Quantcast

I was detained at school today (Aug 29 2007)

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by AJAX22, Sep 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,555
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    If you say it's ok for the police to break the law in this case, on what basis do you tell them that they CAN'T break the law the next time? You're headed down a slippery slope with Jon Burge and Tony Abbate waiting at the bottom for you.
     
  2. 10 Ring Tao

    10 Ring Tao Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    945
    Location:
    SE MI
    You're talking about terry, and his bag was in another room, and not subject to terry.
     
  3. Dr. Peter Venkman

    Dr. Peter Venkman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    503
    Location:
    California.
    His bag is still under his immediate control and/or possesion. Further, these officers were dispatched to a call of a crime being committed and/or possibly occuring in the near future, not patrolling the beat and noticing suspicous behavior. That changes the game.
     
  4. cane

    cane Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    743
    Location:
    Colorado
    I'm confused, I have read all the posts and don't understand what "crime" had been or was about to be committed.:confused:
     
  5. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,555
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Not if it's in another room... unless he has the power of telekinesis...
     
  6. Dr. Peter Venkman

    Dr. Peter Venkman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    503
    Location:
    California.
    And there you have another example of them screwing up their investigation. Ajax's backpack should have been brought alongside of him while they were investigating. This might have got messey if indeed Ajax was hiding a handgun illegaly, but even then it's the same means, different ends.
     
  7. nvcdl

    nvcdl Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    Virginia
    The situation seems to be that the cops called in and were told they didn't need a warrent as long as they only searched backpack for weapons (as they thought they had probable cause).

    Sounds like Ajax did everything right. I wouldn't sweat the warrent issue but he should look into filing a complaint against the complaining student and school for violating his privacy and 1st amendment rights.
     
  8. insidious_calm

    insidious_calm Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    337
    Well, in reading the report they clearly admit to the illegal search. They admit in writing that you refused to consent to a search multiple times. They further admit that they told you they were going to search anyway and you neither denied nor gave consent. One thing that is clear legally in my state, and I'd bet in Kali too, is that one consent is denied explicitly you can not search without obtaining either probable cause or explicit consent. Your refusal to speak cannot be legally construed to be consent. You have to give it explicitly. They broke the law. Sue if there's any way you can.

    As for strategy, you should consult an attorney. Personnally I'd be happy to see all the officers fired. After all, their actions could very likely have lasting negative effects on your life. Think about that. I'd also get a restraining order against the tipster. A temporary one should be a gimme, it is here, and you can always dismiss your case before the actual trial. Some may say it's playing dirty, but it's extremely effective and turnabout IS fairplay. After she loses a semester to her stupidity she may rethink her malicious ways.

    Lastly, ignore comments from the usual pro-thug gallery..."after all, your rights weren't violated because they only stomped your cat - raped your wife and character - and terrorized you without justification, safety is a compromise, and besides life isn't fair."...:barf::barf::barf::barf: It's always the same apologists spouting the same bs. Wouldn't surprise me if it was their job, can't have the subjects getting any uppity ideas now can we? At any rate good luck and godspeed. I hope you resolve the situation to YOUR satisfaction, whatever that may be. Accept my sincere gratitude and thanks for having the courage to say 'no' when the JBT's came calling.


    I.C.
     
  9. Dr. Peter Venkman

    Dr. Peter Venkman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    503
    Location:
    California.
    Ajax does not have to give consent when they already have probable cause to search both him and his belongings. The probable cause is present giventhe fact that they got a call of guy discussing dead bodies and concealing firearms while at school and the person who really did the lying here (the RP) is to blame for that. They didn't break the law in any way or form. What it appears they did do is do an investigation that was not as tight as it could have been.

    Hah. This is simply not how the real world operates. The officers were doing their jobs needlessly because they were given wrong information. It happens all the time. Go after the girl who brought the cops in the first place, not the officers doing their jobs. You'll save a lot of grief and money in the process.

    Restraining order a gainst the tipster?

    Some of the responses on this board never cease to amaze me. :rolleyes:

    highhorse.jpg

    I didn't know that such trite crap was tolerated on this board. Yeah, people with a difference of opinion are all really pro-big brother/secret police. :rolleyes:
     
  10. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "Lastly, ignore comments from the usual pro-thug gallery"

    Now that's funny. In an insulting sort of way, but funny anyway. I also like the way you give legal advice and then tell him to see a lawyer. That's funny too.

