Follow up on the Staunton VA incident

[Malum Prohibitum]

Ceetee

We want police to take pride in their civic responsibilities, and be pro-active in fighting crime at it's source.

Ceetee, I agree with this! Now tell me again how hassling people peacefully eating their dinner after the manager has informed the police that there is no trouble is "taking pride in their civic responsibilities and being proactive in fighting crime at its source?"

I guess your posting has me a little confused.

I always thought that police, in order to detain someone, needed, at a minimum, a reasonable suspicion (and it has to be one that they can articulate) that a crime has been or is about to be committed.

Silly me!

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Just a reminder

From the VCDL Action Alert, on October 16:

Note that VCDL has no problem with the police coming to the restaurant to make sure that a crime wasn't being committed.

It is the detention when it was obvious that there was no crime that is the problem.

It is the pressure on the manager of the restaurant during the detention that is the problem.

 

[ceetee]

What if a customer ... had reported three BLACK men going to the bathroom?

Why do you have to bring race and bigotry into it? "three BLACK men"... "three guys wearing turbans"... Bigotry has nothing to do with it.

The choice is not between anarchy and tyranny. The choice is between the rule of law, and lawlessness.

Many people equate "the rule of law" with "tyranny". I, personally do equate "lawlessness" with "anarchy". There have to be limits. You feel in this case, the police went beyond their bounds. I feel they didn't. End. Nobody went to jail. The gun-carriers may have been disrupted from their repast for as much as several seconds. Some sheep-like person either got his/her jollies causing a ruckus, or went home disappointed that nobody went to jail.

In my opinion (and IANAL) the police handled things the wrong way. By calling their actions "illegal" you seem to want to imply that they belong in jail. I don't. As I said in the beggining, I just don't see the need for all the whining. Next, we'll see tantrums, and thumb-sucking.

(If you've ever had to fill out the paperwork, then you know that if you don't have ALL the blanks filled in, you get reamed out.) I agree that there was no reason to "detain" anybody, and it sounds to me like in this situation nobody was detained.

They probably felt, at the time, that asking for positive ID's would be a prudent thing to do. Were the complainer's ID's obtained also? That's usually the best way to get all the information needed to fill in all those blanks I wrote about.

Tempest in a teapot.

 

[Deanimator]

Why do you have to bring race and bigotry into it? "three BLACK men"... "three guys wearing turbans"... Bigotry has nothing to do with it.

Bigotry has EVERYTHING to do with it.

The men were LEGALLY carrying firearms in the open, yet the police were used as an instrument of harassment against them. The odds are that the person doing that was bigoted against the legal carrying of firearms.

One more time, if you can use the police to harass somebody because you don't want to eat with people who carry openly, why can't you use the police to harass somebody because you don't want to eat with Blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc?

If the police can be duped into violating somebody's rights for engaging in one lawful activity, why not any other?

Are you saying that there are no people in Virginia who are racists, anti-Semites, etc? Are you saying that none of them would use the unwitting police to enforce their agenda if they could?

The police in this case [probably unwittingly] played into the hands of an anti-gunowner bigot. I'll bet that as hard as you try, you can't explain to me why EXACTLY the same tactic couldn't be used against Muslims.

 

[Deanimator]

Many people equate "the rule of law" with "tyranny". I, personally do equate "lawlessness" with "anarchy". There have to be limits. You feel in this case, the police went beyond their bounds. I feel they didn't. End. Nobody went to jail. The gun-carriers may have been disrupted from their repast for as much as several seconds. Some sheep-like person either got his/her jollies causing a ruckus, or went home disappointed that nobody went to jail.

Many people equate requiring the police to obey the law with anarchy.

Should your "limits" apply to the police? No one should be FORCIBLY detained for engaging in a LAWFUL activity. That in itself is lawlessness.

How many MORE times would you alow the "sheep-like person" to get "his/her jollies"? Should EVERYONE carrying openly be FORCIBLY detained EVERY time? If not, on what basis is the decision made? The fundamental basis of all law is specificity and predictability. Apply those criteria to how you'll handle such calls. I really don't think that you can.

 

[DKSuddeth]

ceetee, by supporting the actions of the police, in this instance, this is what I hear you saying. That it is ok to stop and detain, even to just check ID and call in for wants and warrants, because someone has a gun, even though it's a constitutional right to carry a gun and no crime was being committed. It could basically be summed up as saying that you're valuing security over liberty, or as Mr. Franklin said, those that would give up liberty for security deserve neither.

 

[Deanimator]

In my opinion (and IANAL) the police handled things the wrong way. By calling their actions "illegal" you seem to want to imply that they belong in jail. I don't. As I said in the beggining, I just don't see the need for all the whining. Next, we'll see tantrums, and thumb-sucking.

Their actions WERE illegal. They detained someone without probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion. Assuming that they were hoodwinked by some tinpot anti-gun bigot, I doubt that they deserve jail. They certainly deserve to be admonished for violating the law. Having been educated on the law, they should certainly be punished if they repeat this behavior, either with professional sanctions or termination.

Do you believe that police officers have a duty to obey the law, yes or no?

Do you believe that police officers who wilfully disobey the law should be punished, yes or no?

 

[ceetee]

What I am saying, and have been saying from the beginning, is that this is not a case that deserves even a tenth of a percent of the attention it's getting.

I wasn't there. I don't know if the armed men who were there were "detained" or given cheesecake. Common sense seems to have taken a huge leap out the window. Who was damaged? Who has any right to complain? Let them sue and see what they can collect.

It's been perfectly acceptable for years for a cop who is following someone down the highway to run a check on the tag. I don't see this as any different. Also, as I've already posted, if I were one of those cops, I would have handled the situation differently. Having said that, how can you say I'm "supporting" the actions of the police that were there?

Repeating (for the third time): Tempest in a teapot.

 

[islandphish]

the saddest thing is that these sorts of errors are commonplace with police all across the country. Police officers, knowingly or not, often misrepresent their power during investigation of things, be it a party, a noise complaint or an anonymous report.

I think it is worth repeating that the people who should be most familiar with their rights and the law would be the people who were out to eat with their guns trying to get a reaction. Sure they were in a legal position, but they should have been more prepared to confront the police.

As far as I am concerned, the role of police before crimes have been committed is to put themselves into a position to best help when something is done wrong. They can gather information legally, and if at any point they have the evidence to show that a crime was committed then arrests need to be made. Our policing model is what is needed to have a free society and to keep it working we need to continue to have checks on their power. They will attempt to grow it, even unwittingly.

 

[Molon Labe]

Who was damaged?

Lady Liberty.

When she is damaged, there is no such thing as an overreaction.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Hmmm . . . politics

Opinion:

The guy calling in the complaint was grinding a political axe.

The guy running the local police department has at least one foot in politics.

I can only imagine what the complainant said to bridge the "emergent situation" threshold, but once you cross that line and respond at all, you're gonna have several units on hand.

If the complainant fretted about "suspicious behavior" then the burden is on him to clarify exactly what it is about a couple of guys eating dinner that constitutes "suspicious" goings on.

If the complainant can't do any better than "well, they're wearing GUNS," then Officer Laconic turns to the "offenders" and says, "sorry guys, there seems to have been a misunderstanding; carry on."

If the complainant exagerates in order to get the cops to DO SOMETHING, then that's a false complaint and he gets charged or sued.

Your rules of engagement have to align with the actual law.

This can make for some odd events:

We watched as renters loaded our washer, dryer, other appliances into their truck after having paid nothing for 90 days. Deputy kept us back behind the hundred-foot line (so we wouldn't "harass" them) while they stole -- in broad daylight -- thousands of bucks worth of property. We had already filed enough paper that we were well known as the owners, yet the LEO on scene carefully protected them while they looted our place -- even while we said, "you have to stop them; they're stealing our stuff!"

They sympathized with us, but their hands were tied. Renters laws, you know.

In this case, however, it looks like the LEOs got it wrong.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm going to give the cops a pass on this one. They were polite about it, and clearly made a mistake in asking for the IDs. Hopefully lesson learned.

When a PD gets a call that three armed men are acting suspiciously, they have to check it out. Six squad cars? In my area that would mean 6 cops. That seems reasonable to me, too. I've got to believe they aren't going to ask for IDs next time.

Around here, six black-and-whites typically means twelve pfficers. How many "citizens" were we talking about? Six officers or twelve, does it REALLY require six cars to peek in the door, see that the alleged perpetrators are engaged in breakfast while armed (which is legal in VA), and move on to the next call?

I wouldn't give the cops a pass on this one. They massively over-reacted and exceeded their authority, and I hope they get reamed out for it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Sure they were in a legal position, but they should have been more prepared to confront the police.

Why?

Why should anyone who is engaged in any legal activity be prepared to confront the police?

 

[islandphish]

the citizens league was there trying to get a reaction. It would make sense that they be prepared to react accordingly when they got what they wanted.

 

[JohnBT]

"the citizens league was there trying to get a reaction."

They were there to eat. Don't forget that. It's legal to eat while armed in Virginia if the gun can be seen. They went there to eat. OTOH, it's not legal to carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol by the drink.

You know, VCDL really isn't a crazy bunch of wacko gun nuts running around waving their guns and hiding in the bushes dressed in camo trying to scare people. Think professional people instead. Where's that link to the front page Washington Post article on VCDL?

