they are law enforcement) but some just take it waaayyyyyy too far.

Owen Sparks
March 26, 2010, 12:53 AM
How did all this concealed = evil business get started in the first place? Was it just a convenient contrivance to get around the 2A? The constitution makes no mention of concealment.

Cel
March 26, 2010, 01:08 AM
Most of us like to pretend there are only a few bad cops, but in fact people tend to join the police force because they want the power to harass and intimidate "ordinary" people.

This.

danprkr
March 26, 2010, 07:49 AM
Some you have missed my point. San Francisco cops go through a lengthy hiring process, like most cops do. Written test, psych test, physical and agility test, background check, maybe several interviews, maybe even a polygraph. After all of that, they STILL end up hiring guys like the ones "testifying" against the poor guy above.

I worked with a guy in the late 90s who was married to a police recruiter. She went from town to town recruiting cops for various departments all over the country. What he told me, and I found disconcerting was that in deed you can fail these tests by being to dumb. You can also fail them by Being to SMART. Turns out that the logic is that the brighter people tend to not stay as long, and the training costs to replace them are too high so they weed out the best and brightest in favor of the mediocre. Scary to me, but that's the way many departments use the tests. Don't know about SF, but LA was using that methods at the time, and actively trying to get cops to move to LA from all over the country.

And, of course what are you going to do when some guy is complying with the law in order to circumvent it? I mean come on, we clearly can't have a guy carrying a gun in a legal manner. Can we? :rolleyes:

atomd
March 26, 2010, 08:02 AM
So what's going to happen to the leo for taking that bogus photo (among other things)? I'm guessing nothing....

robmkivseries70
March 26, 2010, 08:55 AM
Quoting danprkr, "You can also fail them by Being to SMART. Turns out that the logic is that the brighter people tend to not stay as long, and the training costs to replace them are too high so they weed out the best and brightest in favor of the mediocre." end quote

I read the same thing back in the late 60's, people, of low average intelligence, will also tend to follow orders without question. "papern bitte" anybody?
Best,
Rob

bigfatdave
March 26, 2010, 05:31 PM
Ive heard that it may be a valid CC charge because part of the gun is hidden.
What?
Just about any holster will hide part of the gun.
Any safe holster will hide the trigger by protecting it from tampering.
Unless you think open carry is done by sticking the gun to your belt with a magnet or something, which might be interesting ... ...

but back on topic, if I had a handgun and a sheet of paper, and slowly covered the handgun with that paper ... at what point would you call it "concealed" and how would you justify that judgment in front of a jury?
Now, how is that different than a holstered handgun or even one tucked into a waistband?

Some common sense is needed here. If a gun can be seen enough to identify it as "probably a firearm" then it is open carry. Concealment requires covering the gun from view or disguising it somehow, at a minimum.

Webbj0219
March 26, 2010, 06:43 PM
For BigFatDave, Thats what would make sense. But if this is accurate than this law doesnt make sense. Make sense? But maybe its more of a perception thing? Or Safety? Even though a gun in your pants may show just as much of the gun as a holster, its not deemed as safe. I dont know? Plus when ppl see a holster they usually think gun. There is another thread where a guy got hassled by courthouse security, probable cause his holster resembled a gun. Holsters are usually shaped like the gun they carry, for the most part. So this probable aids in the openess of open carry?

Bear 45/70
March 26, 2010, 06:48 PM
For BigFatDave, Thats what would make sense. But if this is accurate than this law doesnt make sense. Make sense? But maybe its more of a perception thing? Or Safety? Even though a gun in your pants may show just as much of the gun as a holster, its not deemed as safe. I dont know? Plus when ppl see a holster they usually think gun. There is another thread where a guy got hassled by courthouse security, probable cause his holster resembled a gun. Holsters are usually shaped like the gun they carry, for the most part. So this probable aids in the openess of open carry?
CCW laws haven't got squat to do with safety. It is all about government control and that is what the cops are pushing here. All of this in the face of the SCOTUS' Heller decision and the 9th Circuit's decision to incorporate the 2nd Amendment. Don't kid yourself, no gun law is about safety, ever; it is about control.

NavyLCDR
March 26, 2010, 08:26 PM
What?
Just about any holster will hide part of the gun.
Any safe holster will hide the trigger by protecting it from tampering.
Unless you think open carry is done by sticking the gun to your belt with a magnet or something, which might be interesting ... ...

but back on topic, if I had a handgun and a sheet of paper, and slowly covered the handgun with that paper ... at what point would you call it "concealed" and how would you justify that judgment in front of a jury?
Now, how is that different than a holstered handgun or even one tucked into a waistband?

Some common sense is needed here. If a gun can be seen enough to identify it as "probably a firearm" then it is open carry. Concealment requires covering the gun from view or disguising it somehow, at a minimum.

In Mississippi, a firearm openly carried in a holster is considered to be concealed by the holster, and, therefore, requires a concealed license to open carry...

Summary
Mississippi is an open carry state and the state constitution appears to guarantee this right. Further, localities are generally preempted under state law from enacting local gun control ordnances that might restrict open carry. However, Miss. Code §§ 97-37-1 & § 45-9-101 operate together to ban carriage of a handgun "concealed in whole or in part" unless the carrier is inside a motor vehicle or possesses a License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver. As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part, a License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver is required to openly carry a handgun in a holster in Mississippi.

http://www.opencarry.org/ms.html

dec41971
March 26, 2010, 08:39 PM
He was arrested for Concealed weapon but A police report states that officers on patrol saw him standing on the sidewalk with the gun in plain sight in front of several people, including several children who were playing. :D in the Ohio case.