    John
     
  11. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    its a sign that lawyers aren't lined up to take case
    its was a bad scene i'd see about action against mia for harassment make her sweat it some through school administration
     
  12. Aguila Blanca

    Aguila Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    I am not a lawyer, but I would think a LOT about a "lack of paperwork." A search warrant is a document signed by a judge, granting permission to search certain, specified premises for certain, specified things. They may apply for a warrant verbally, but unless CA is different from the civilized world in more ways than I knew, I believe they have to bring the paper document to the site and hand it to you or it isn't valid. And you have a right to read it, and if it says "search a blue backpack" and yours is red ... sorry, Officer, but I'm taking my RED backpack and leaving while you go find the BLUE backpack for which you have a warrant to search.
     
  13. Aguila Blanca

    Aguila Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    If they had probable cause, why would they go through the elaborate charade of making the phone call, waiting around, and then lying to him that they had obtained a "verbal" warrant? And you seem to have overlooked the fact that the report of suspicious activity was hardly "real time" or immediate. The report of suspicious web chatting was from the day previous. I do not see anything here that suggests that this interview meets the requisites to be considered a Terry stop.
     
  14. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,567
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Guys.

    Let's not get hung up on warrants and frisks and such.

    This _is_ an opportunity... Are there ANY other "gun people" at this school? It's time for them to come out of the gun safe.

    Some of Oleg's images need to start going up on billboards.

    I have to admit that I skipped 130 messages, but it seems like someone shoulder surfed him, and saw him typing something about guns, and since she knows that all guns are illegal, she assumed he was either buying or selling illegal guns... Time to call the guys with guns...

    Get the issue ABOVE water. Get people thinking and talking about it. Get people learning.
     
  15. insidious_calm

    insidious_calm Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    337
    Bogey,

    I believe you are totally missing the point, as are a great many others on this forum, imo. Warrants and searches are where we need to be focusing right now. The police in this situation and many others, are acting in the role of 'hired gun' to these anti-gun idiots. So long as the police continue to enable this type of behavior it will continue and spread. So long as there are no consequences for those involved there is nothing to act as a deterrent.

    I have been a quasi pro-gun activist(nra instructor, chl instructor, lobbyist) for about 15 years now. What I have discovered is that the type of people you can sway to our side don't act like the tipster did in this case. The OP was in effect dealing with an activist from the other side. You are not going to reason with or sway someone like that. It's best to fight fire with fire.

    The reason why the issue of warrants and probable cause is so critical in this case is because it is our primary defense against these idiots. If we cannot rely on the police to follow the rules, either through a sense of duty and oath to the constitution or through just plain integrity, then there must be consequences to their actions. The police in this case served as the 'weapon' of an anti. The first and foremost step toward disarming the antis is protecting your ability to disseminate facts and information. That means forcing the police (through civil and criminal prosecution, if necessary) to follow the law so they can not be use as a weapon to terrorize and intimidate otherwise lawful citizens.

    Many on here are whining about focusing our efforts on the antis instead of the police, but when the police act willingly and unlawfully on their behalf they leave us no other choice. In this case there was no probable cause to search the backpack and it was not subject to terry. Had probable cause existed then the OP could have simply been arrested and the backpack serached incident to arrest. That did not occur because there was no probable cause.


    I.C.


    P.S. - Had the OP been posting Oleg's images on billboards, or handing them out to students the net result would have been the same. The anti-gun activist would have still called the police and their response would have been the same. That's the point. In order to even be able to act as you suggest we have to be able to do so without fear of being molested by the police.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2007
  16. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,567
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    I have to disagree... On one front, the guy can make a federal case out of it, but _the public_ will lean toward "Well, he was doing something with those illegal guns, so he must be guilty."

    The "law" doesn't matter if public opinion is such that it can be thrown out, or changed. The population at hand needs to be force-fed some knowledge, and encouraged to think.

    This is an educational opportunity. Or you can throw that opportunity away, and then the poor guy gets painted as a solitary whackjob.

    When we start splitting legal hairs as arguments, we've lost.
     
  17. Stretchman

    Stretchman member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    387
    Location:
    Dania Beach, Florida
    Sounds to me from his description that he was a case of mistaken identity. Could be someone else posted what they were saying was posted. Could b e that the guy they were looking for wasn't in class. May have been another person that was doing those things. He may or may not have a weapon. Looks like maybe finding out who he is from a website is more difficult than everyone thinks.
     