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47809-2004Nov13.html

John

 

[DKSuddeth]

the citizens league was there trying to get a reaction.

and you came to this assumption, how?

If you don't know anything about the VCDL, it would probably be wise to learn about them before making snap judgements based on your own perceptions of the gun control spokespersons in an article

 

[gezzer]

Scardey Cat Cop mentality strikes again.

To many PC police who think citizens do not rate to carry any weapons. Found in many of the Newer CCW States. IMHO

 

[islandphish]

after laboring through a torturous 3 page article.

They were trying to get a reaction. If they are so good as to get in the WaPost then they need to be ready to put the cops in their place, to defend their rights and show the world the boundaries.

I laud them for the attempt, their game plan could have been better.

 

[JohnBT]

"their game plan could have been better"

How, by going to the drive-through line at McDonalds? They were lawfully and peaceably eating a meal at a restaurant. They weren't TROLLING for a reaction, they were eating a meal.

John

 

[Hobie]

I'm a citizen of Staunton, VA. I know some of the people involved. I'd like to note the following.

1. Staunton has a lot of young cops who come here to attend the academy and improve their resume.
2. Chief Williams is NOT Chief Wells (the former Chief), he is the former CERT (our SWAT) commander.
3. The downtown restaurants are where the liberals "dine".
4. I've seen open carry in many other places where the Staunton cops weren't called and didn't respond in this way.
5. I've open carried without problems.
6. Mayor Lacey King was the Deputy Chief and nothing like this happened when he was on the force even though the same laws were in effect.
7. I am a VCDL member.

How is all that important? Well, I think there was something else happening. I think that a "prominent" citizen is the one who made the complaint/call. Not having been there I can't say who that was. However, this institutional bias towards preserving the privacy of those involved has benefited gun owners in the past.

The Commonwealth's Attorney is ambivalent on the subject. He has protected CHP holders in good shoots and gone after the dodgy characters.

All things considered, I think that a liberal citizen made the call and the extra cops were there because there was no place else to be. A younger, less experienced officer used words that the politicized people to whom he spoke took not quite as he intended. The Chief backed up the troops. The Mayor backed up the Chief (who he had trained at one time). The VCDL saw this as an opportunity to publicize a hot topic/sore subject. I don't believe there is and have not seen any indication that there is a policy on harassing those who open carry.

The law is stupid. We're trying to change the law. If they'd been carrying concealed none of this would have happened. If it had the CHP would have been checked and the cop(s) would have left.

 

[Hobie]

JohnBT,

Are you related to the late Sheriff Glen Lloyd or Sheriff Shaver? Just interested. If you'd prefer to answer in a PM or e-mail that's fine.

 

[JohnBT]

Eddie Kent (John E. Kent) - You aren't going back far enough. Glenn Lloyd was elected in '83 IIRC.

From some articles I Googled up, and there were a bunch of them:

__________________

January 30, 1965

Alarmed by flying saucer reports, the citizens of Augusta County, in Virginia, organised an armed hunt for Martians this week after three boys reported seeing a little green man walking around. Sheriff John Kent - declaring "this thing has gotten completely out of hand" - has outlawed all saucer hunts.

From the Hampton Roads Pilot:

"In the northwest reaches of the state, an epidemic of saucer sightings around 1965 fueled so much fear that residents armed themselves, a situation that didn’t sit well with the Augusta County sheriff.

“Who’s got a right to mow them down?” Sheriff John Kent said of aliens."
__________________

He was a take-charge sort of guy.

John

 

[islandphish]

Has anyone heard anything directly from the men involved? Maybe a letter to the editor or anything else? this would be nice to evaluate how they reacted.

we can all agree that the men were acting legally.

the question is did the police have the right to approach the men. I say they did. It seems to me that the police can talk to anyone they want, but that they are acting without any real power to force people's actions when they do.

To me the giving of names and id's was purely voluntary and unnecessary.

 

[Hobie]

Sorry John, I remember Sheriff Kent, I just didn't think of him for some reason. He had a good solid rep.

 

[JohnBT]

I didn't know if you were old enough to remember him. He was one of the good guys, but he had a wild side too that rubbed a few people the wrong way from time to time, the kind of man who'd stare a guy down while he walked up to him and disarmed him.

I saw more of him later in life when they moved across the street from my retired parents. My dad was his first cousin and the four of them had double dated back before the war. That's WWII for the youngsters in the audience.

It still makes me smile to recall my folks telling me in '86 that my wedding reception was the first one he'd ever stayed through. Of course, it wasn't a dry reception either, but maybe he liked the band.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
Sign up for the e-mail Alerts and stay up to date.