Throw in Children for effect I am thinking. Everyone and their mother knows kids and gun = guaranteed convictions No one likes it. But I think its so funny the cops did not notice the contradiction they wrote in their report. Its not concealed if it is in plain sight. The DA should have just thrown that out. I think what happens is people's emotions get so charged up in this thorny issue you wind up with tunnel vision to the point the obvious is not even noticed. :D

bigfatdave
March 26, 2010, 09:02 PM
As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part, a License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver is required to openly carry a handgun in a holster in Mississippi.
Well, if Mississippi is nerping the derp that hard, the magnet concept might be a winner there.
Or ... maybe I can find a picture of something really cool from a while back ...
AH HAH! http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Peacemaker(2).jpg
The bridgeport rig is what I'm looking for, this would solve the silliness in Mississippi rapidly ... a bunch of these carried around the courthouses and capitol, until the idiots ASK for the scary guns to be holstered!
(picture from http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d15-It-takes-a-gun-to-stop-a-gunman)

Birdgeport rig in action (youtube link) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnSFHQ-3Jic)

Of course, the courts would probably rule that the back of the gun is concealed by the mass of the gun, and thus concealed ... but they would lose any shreds of credibility they had left saying the bridgeport rig was "concealed" in any way!

Bear 45/70
March 26, 2010, 09:08 PM
Well, if Mississippi is nerping the derp that hard, the magnet concept might be a winner there.
Or ... maybe I can find a picture of something really cool from a while back ...
AH HAH! http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Peacemaker(2).jpg
The bridgeport rig is what I'm looking for, this would solve the silliness in Mississippi rapidly ... a bunch of these carried around the courthouses and capitol, until the idiots ASK for the scary guns to be holstered!
(picture from http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d15-It-takes-a-gun-to-stop-a-gunman)

Birdgeport rig in action (youtube link) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnSFHQ-3Jic)

Of course, the courts would probably rule that the back of the gun is concealed by the mass of the gun, and thus concealed ... but they would lose any shreds of credibility they had left saying the bridgeport rig was "concealed" in any way!
They would also lose if the case went to the SCOTUS.

Webbj0219
March 27, 2010, 07:36 AM
Gotta remember even with the bridgport rig, while walking normally your arm is gonna swing back and forth partially obstructing the complete view of the gun momentarily. So your walking down the street and your gun is alternating back and forth from CC to OC every other second. Thats a recipe for disaster. What you really need to do is glue the thing to your chest. With some flashing neon lights around it, to draw attention to said gun. Also with an alarm box soundingfrom in your pocket, Alternating from a siren to gun shot sound effects to an intimidating vioce saying "STAND BACK, LOADED GUN!" Also wouldnt hurt if you walked with a buddy that wore a t-shirt that says," My friend has a gun".
With an arrow pointing at you. Ok, Ok my head is starting to hurt.

Gouranga
March 27, 2010, 08:48 AM
man...ya gotta love lawyers. Take a simple concept such as what makes a gun concealed and turn it into an argument of idiocy. Yeah, there are gray areas but to argue a gun in a holster on your hip is concealed, you have got have a set of steel b*lls or just be flat out retarded.

I look at some of these laws and think, how did we get to be THIS retarded? As a nation really, how did we do it? You have to think the founding fathers would knock a lawyer out for even the idea of limiting CCW but when they said a holster in the open was concealment, they would have probably gone berserk.

The "system" recognizes that cops are human and as such they will make mistakes, there will be bad eggs in the bunch, and that is where the court system is supposed to correct the actions of those individuals. Any judge who hears these types of charges should throw it out before it begins.

I have a rather unique POV on liberals. Growing up I was VERY liberal. I was anti-gun (except for my hunting guns of course), anti-violence (even self defense), pro nanny state, the whole 9 yards.

However, I eventually got into the real world and realized the reality out there was far different than the fuzzy warm, utopia they fed me in school. I saw the hypocrisy in embracing my semi auto 12 gauge (which could do some SERIOUS damage) while howling about a 9mm in the hands of a lawful citizen. I saw that yeah violence sucks but it is there, and I am not going to be a victim if I can help it. I also came to the realization that the rest of the world did not consist of supporting cast members in the "Me" show and other peoples POV, needs, and desires mattered.

Even coming from that background I cannot understand Cali. I do not understand the rationale behind the thoughts. The sit there with some extremely violent cities and gangs and still hold to the thought that law abiding citizens with guns are their problem. They fail to see the lunacy in listening to celebs who sit behind large gated homes and communities with armed security, rail against lawful gun ownership to protect your home and family. They have crime up the wazoo and choose to burn resources on total garbage like the case brought up by the OP. I mean how many gang bangers were waiting for a trial while this courtroom was tied up on this guy!? How much crime was going on while cops were looking at him? It is just mind boggling.

atomd
March 27, 2010, 12:34 PM
If they knew that they had no case but they took it to court anyways, it's just "to teach this guy a lesson"...it's basically harassing him because they don't agree with him. They are bullying him by taking up his time and costing him money...while having the fear of conviction hanging over his head the whole time. If they didn't know that they had no case, they should seek another line of work.

They aren't paying out of pocket to prosecute people.....it's our money they are using to fund this stupidity. Maybe they should be forced to pay those court fees out of pocket for any obvious case of wasteful spending like this one. There should be some sort of accountability for their downright criminal behavior. Firing them all would be good first step and then take it from there. I'd bet that won't happen though.

SharpsDressedMan
March 27, 2010, 12:54 PM
I guess in Mississippi, having it in your hand would also be concealed. That would make carrying a rifle or shotgun, concealed also, by definition (one's hand covers part of the gun). Seems like they need to change out lawmakers in MS and start over again.

xcgates
March 27, 2010, 01:17 PM
Webbs post on the neon warning sign got me thinking about other stupid warnings/signs, and my most recent, best one. On the back of the bags of lead shot, a warning that "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS LEAD, A PRODUCT KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS AND CANCER" Or something like that, only much wordier. Yes, because I didn't know I was buying several bags of 25# lead shot.:rolleyes:

Nothing like ridiculous laws.

Tamlin
March 27, 2010, 11:41 PM
"Officers are also free to stop anyone to check if the gun is loaded under California law per the penal code."

This is what gets me. Under the 4th Amendment, an officer needs probable cause to believe a crime is being/has been committed in order to conduct a warrantless search. Checking a person's gun to see if it is loaded IS a search.

If it is legal to carry an unloaded gun in CA, how can there ever be probable cause to think that a crime is being committed, by the mere fact that a person is carrying a gun? A Suspicion that the gun might be loaded: maybe. Probable cause to believe so: No.

California's statute that allows this is basically saying the cops don't need probable cause to search - that the mere fact that a person is carrying a gun IS probable cause to believe the gun is loaded. This is horse*****, and unconstitutional as He11. :cuss:

On this reasoning, there should be a statute that gives cops automatic justification to search people's homes, because we all know it's illegal to possess heroin in one's home, and the cops would just be making sure our homes are "unloaded" of heroin. :banghead:

Bear 45/70
March 28, 2010, 01:18 AM
"Officers are also free to stop anyone to check if the gun is loaded under California law per the penal code."

This is what gets me. Under the 4th Amendment, an officer needs probable cause to believe a crime is being/has been committed in order to conduct a warrantless search. Checking a person's gun to see if it is loaded IS a search.

If it is legal to carry an unloaded gun in CA, how can there ever be probable cause to think that a crime is being committed, by the mere fact that a person is carrying a gun? A Suspicion that the gun might be loaded: maybe. Probable cause to believe so: No.

California's statute that allows this is basically saying the cops don't need probable cause to search - that the mere fact that a person is carrying a gun IS probable cause to believe the gun is loaded. This is horse*****, and unconstitutional as He11. :cuss:

On this reasoning, there should be a statute that gives cops automatic justification to search people's homes, because we all know it's illegal to possess heroin in one's home, and the cops would just be making sure our homes are "unloaded" of heroin. :banghead:
Like I said before, "One of these days The Peoples Republic of ********** will be forced to rejoin the Union." Until then the Constitution does not exist there.

NavyLCDR
March 28, 2010, 12:20 PM
On this reasoning, there should be a statute that gives cops automatic justification to search people's homes, because we all know it's illegal to possess heroin in one's home, and the cops would just be making sure our homes are "unloaded" of heroin.

No, actually, I think they would still have to prove that there was some action taken to search the home - some evidence that heroin was carried into the home. You know, like maybe somebody seen entering the home with a grocery sack. After, it is possible that grocery sack contained heroin, so the cops would have reason to search then, in California.

Like I said before, "One of these days The Peoples Republic of ********** will be forced to rejoin the Union." Until then the Constitution does not exist there.

Or maybe one of these days the PRK will be forced to slide into the ocean because of an earthquake...:what: Then the value of my beach front Nevada property would skyrocket! :neener:

hankdatank1362
March 28, 2010, 04:28 PM
but in fact people tend to join the police force because they want the power to harass and intimidate "ordinary" people.

That is proably the most ridiculously asinine thing I've read this week. If you wish to interject your unsubstantiated, subversive beliefs into a conversation and pass them off as fact, then I suggest at least attempting to find some supporting research (from credible sources) to back up your claims.

I know that in the past 4 years I have been here, and the year or two before I joined when I was a mere lurker, THR has always had a strong anti-authoritarian streak, which I understand, as firearm enthusiasts are typically very independant and self-reliant.

Unfortunately, there is also a strong anti-law enforcement mentality on this board. When a LEO crosses the line, I am as much in favor of his/her punishment as I would be any other common criminal, perhaps even more so. But blanket generalizations like the one above, or
...police officers don't serve society, they serve the elite. with no supportive evidence whatsoever, just mere personal prejudcial notions, only undermine the credibility of the person writing the statement.

If I were Jim Keenan, I would have attempted to correlate the overall nature of humans (not just LEOs) to abuse authority with widely-published reseach such as the Stanford Prision Experiment of 1971. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one has any more merit than another... but I, for one, would like to see a bit more edjucated debate on the subject rather than closed-minded empty rhetoric.

And, for all those interested on a good read on modern Terry Stop guidelines and other forms of investigative detention, try http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0036.htm.

Bear 45/70
March 28, 2010, 05:03 PM
That is proably the most ridiculously asinine thing I've read this week. If you wish to interject your unsubstantiated, subversive beliefs into a conversation and pass them off as fact, then I suggest at least attempting to find some supporting research (from credible sources) to back up your claims.

I know that in the past 4 years I have been here, and the year or two before I joined when I was a mere lurker, THR has always had a strong anti-authoritarian streak, which I understand, as firearm enthusiasts are typically very independant and self-reliant.

Unfortunately, there is also a strong anti-law enforcement mentality on this board. When a LEO crosses the line, I am as much in favor of his/her punishment as I would be any other common criminal, perhaps even more so. But blanket generalizations like the one above, or
with no supportive evidence whatsoever, just mere personal prejudcial notions, only undermine the credibility of the person writing the statement.

If I were Jim Keenan, I would have attempted to correlate the overall nature of humans (not just LEOs) to abuse authority with widely-published reseach such as the Stanford Prision Experiment of 1971. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one has any more merit than another... but I, for one, would like to see a bit more edjucated debate on the subject rather than closed-minded empty rhetoric.

And, for all those interested on a good read on modern Terry Stop guidelines and other forms of investigative detention, try http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0036.htm.
And the "Thin Blue Line" stands up on it hind legs and screams outrage. Of course they never turn on their own because there are no bad cops, we all know this to be true. Pure BS, if a cop actually turns a bad cop in it is big news, like Serpico was. But the truth is there are bad cops, but the rest of the cops just turn the other way, making themselves bad cops for not doig their duty. But most cops never admit the truth or actually keep their oaths.

hankdatank1362
March 28, 2010, 08:56 PM
I had typed out a long detailed response, but my browser crashed and I lost it, so I'll hit ya with the Cliff Notes version:

But the truth is there are bad cops,

Of course there are. There's also bad interior decorators. At least there's interview panels, screens, psych evals and polygraphs to try and "weed out" the bad ones... how many of those did you have to pass for your job?

but the rest of the cops just turn the other way

You'd be surprised to know just how many officers won't tolerate or condone anyone bringing dishonor to their department or profession.... but you'd have to open your mind and do a little research to figure that out. Shucks. :banghead:

making themselves bad cops for not doig their duty.
I agree wholeheartedly; any officer who condones, or at least, selecively ignores illegal or unethical behavior by any coworker, friend, etc. is a poor excuse for an officer indeed. However, once again, you'd be surprised just how rare such instances are.

But most cops never admit the truth or actually keep their oaths.

Brilliant. And this is supported by... exactly, what? Oh yeah, nothing. Way to bring down the signal/noise ratio on THR, and add absolutely nothing of merit or truth.

Deanimator
March 28, 2010, 10:23 PM
Of course there are. There's also bad interior decorators.
That's an utterly foolish analogy.

When an interior decorator can stop me in my car and hold me at gun point or kick in my front door, throw me to the floor and put a boot on the back of my neck with an M16 pointed at my head, then you'll have a point. Until then equating cops and interior decorators is errant nonsense.

Interior decorators have NO legal power. Cops have INCREDIBLE legal power and a great ability to misuse that power.

Tell me, was it interior decorators who faked up a search warrant and murdered Kathryn Johnston in her home?

Was it a ring of rogue interior decorators in Chicago who committed a string of home invasions, robberies, and kidnappings?

At least there's interview panels, screens, psych evals and polygraphs to try and "weed out" the bad ones... how many of those did you have to pass for your job?
How many of them did Jerry Finnegan and Bobby Cutts Jr. pass?

You'd be surprised to know just how many officers won't tolerate or condone anyone bringing dishonor to their department or profession.... but you'd have to open your mind and do a little research to figure that out.
Apparently there weren't any of those officers in the New Orleans PD when the murders took place on the Danziger bridge, OR they didn't think that murder and a coverup brought "dishonor" to their department or profession.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. The SOS home invasion ring in Chicago, the Kathryn Johnston murder, and the Danziger bridge murders were all examples of NOBODY doing ANYTHING to deter, not just crimes by police but kidnapping and MURDER. Furthermore, each one of those examples demonstrates deep rooted coverups which in fact have not YET been completely unraveled YEARS later. I don't see cops not "tolerating" these things. I see them actively covering them up, with only OUTSIDE agencies doing ANYTHING to bring justice to the victims.

There isn't enough whitewash in the world to hide that truth.

hankdatank1362
March 28, 2010, 11:48 PM
That's an utterly foolish analogy.

No, it isn't. It serves to perfectly illustrate the simple fact that police officers are just like regular people in the sense that most are good and some are bad. Police officers have to abide by the law just like everyone else. In fact, at times, they are held to a higher standard than most ordinary civilians.

Yes, they do have "INCREDIBLE legal power," granted to them by the public, and therefore must be held accountable when they violate that public trust.

You then go on to name several high-profile instances of individuals egregiously violating that trust. The reason you know those names are because it was such a rarity for a LEO to commit those types of crimes that it shocked the conscience and therefore made for sentsational journalism. Your own arguement proves my point that only an infintesimally percent of police officers are law breakers.

From 2005-2006 there were 647 sworn police officers arrested for breaking the law (Stinson, Philip. "Rethinking the Definition of Police Crime: The Relationship of Sex, Drugs, Violence and/or Greed to Virtually all Police Crime" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY, Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia, Nov 13, 2007 <Not Available. 2010-03-12 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p199994_index.html)

According to the National Employment Matrix (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm)
In 2006, there were 683,396 police officers employed in the United States (not including an additional 120,000 full time federal law enforcement personnel). Allow me to do the math: That means LESS THAN 1/100TH OF A PERCENT (>.01) of all sworn police officers were arrested for breaking the law that year.

Say for every crime that was committed, there were 10 other officers that were aware of the crime and chose to ignore it. That bumps the number of unethical officers to LESS THAN 1/10TH OF A PERCENT. (>.1)

Granted, even one police officer committing a crime is unacceptable, but as long as police forces are staffed by human beings and not robots, perfection will always be unattainable (yet something to constantly strive for.) Overall, I think the numbers reflect very favorably on the men and women in blue in America.

However, please continue the cop bashing... don't let little things like facts and logic get in the way of your emotional, uneducated and inaccurate rants.

hankdatank1362
March 29, 2010, 12:09 AM
Correlate the above with the fact that in 2006 there were an estimated 4,832.5 arrests for ever 100,000 acording to the FBI UCR. This means that roughly 4.8% of the population was arrested. Now, obviously, that number is lower because it doesn't take into account the fact that in many instances it is possible that the same offender was arested multiple times for seperate violations. Still, overall, the fact remins that police officers as a whole don't break the law as much as some of you are inclined to believe.

You can't believe everything the media tells you. Challenge your preconceived notions, just like you would have the antis do when they see erronious and skewed reports involving firearms.

Bear 45/70
March 29, 2010, 12:45 AM
Correlate the above with the fact that in 2006 there were an estimated 4,832.5 arrests for ever 100,000 acording to the FBI UCR. This means that roughly 4.8% of the population was arrested. Now, obviously, that number is lower because it doesn't take into account the fact that in many instances it is possible that the same offender was arested multiple times for seperate violations. Still, overall, the fact remins that police officers as a whole don't break the law as much as some of you are inclined to believe.

You can't believe everything the media tells you. Challenge your preconceived notions, just like you would have the antis do when they see erronious and skewed reports involving firearms.
The cops don't usually get caught because the other cops don't want the bad publicity.

hankdatank1362
March 29, 2010, 01:03 AM
The cops don't usually get caught because the other cops don't want the bad publicity

I love how, when faced with empirically validated research, you manage tou pound out another worthless sentence onto your keyboard and attempt to pass it off as a fact.

Next time, at least preface your sentence with "It's possible..." . As in "It's possible that it's going to start raining chocolate milk tonight." Still highly improbable, but you get the idea.

Bear 45/70
March 29, 2010, 03:07 AM
I love how, when faced with empirically validated research, you manage tou pound out another worthless sentence onto your keyboard and attempt to pass it off as a fact.

Next time, at least preface your sentence with "It's possible..." . As in "It's possible that it's going to start raining chocolate milk tonight." Still highly improbable, but you get the idea.
Any half wit can twist the numbers to say whatever they want. All this Global Warm lies and crap data taught you nothing.

Deanimator
March 29, 2010, 07:10 AM
You then go on to name several high-profile instances of individuals egregiously violating that trust.
NO, I named several high-profile instances of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES operating WITHIN police departments FOR YEARS, without interference by other officers, in most cases thwarted ONLY by action from OUTSIDE of those agencies.

It is utterly ludicrous to think that a home invasion, robbery and kidnapping RING can operate INSIDE of a major police department without MAJOR collusion.

It sure looks as though other cops frequently DON'T do anything to stop these activities... unless they're looking at jail time themselves. In the case of SOS, NOBODY seems to have an innocent explanation of why a home invasion ring was allowed to operate INSIDE the police department, FOR YEARS. The BEST face that can be put on it is gross incompetence. More likely as has been noted by commentators, is collusion.

Every one of these examples and more point to a culture of silence within police departments where internal corruption and criminality are concerned. Those who DO talk are faced with the sort of "paint job" that Jerry Finnegan tried to arrange for some of his co-conspirators whom he feared would cooperate with the FBI.

If police won't disclose multiple murders by police until they're facing federal prison time, what LESSER offenses are allowed to go on with NO interference of ANY kind? And make NO mistake AT ALL, the Danziger bridge case was an organized coverup of MURDER by numerous LEOs at various levels.

This isn't "individuals". It's GROUPS acting as part of a CULTURE. All of the hand waving in the world won't change that. Innocent people like Kathryn Johnston are dying because of it.

hankdatank1362
March 29, 2010, 09:23 AM
Deanimator, I agree that these acts were committed by heinous individuals and that, in some depatrments, the blue wall of silence is surely still well and alive. However, your arguement by generalization (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize) merely proves that these are (and I hate to sound callous, because they are some real SOBs) isolated incidents.

And, as a whole, the justice system works to separate the wheat from the chaff. For example, in the Kathryn Johnston murder (and it WAS MURDER, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY ARGREE), the scum involved all got jail time. Not enough time, in my opinion, but hey, what criminal ever gets "enough" these days?

Deanimator
March 29, 2010, 09:39 AM
Deanimator, I agree that these acts were committed by heinous individuals and that, in some depatrments, the blue wall of silence is surely still well and alive. However, your arguement by generalization merely proves that these are (and I hate to sound callous, because they are some real SOBs) isolated incidents.
Given the pervasiveness of the coverups in these and other cases, how would you know?

Remember, we were told that the Danziger bridge murders were just a "hoax". NOW somebody has pleaded guilty to the coverup and implicated numerous others in the murders and subsequent coverup.

Sorry, I don't see the SLIGHTEST justification for optimism on this score. I think that SOS, the Johnston murder and the Danziger bridge murders are just the very tiniest tip of a VERY large iceberg.

hankdatank1362
March 29, 2010, 10:04 AM
Theoretically, you are correct. I suppose every department could be as bad as Rampart was and we just don't know about it... but I don't believe so, and I hope no one else is that foolish, either.

Either way, I think we've derailed this poor thread enough.

GhostRider66
March 30, 2010, 02:20 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this just not make the guy unable to purchase a firearm?

Jury members deliberated just 45 minutes before acquitting San Francisco resident Wayne Lee Banks Jr., 26, of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. The misdemeanor charge carries up to a year in jail.

Bear 45/70
March 30, 2010, 02:29 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this just not make the guy unable to purchase a firearm?

Acquitting means he was found innocent and his rights are unaffected by the cop's and prosecutor's illegal and amoral actions.

Deanimator
March 31, 2010, 10:10 AM
Still, overall, the fact remins that police officers as a whole don't break the law as much as some of you are inclined to believe.
How would you know?

I'm betting that those interior decorators find it a LOT harder to conceal evidence of THEIR criminal acts.

Again, we're not talking about individual cops committing crimes. We're talking about GROUPS of cops both committing serious crimes (including kidnapping and murder), AND engaging in elaborate and long term coverups.

I'll take documented facts (including plea agreements) over wishful thinking any day.

NinjaFeint
March 31, 2010, 10:17 AM
Theoretically, you are correct. I suppose every department could be as bad as Rampart was and we just don't know about it... but I don't believe so, and I hope no one else is that foolish, either.

Either way, I think we've derailed this poor thread enough.
Thats what certain people who post in these threads do. They take one thing and use it as a platform to talk about their beliefs

hankdatank1362
March 31, 2010, 11:11 AM
I'll take documented facts (including plea agreements) over wishful thinking any day.

Actually, it's obvious you won't, because I've given them to you over and over again. All that you have done is offered a handful of isolated instances as a rebuttal, and used them to base your entire arguement on, also known as a "Arguement by Generalization," a type of logical fallacy.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Some cops (or groups of cops) are bad? We established that already. We also established most are good, honest people. Is that what you're arguing; that all police are jack-booted thugs serving the interest of the elite and violating the rights of the general populace? Is that tinfoil hat a little too tight?

Deanimator
March 31, 2010, 11:30 AM
Actually, it's obvious you won't, because I've given them to you over and over again. All that you have done is offered a handful of isolated instances as a rebuttal, and used them to base your entire arguement on, also known as a "Arguement by Generalization," a type of logical fallacy.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Some cops (or groups of cops) are bad? We established that already. We also established most are good, honest people. Is that what you're arguing; that all police are jack-booted thugs serving the interest of the elite and violating the rights of the general populace? Is that tinfoil hat a little too tight?
Actually, you refuse to see a pattern which may show something which you don't want to see.

Documented fact trumps your rather sad attempts at reductio ad absurdam and ad hominem every time.

What I have said is not only true, it's INDISPUTABLY true.

Police have vast powers over other citizens.
Police have considerable opportunity to misuse that power.
Significant numbers of police in some jurisdictions have misused those powers, for personal gain, to promote personal agendas, and simply for amusement.
Police have a vastly greater ability to conceal crimes which they may commit than the public at large.

You state (without evidence) that "most are good, honest people". That might be, but you've done nothing to demonstrate that. I've shown that police have vast power to deceive the public regarding their activities, and in documented instances have, over considerable periods of time. That being the case, we don't REALLY know what the level of police criminality is because to the best of my knowledge, there's no organized, centralized effort to find out. On the contrary, we have those like you who don't WANT to KNOW. I certainly choose not to take your word for it that "most" of them are honest any more than I'd take the word of somebody who says that most of them aren't.

What's the threshold for "isolated incidents"? At what point are excuses no longer enough?

I'm dealing in facts and logic. You're dealing in wishful thinking, rhetorical tricks and personal insults.

andrewstorm
March 31, 2010, 11:58 AM
A good friend and former partner of my step dad on our local force,R O P D,argued that open carry was not allowed,in mich,and that it was brandishing,even though he had known about the attorney generals position,that a holsterd gun was not considerd brandishing,police are used to the former policies of the dept.when michigan mirrored ontario in its gun laws. police should be required continued education in current law,and the color of law statues.:cool:

hankdatank1362
March 31, 2010, 12:23 PM
"a significant number of officers in some departments"...

Less than one-onehundredth of a percent is significant? Really? Don't forget, that number is a documented fact, so I'm not stating anything "without evidence." Unlike some, who haven't cited a source supporting their biased opinions in this entire thread. And your theory that no one is attempting to ascertain just how much criminality there is in the LE field is untrue... Just google "police crime" (I'd do it for you but I'm on my BlackBerry)

I do agree with many of your points. Police do have incredible power, little oversight, and lots of opportunity to abuse that power. Some officers in some departments do(NOLA, Chicago, ATL, Rampart, etc.) .Its a fact, however, that the vaaaast majority do not.

Gouranga
March 31, 2010, 12:31 PM
My apologies to the OP...I do have a comment to make on your point.

Police have vast powers over other citizens.
Police have considerable opportunity to misuse that power.
Significant numbers of police in some jurisdictions have misused those powers, for personal gain, to promote personal agendas, and simply for amusement.
Police have a vastly greater ability to conceal crimes which they may commit than the public at large.


I think the point being made against you is your facts are not quantifiable. That some officers are bad is not disputed. What is disputed is your assertion that a "substantial number" are. You have no numbers to back it up. Just some well documented cases which are horrendous but not reflective of the huge population of officers in the US.

Consider this,
CCW have powers over citizens who choose not to carry.
CCW have a HUGE amount of opportunity to abuse it (could go on a shooting spree anytime)
There are documented cases of folks with CCW who have gone berserk. One in NC last week where the guy went road rage chasing a guy into a DMV office/POLICE STATION.

Does all this translate to a substantial number of CCW permit holders are bad people abusing their power that comes with carrying concealed weapons in public?

Police are people. To be fair, I grew up around plenty of them as I have 2 family members who were officers. One got into the job to "save the world", the other because it was good pay, and a great career opportunity. Both have stood in the line of fire to protect citizens. Some are good, some are bad, IN MY EXPERIENCE, most are good folks doing a tough job under heavy (an appropriate) scrutiny. Most of the guys are not out to get you. Their is too much paperwork involved in that.

To the original post, what is going in ********** lately? Has common sense completely left the state? These seem like simple cases where the legality is obvious (granted we are a little biased), yet they push and push to the detriment of their own careers. Makes no sense.

Deanimator
March 31, 2010, 12:35 PM
Its a fact, however, that the vaaaast majority do not.
... just not that you can prove... or disprove, based on your misleading attempt at diversion via an UNrelated statistic and vague allusions.

I talk specifics. You talk generalities, wishful thinking and personal insults.

I say we need to be concerned about the degree of police criminality and obfuscation of same, based on INDISPUTABLE facts, including their own admissions against penal interest.

You say we should just assume that the degree of police criminality is low based on... nothing.

Guess which one intelligent people find more persuasive.

Deanimator
March 31, 2010, 12:37 PM
What is disputed is your assertion that a "substantial number" are.
Reread what I wrote, then put back what you and the other guy omitted.

hankdatank1362
March 31, 2010, 12:51 PM
Actually you don't talk specifics. You give a handful of examples and claim it extrapolates across the board. (Ever taken upper-level research courses?) I give you substantiated and empirically validated numbers on arrests of police officers.... Which is not "UNrelated" as you claim. In fact, when discussing police criminality, its about as pertinent as you can get.


Your continued attempts at arguing raw statistical data with fallacious generalities are like a little child with their hands over their ears yelling "nu unh" when someone told them the Ninja Turtles aren't real.

Deanimator
March 31, 2010, 01:01 PM
Actually you don't talk specifics. You give a handful of examples and claim it extrapolates across the board.
Actually, I give specifics which you ignore in favor of strawmen of your own creation. Combine that with your personal attacks, and it's pretty obvious where you're coming from.

Strangely, you studiously ignore the fundamental (and clearly demonstrated) ease of obfuscating police criminality and it's unavoidable impact on "statistics".

I know of another institution whose record of "investigating" itself is dubious at best, and whose conflict of interest in "investigating" itself is of a kind with the sort of "investigations" carried out by various police departments of "hoaxes" which later turned out to be real events.

I suppose it depends upon what your REAL goal is, the truth or exoneration irrespective of the facts.

But I'm sure it's much easier to hurl puerile insults than pursue sometimes unpleasant lines of inquiry.

hankdatank1362
March 31, 2010, 01:15 PM
I must have missed your "specifics"... And so did previous posters. Mind giving them again? Any while you're at it, maybe you can shed some light on what "interests" are conflicted by federal investigations and categorization of state and local police crimes.

Deanimator
March 31, 2010, 01:34 PM
I must have missed your "specifics"... And so did previous posters. Mind giving them again? Any while you're at it, maybe you can shed some light on what "interests" are conflicted by federal investigations and categorization of state and local police crimes.
The Danziger bridge case was dismissed as a hoax by local police officials. The coverup which buttressed that "determination" went on for YEARS.

The Kathryn Johnston murder was a culmination of YEARS of practices by officers in that agency. The ONLY reason their coverup failed was that an informant FLED their custody. If that informant had cooperated with the perpetrators, YOU would be proclaiming the innocence of the LEOs who murdered Kathryn Johnston and proclaiming HER guilt... based on the drugs which the murderers planted in her home.

Had not the FBI intervened, you would be proclaiming the "nonexistence" of the home invasion and kidnapping ring INSIDE the Chicago PD, based on the curious inaction of IAD. You would be badmouthing the VICTIMS of the ring, which included, I believe, at least one firefighter and LEO.

In EVERY one of these cases, and many more, ONLY outside intervention led to ANYTHING even remotely resembling justice.

In your headlong rush to tell everyone how honest "most" cops are, you've done everything humanly possible to ignore the 800lb. gorilla in the room. These cases show a FUNDAMENTAL problem with coverups of police criminality and call into question the integrity of the ability of law enforcement agencies to police themselves. Nobody, including you, has been able to come up with a plausible explanation of how Chicago IAD can somehow either not KNOW about or do anything about a kidnapping ring INSIDE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. If they can't "detect" THAT, what's the quality of their other work? Of course what if they DID detect it (as I believe was the case) and did NOTHING?

You assert that "most" police are honest. I don't assert that most aren't. I assert that the nature of these cases calls into fundamental question HOW you could know one way or the other.

I'll just say that I recall the attacks by LEOs and their supporters on the character of Kathryn Johnston... until the truth of the murder and coverup came to light. I'm sure they'll get around to their public appologies SOME day...

hankdatank1362
March 31, 2010, 02:17 PM
Of course, those that break the law will always attempt to conceal that fact, out of the interest of self-preservation... criminals hiding behind a badge are no different. How do I explain Chicago, or Atlanta? I don't. They had to have someone on the inside protecting their interests. That, or their IA departments are horribly and almost criminally negligent in their duties.

That is why we have those "outside" agencies... To help ensure that those entrusted with upholding the law aren't breaking it themselves. And, by the very fact that we know about the cases you mention... They appear to be doing their jobs. How many do we not know about? No one can say with any certainty.

I believe that federal oversight is the lynchpin that keeps the number of LE conspiracies down to miniscule (yet still completely unacceptable) levels. The feds don't care if you have a gun and badge; they have them too... They're not impressed. And their badges say "US" in them... As in "sea to shining sea." Or, as I've heard them say before, "My circle is bigger."

However, fundamentally, you are correct. We never will truly know just how many crooked cops there are, as we don't hear about them until its too late and they screwed up and got caught. However, to use that as an excuse to advance your own dislike of LEOs in general (not you personally, but others in this thread and elsewhere) is just as wrong as police treating everyone like criminals because that's who they encounter the most. "We don't know who can and can't be trusted, so assume the worst about everyone" is a terrible way to go through life, both as a cop and as a civilian. (Once again, that's not really meant towards you in particular.)

Deanimator
March 31, 2010, 02:41 PM
Of course, those that break the law will always attempt to conceal that fact, out of the interest of self-preservation... criminals hiding behind a badge are no different. How do I explain Chicago, or Atlanta? I don't. They had to have someone on the inside protecting their interests. That, or their IA departments are horribly and almost criminally negligent in their duties.
And what does that mean? It means that a disturbing number of large cities' police departments are incapable of policing themselves in any effective way.

I'm not talking about ONE cop doing something wrong. It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to stop that. As hard as I try, I can't really think of a way to blame the North Canton, Ohio PD for Officer Bobby Cutts, Jr. murdering his pregnant girlfriend and enlisting a friend and a relative to assist him in covering up the crime.

No, what we're talking about is large GROUPS of police in certain departments (that we know of) engaged in well organized, pervasive and ongoing criminal conspiracies, COMPLETELY unhindered by their superiors, who may or may not be personally involved.

These CONSPIRACIES have called the SYSTEM into question and its commitment and ability to protect the rights and lives of the citizenry.

That is why we have those "outside" agencies... To help ensure that those entrusted with upholding the law aren't breaking it themselves. And, by the very fact that we know about the cases you mention... They appear to be doing their jobs. How many do we not know about? No one can say with any certainty.
That's a tacit admission that we CAN'T trust police departments to police their own. The Johnston murder was solved PURELY by CHANCE. I don't know whether the breaking of the Danziger bridge case was as wildly capricious as that of the Johnston case.

The truth is that many of us seem to be trusting to luck in regard to supervision of local police. Kathryn Johnston and the Danziger bridge victims are proof that that isn't good enough. I don't know what SYSTEMATIZED oversight the FBI exercises over rights violations by local police, but clearly it sometimes is lacking. The Chicago PD AND the FBI somehow managed to not notice systematic torture (REAL torture with beatings, electricutions, burnings and suffocations, not harsh questioning) of suspects for more than a decade... until the statute of limitations ran on all of the perpetrators.

Probably what we need is a PURPOSELY ORGANIZED element within the FBI to handle these issues. I don't know if such exists, but if it is, it sure doesn't seem well supported.

I was a LOT more concerned that I would have a negative encounter with the Chicago PD when I was there last week than I EVER was of being attacked by some alleged "Christian militia".

hankdatank1362
March 31, 2010, 03:00 PM
I'll go a step further and say I also fully support civilian oversight committees for certain functions... One of which being the investigation of criminal or ethical misconduct of police officers/ departments. Don't forget, I live in Horry County, one of the few counties in the US to have both a Sheriff's department and county police force... A split necessitated many decades ago due to the pervasive corruption within the Sheriff's dept. The result? County council suspending all funds for the sherrif's office except for what is required by state constitution (enough funds to guard the courts, staff the prisons, etc.). The rest is funneled to the County police dept., the actual law enforcement arm of Horry County.

And yes... I'm a lot more scared of Chicago or NOLA police than I am of many other gangs or "extremeist" groups.

Deanimator
March 31, 2010, 03:30 PM
I'll go a step further and say I also fully support civilian oversight committees for certain functions... One of which being the investigation of criminal or ethical misconduct of police officers/ departments.
They have that in Chicago... it's UTTERLY corrupt. But that's a situation of all pervasive corruption on ALL levels, involving ALL aspects of government at the city and county level. Much of the Chicago PD corruption arises DIRECTLY from the mayor's office and the cravenly corrupt city council. NOTHING is going to happen until Daley REALLY rubs Obama or a subsequent president the wrong way. Don't hold your breath.

hankdatank1362
March 31, 2010, 04:05 PM
Yeah, even as pro-LE as I am.... I've just about written Chicago off.

Officers'Wife
March 31, 2010, 04:20 PM
I'll go a step further and say I also fully support civilian oversight committees for certain functions...

Unfortunately that only works if the civilian review board is completely independent of the admin branch. Such boards are usually 'formed' by a city mayor and padded with ex-LEO's.

hankdatank1362
March 31, 2010, 04:24 PM
Huh. I've never ran into an ex-cop on a CRB (that I knew of.) Mostly just people the mayor owed a favor to.

NG VI
March 31, 2010, 05:29 PM
Mostly just people the mayor owed a favor to.


That isn't a good start.

hankdatank1362
March 31, 2010, 06:00 PM
I concur.

ChaoSS
March 31, 2010, 08:13 PM
No counter suit? I'd totally support this guy in a counter suit. It may help him get through college. This guy needs to file suit. I was arrested almost two years ago on a totally bogus charge, the DA wouldn't even file charges, and right now, as I'm trying to get a job, it's hindering me. This guy needs to be on record that he won a suit against the police.

A lawyer who had many successful concealed carry cases told me that any case where the police claim to have seen a concealed weapon is very easy case to win. He said the same thing as the lawyer in the article, concealed means "not visible" so you can't "see" a concealed weapon. He said a good concealed weapons charge is ancillary to another legitimate reason to search an individual and they happen to find a weapon by a method other than viewing it.
Sorry, but your lawyer friend is full of crap. What if you have a gun in your pants, raise your arms to grab something, exposing it, and then lower your arms, concealing the gun once again. The cop may not be able to see the concealed gun, but he knows damn well that it is still there.

Guns can go in and out of concealment easily. If you see it one minute, and don't see it, then you've seen it, and then seen that it was concealed. Pretty obvious to the police and certainly not an easy case for a defense attorney to win.
Ive heard that it may be a valid CC charge because part of the gun is hiddenCA specifically states that a gun carried openly in a belt holster is not considered concealed. This is what made this guy's case so easy, even if the officer hadn't been able to see it, as long as he wasn't covering it with some clothing or a blanket or something, then it was legally unconcealed.

ChaoSS
March 31, 2010, 08:16 PM
BTW, as for the good cop, bad cop thing, I can't speak as to the motivations of most cops. I can say, however, that the constitution does not give the government the right to restrict gun ownership at all, even for convicted felons. So if a police officer ever has or ever would arrest a convicted felon for illegal possession of a firearm, or arrest someone for an illegal gun, like a SBS or machine gun, then that cop has no respect for the constitution and the RKBA, no matter if they are avid shooters themselves, supporters of the NRA, or regular posters on boards like this. Just saying that you support the RKBA does not mean that you really do.

Guns and more
March 31, 2010, 09:21 PM
12 people with common sense in San Francisco?

I'm shocked.

Nancy Pelosi got elected, and some people have common sense..............I give up.

andrewstorm
April 18, 2010, 01:33 PM
Can someone tell me where it says in the 2nd amendment,your arns cant be consealed?:cool:or is that some kind of infrindgement of our rights.

If you enjoyed reading about "Calif. police claim a visible firearm is enough to detain a person for..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!