  18. insidious_calm

    insidious_calm Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    337
    Bogie,

    That's the whole point, "Well, he was doing something with those illegal guns, so he must be guilty.", is EXACTLY the sentiment the antis get to project when the police show up and drag a LAW ABIDING citizen out of class, detain and harass him. Even though he wasn't charged the damage to gun rights has been done. The perception that people get IS that the guy is some solitary whack job. Otherwise why did the police show up and drag him out of class to begin with? You and I may know that the fact he wasn't charged most likely means he was doing nothing wrong, but that will not be the perception that the vast majority of people will leave with who saw it.

    In this case, had the police arrived, observed no crime, chastised the anti and left, then the net result would have been much different. Instead they show up and treat him like a criminal in front of everyone. To make matters worse they act as if the tipsters 'fears' were justified to begin with. "Thanks for calling us ma'am, can't never be to sure 'bout them thar gun nuts!" :rolleyes: So yes at this point it's antis 1, liberty 0.

    In all honesty I question whether the responding officers even had Terry justification given what they wrote about the initial complaint in their report. Florida v. J.L. once again enters the arena. THERE IS NO GUN EXCEPTION TO TERRY! A tip must be both reliable and specific in it's illegality before officers can effect a terry stop on it alone. So says the supreme court. IANAL, and you say that I'm just 'splitting legal hairs' here, but I disagree.

    If the police are not willing to say "you know, we don't see anything unlawful here, thanks for wasting our time" of their own accord then they obviously need a little encouragement. They will continue to be used as the antis weapon of choice against us so long as we allow it. Like it or not, your position and attitude in this matter allows the antis to paint the OP as the 'nutjob', the 'extremist'. The police are given tremendous credibility by the general population on all manner of political issues, guns especially. The circus they put on hurt our cause dramatically. They only way to mitigate/reverse that is to hold them accountable for violating the OP's rights.


    I.C.
     
  19. NAK

    NAK Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Location:
    D/FW
    I think the action of the responding offices were appropreate...its called the real world. There is no way they could NOT search the OP and his backpack. If they did anything wrong, it is not pursuing this further by actually checking out his posts on the forums, getting warrants for his vehicle and place of residence.

    I see the problem as starting AFTER the cops failed to find a weapon or supporting material on the forum. The school and the cops should be pursuing the Reporting Party with the same determination the would pursue someone calling in a fake bomb threat.

    Before hiring a lawyer, I would suggest the OP contact the school and he District Attorneys office to "politely" inquire if they are following up for potential prosecution of the RP.
     
  20. snewbie

    snewbie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    kent, wa
    There was nothing professional, courteous or approprriate about those officers actions.
    They were enforcing unconstitutional laws despite having taken an oath to support and defend it.
    They are enemies of the republic and the rule of law.
    No excuses.
     
  21. poor_richard

    poor_richard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    That's the kind of fear that has been a result of Columbine, VT, MSM, and countless others. We see tradgedy and atrocity as excuses to strip people of thier rights.


    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
    Samuel Adams​



    Personaly, I think the tip was specific enough to warrant detainment however, since it wasn't real time that negates the reasonable suspicision.

    There was no PC to do the search. That's why the reporting officer lied in the report (Told OP to leave the backpack behind, yet said another officer picked it up to bring with as the OP was exiting the room. This contradicts the OP's recolection of events, not to mention that saying that the backpack is in the OP's immediate control after he "left it behind" sounds so dishonest it's insulting to expect anyone to actually believe it.) It's also probably why they didn't get a warrant, and conned the OP into believing they had. No judge worth his robe would grant a warrant on an unsubstantiated tip.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2007
  22. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,567
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Why do I suddenly suspect that this thread is populated by folks who can't stand the restrictions placed upon the new political forum?

    Guys, there's a place for theory, and there's a place for real world political strategy. In this case, if the guy had done ANYTHING but what he'd done with the officers, he likely would have had a bunch of trouble.

    THEORY.

    What the school needs is not courses on con-law. The students won't pay attention to that. What they _will_ pay attention to are Oleg's mildly (and not so mildly) controversial images. Bet that if enough go up, that they'll get noticed in the school newspaper.

    But then again, I suspect that some folks would see that as being a Bad Thing...
     
  23. insidious_calm

    insidious_calm Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    337
    Bogie,


    Nothing could be further from the truth. I live in and deal with the real world daily. I teach concealed carry. My class motto for the legal portion of the class is "Don't be the test case". Just because officers do something doesn't make it just or legal. What is clear in this case is that the officers, one of them the chief, made a judgement call to proceed with an unlawful search. You and others stand ready to give them a pass on that judgement call. I don't think a pass is warranted. There is a significant amount of caselaw that supports my position, not to mention a fair amount of common sense.

    I suspect, nay, I'll wager, that once the OP refused them permission to search it became inevitable. Even had they contacted a judge who said "no", and indeed they may have, it would have occurred. There are a fair amount of people in the world today, including many on here and nearly everyone in law enforcement, who have been conditioned to think "if you don't have anything hide why would you refuse consent to search?". You appear to be arguing that even though the officers violated his rights it was done with good intention and therefore deserves no punishment. You are certainly entitled to take those positions as unpropitious to liberty as they are.

    As for real world political strategy, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Holding the police accountable when they violate our constitutional protections is not only sound strategy, but effective and just, as well. Antis are very effective at manipulating the media circus. NOTHING plays better to the masses than a huge police reaction to something, unwarranted though it may be. The image left with fence sitters in instances like this is a negative one. If one or even two officers had shown up and observed that they had no reasonable suspicion to think a crime was being committed, let alone probable cause, and stated so to the RP then the fence sitters would have come away thinking the RP was the nut job for over reacting. So yes, I am in the real world here.

    As I stated earlier, Oleg's images are only effective if allowed to be viewed objectively. When the police are allowed to publicly interrogate and humiliate someone for looking at images of guns or in your example putting up Oleg's images, then we lose. The fence sitters will see you as the unreasonable nutjob because that is the image the police portrayed. Even though they may see and possibly agree with the poster the message will be lost because of the image of the person posting the image or making the argument.

    Lastly, no I don't think using Oleg's images would be a bad thing. You underestimate how effective the antis are at manipulating public opinion though. The gains we have made in public opinion in the last decade didn't come from just putting up posters. They came also, if not mainly, from a fair amount of lawsuits against governments and officers for violations of constitutional rights. You simply can't argue that the strategy hasn't worked in the 'real world'. The gains we've made speak for themselves, even though it seems those of us who support that type of action had to drag a goodly portion of you all along kicking and screaming. The DC court case is a perfect example of this.


    I.C.
     
  24. Dr. Peter Venkman

    Dr. Peter Venkman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    503
    Location:
    California.
    Exactly. It's funny how people believe the backpack is somehow "off limits" when it was under Ajax's entire control save for when LE inititally contacted him. They were not out patrolling, they were sent on a call of him talking online about how "easy it is to get away with such and such" and the "police will only be able to outline the bodies" and possibly illegally carrying a firearm to the campus. This was all brought about thanks to a bad RP who should have action taken against, not the LE in this case.

    I do not know why they would lie in this case nor am I going to pretend to know exactly why they did. Perhaps they decided to say they had a warrant instead of going through the motions explaining why they have the right to search and get into argument over AJAX on the Constitutionality of it while he might have a firearm. It's he said/she said at this point and I am not about to armchair quarterback what happened as others have.

    If you do not believe that discussing of the police outlining bodies and talking about concealing firearms illegally warrants an interview, you and I must disagree. LE in no way can conduct a thorough investigation between the time they were given the details and the time they actually contacted AJAX. What do you expect them to do? Wait for a few weeks while they devote a few detectives to get to the bottom of something while the threat may be real? That's not realistic. Maybe LE made it even easier on AJAX than we know, not contacting him at his home (which could have been a possibility) in the middle of the night because they sensed it was bull****. LE cannot have a policy of ignoring people who cry wolf while there might be a legitimate threat.

    They contacted him at school, went over things, searched him and his backpack, and found nothing suspicous and left. I don't see what the big deal is here over their actions. It's the person who filed the initial complaint that should be taken care of, not the officers.
     
  25. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    I guess we have very different ideas of what easier is. I don't think making a spectacle in front of him in front of his peers and instructors made anything easier. Would you feel like the police did you a favor if they interrupted a meeting with your coworkers to question you and rifle through your belongings?

    Was there any credible evidence to support the idea of Ajax posing a threat or is it another case of trampling on rights because "if it saves just 1 baby..?" Do you have any problem with officers lying to people? I'd personally want to try to take action against everyone involved.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice