Autolycus
Member
I am not talking about communist/socialist police officers. I am just saying that they could start exercising their discretion and not arresting anyone for carrying a firearm.
Illinois???
- Thread starter Karate
- Start date
- Status
scout26
Member
That was just an example. I don't think you really want the police to randomly enforce/ignore the law.
Jimmy Gangbanger just shot your little brother/sister/nephew/neice/cousin and the cops happen to catch him fleeing the scene. "Well we had him, but let him go, because we just don't arrest anyone with a firearm."
Or they could take the other stance. We arrest everyone with a firearm. "But Officer I've got a valid FOID card, my hunting licence, tags and am in compliance with all the firearm and hunting rules and regulations !!!"
Officer Not-so-Friendly: "Explain it to the Judge.", as he once again hauls you away in cuffs to spend the night/weekend in jail, waiting for your bail/arraingment hearing.
Jimmy Gangbanger just shot your little brother/sister/nephew/neice/cousin and the cops happen to catch him fleeing the scene. "Well we had him, but let him go, because we just don't arrest anyone with a firearm."
Or they could take the other stance. We arrest everyone with a firearm. "But Officer I've got a valid FOID card, my hunting licence, tags and am in compliance with all the firearm and hunting rules and regulations !!!"
Officer Not-so-Friendly: "Explain it to the Judge.", as he once again hauls you away in cuffs to spend the night/weekend in jail, waiting for your bail/arraingment hearing.
I don't see where the OP's friend committed a felony unless you can stretch "immediately accessible" to something in a closed suitcase. Perhaps if the suitcase was sitting on the seat next to him.
The real thing is that police do as they are told, or face the loss of their paychecks. If they are told to go set up a checkpoint and give out as many citations and arrests as they can gin up, thats what they will do. For the most part, they really don't care much one way or the other if you are innocent, or unintentionally violating some obscure law. If they can find some pretext to write you up and add to their totals for the night, thats what they will do. I admit this is a cynical view of the way things work, and it is not entirely correct, but it is close enough.
Your friend lucked out in many respects. A lot of Illinois cops would have charged him with a felony, even knowing it was a dubious charge. The stats in the next days papers don't tell how many of the charges are bogus, or will be dropped later on.
Your friend also learned why he should never ever volunteer anything at such an encounter. Hopefully he tells all his friends, and the word spreads.
As citizens. it is up to us to make a stand against government tyranny and it needs to go across all levels of government from the enforcers, to the judicial branch, and the legislature.
ISP guy is sort of right about one thing. The state legislature got us into this mess with a whole series of badly written laws that are almost complete gibberish to even lawyers. So how are citizens supposed to even have a chance at following them?
No, it's not even close no matter how you slice it. Just how long do you think any LEO would last "ginning" up charges? All of those charges have to be filed with and prosecuted by a state's attorney. "Ginned" up charges wouldn't last very long and neither would any LEO participating in such an exercise. Have you ever heard of Official Misconduct, Class 2 Felony? That's what a LEO faces for "ginning" up charges. Would you risk your career and freedom facing a Class 2 felony just to write a piece of paper which even you admit "they really don't care much one way or the other". Of that you are correct. LEOs don't care one way or the other. It's nothing personal and that is what many of you don't seem to understand. If there is a violation then that's what the court is for.
If I had a nickle for everytime someone said when I arrested them "you're picking no me" then I'd have a truck load of nickles. There are about 14 million people in IL and over 320 million people in the US. Why would any LEO single out anyone to "pick on". There's plenty of violations where, if a person is stupid enough to bring themselves to the attention of LE then they deserve getting arrested.
Cynical? Nope, just wrong. You pay too much attention to the internet and campfire stories and don't have the facts.
Actually, the law is written at the 8th grade reading comprehension level. Unfortunately, in the US the average reading comprehension level is the 3rd grade. So it's not that the law is written in gibberish it's that the average person doesn't have the comprehension abilities to understand what is written.
Autolycus
Member
There are people who have been picked on by LEOs. The bartender in Chicago comes to mind.
I dont think someone is stupid because they got attention of LE. Many people have also been framed and Illinois has tried (and probably succeeded) at putting many innocent people to death. Need we look further than the Innocence Project for proof of this?
We need to get equal application of the law for all here in the Land of Lincoln. The hypocrisy by all in this state needs to be openly addressed and we need drastic changes.
Let's put this in the proper prospective. The incident you are referring to did not occur as the result of his employment with CPD. He was off duty drinking in the bar as a regular citizen. The actions he took were not under color of law.
Look at the facts again. No one has been put to death in IL who was shown to be innocent. Also, if you look at some of the cases the people at the link refer to quite a few of their "saves" did not involve proving anyone innocent. They simply went back many years later after witnesses had died and evidence had been destroyed and then proclaimed because there are no witnesses therefore the person must be innocent. Don't believe everything they, college professors, and George Ryan said about all those innocent people on death row. By law every single person on death row has had numerous reviews of their cases, a lot more than any other person in prison. I've never talked to a person on death row or in a murder case who didn't proclaim they were innocent and framed by the government.
Autolycus
Member
Fair enough but how many cases are reviewed after the defendant was put to death? If they reviewed it and found that the man/woman was innocent the state would probably be sued and they have no interest in reviewing these cases.
You are correct about the officer on CPD. It was not under color of law but there are cases of people being harassed by LEOs under color of law. For example the elderly woman in Atlanta being gunned down by LEOs in her own home. They did that under color of law.
You are correct about the officer on CPD. It was not under color of law but there are cases of people being harassed by LEOs under color of law. For example the elderly woman in Atlanta being gunned down by LEOs in her own home. They did that under color of law.
Death penalty cases go thru the entire legal appeals system. That is not the situation with any other case. Every aspect of the legal system is open to them at no cost to the defendant. When you see a case in the news and you hear about a state's attorney deciding whether to ask for the death penalty there's a reason why the SA is taking a long time to decide. If they decide it's going to be a death penalty case then a whole host of legal things kick into play which are expensive, time consuming and bogs down the process. That's why you'll often hear of an SA not going with the death penalty even tho the subject was caught in the act, has a lengthy record of violent crimes and the homicide was particularly violent. The end result for the SA can be to put the person in jail for life which if going with a death penalty case results in long drawn out appeals.
Again, you need to look at the circumstances of that particular case. If that's the case I'm thinking of it was a raid on the wrong house, the woman pulled a gun, and was shot by the SWAT team. That was an unfortunate situation but not the same as an intentional act targeting that woman. Not at all the same kind of situation. What you seem to be alleging is premeditated murder and no one has ever claimed that was the situation in that case. Wrong house and an unfortunate set of unfolding events but not intentional.
DrLaw
Member
???
How about probable cause for a search? They have to have it first, unless he consented AFTER being told he could rescind his consent at any time. Something smells here, but I don't know what side it is coming from not having all the facts.
The Doc (an Illinois criminal defense attorney) is out now.
How about probable cause for a search? They have to have it first, unless he consented AFTER being told he could rescind his consent at any time. Something smells here, but I don't know what side it is coming from not having all the facts.
The Doc (an Illinois criminal defense attorney) is out now.
DrLaw, if you are referring to the OP then reread his very first post again. He wrote "...they ask if they could search his truck...he said yes..." That's a consentual search. A consentual search does not need probable cause nor a search warrant, it's consentual.
With regards to transporting firearms I don't think we have it that bad. Several states of course do have concealed carry and that can make it easier if you have a permit, but many states require people transporting guns without permits to have them unloaded and seperated from the ammo, the guns in the trunk or a locked container, etc. I'd love concealed carry here but past that I can have a gun and a loaded mag in a gun rug on my passenger seat. As far as state laws go, thats not bad.
Is that completely fair though? If I'm traveling from out of state and decide to check and see whats legal and hit the ilga.gov site and find my way to 720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 and read all about UUW isn't it possible I wouldn't ever think to look at the wildlife code?
One corrupt governor in prison, next please
ISP2605 thank you for sharing your knowledge of Ill law.
However I am confused on something if you could clarify please.
However I am confused on something if you could clarify please.
Actually, the law is written at the 8th grade reading comprehension level. Unfortunately, in the US the average reading comprehension level is the 3rd grade. So it's not that the law is written in gibberish it's that the average person doesn't have the comprehension abilities to understand what is written.[/QUOTE]
IIRC inn prior posts you have mentioned that the fanny pack carry may or may not be legal in Illinois. IIRC you proviously stated that the ISP asked all the States Attorneys in Ill how they would interpet Fanny Pack Carry and that none of them would give the ISP an answer (with the exception of the Cook and DuPage county SA's stating that they would prosecute)
So howcome if the law is written at a 8th grade level how come the SA's could not answer the question? All of them have not only an 8th grade education but also college and law school. Or if they chose not to answer then it would appear to me that they are purposely not letting the average citizen (let alone the LEOs of Illinois ) what the law is.
From my perspective trying to obey the law when the people who enforce the law and the people who prosecute those who break the law are not sure of the law is EXTREMELY difficult.
I am NOT coming down on Ill LEOs. As stated LEOs did not make the law. But I must admit I do not understand how the state gov expects Ill LEOS to enforce the law and private citizens to obey the law when the SA's will not tell you what is legal and what is not.
NukemJim
If you
It's quite simple. The law means what the courts interpret it to mean and often that's somewhat different then what the law says. If a states attorney were to say, yes I think fanny pack carry is legal, that would be valid only in his county and only while he is in office. When there is an unclear portion of the law, it's not clarified until the legislature changes it, or a judge rules on what it means, and in the case of something as controversial as fanny pack carry, it might not be clear until the state supreme court has ruled on what it means.
Fanny pack carry as a means of self defense is stupid anyway. We should be working for true CCW and forget about something that is just muddying the waters. Whoever came up with the so called Six Seconds to Safety was not doing the Illinois CCW movement any favors. I think it's the childish idea of some immature person who was so frustrated at not being able to carry that he played outhouse lawyer and found a loophole that allowed him a false sense of security carrying an unloaded gun.
What has the whole six seconds to safety thing gotten us? No public support or even any press. No one outside the Illinois CCW movement has even heard of it.
Jeff
Cellar Dweller
Member
Between a lack of state preemption, home-rule municipalities and counties, and the egregious practice of burying laws into other laws, residents can't be expected to know the law, never mind travelers.
According to the Wildlife Code, one must have a plug, limiting a shotgun to 3 shells TOTAL, in a HD-only shotgun - better hope that there's less than 3 home invaders or the sound of racking it scares 'em.
According to the Wildlife Code, one must have a plug, limiting a shotgun to 3 shells TOTAL, in a HD-only shotgun - better hope that there's less than 3 home invaders or the sound of racking it scares 'em.
Cellar Dweller said;
I think you should read the law again. Your home isn't using or possessing in the field. And home invaders aren't protected by the Wildlife Act or the Federal Law.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...3&ChapterName=WILDLIFE&ActName=Wildlife+Code.
Let's try to keep things real....
Jeff
I think you should read the law again. Your home isn't using or possessing in the field. And home invaders aren't protected by the Wildlife Act or the Federal Law.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...3&ChapterName=WILDLIFE&ActName=Wildlife+Code.
Let's try to keep things real....
Jeff
I've worked with Police and Corrections officers ,even a local Sheriff, in the Nat.Guard. The stories they tell each other about prisoner abuse, how they tore a suspects car apart looking for something to arrest them on, "ginning" charges, and streaching the truth in court is downright scary. Maybe they were trying to out BS each other, but it did'nt sound like it.
Once I was pulled over by a local cop, she said my tags belonged to a 2001 Honda, I was driving a 65 Ford with Antique tags. Antique tags are unique and only for vehicles over 30 years old.
While waiting to be let go she asked if she could pat me down.
Me: If you have to ask then no.
Cop: I'll ask you again, may I pat you down?
Me: Once again, if you have to ask then no.
Result: Backup arrives, I'm in cuffs, drug dog tears my newly recovered seat while officer laughs, I'm taken to jail for suspition of illeagal drugs(TicTacs in the original box), resisting arrest(saying no to pat down), and assaulting an officer(false,thank god for video). My truck is towed(cost $150), had to call grandpa at 0130(embarressing) to bail me out, suffered the indignity of booking.
Lucky for me my mothers side of the family has some local pull and was granted an audience with the DA. The DA interviewed me, the cops, and looked at the arrest record and video. He dropped all charges, expunged my arrest record(although he did not want to destroy my fingerprints,but still did), and gave me a mild ass chewing for not "cooperating with law enforment". If I were any other color than white I would probably be sitting in jail right now or a slab.
Once I was pulled over by a local cop, she said my tags belonged to a 2001 Honda, I was driving a 65 Ford with Antique tags. Antique tags are unique and only for vehicles over 30 years old.
While waiting to be let go she asked if she could pat me down.
Me: If you have to ask then no.
Cop: I'll ask you again, may I pat you down?
Me: Once again, if you have to ask then no.
Result: Backup arrives, I'm in cuffs, drug dog tears my newly recovered seat while officer laughs, I'm taken to jail for suspition of illeagal drugs(TicTacs in the original box), resisting arrest(saying no to pat down), and assaulting an officer(false,thank god for video). My truck is towed(cost $150), had to call grandpa at 0130(embarressing) to bail me out, suffered the indignity of booking.
Lucky for me my mothers side of the family has some local pull and was granted an audience with the DA. The DA interviewed me, the cops, and looked at the arrest record and video. He dropped all charges, expunged my arrest record(although he did not want to destroy my fingerprints,but still did), and gave me a mild ass chewing for not "cooperating with law enforment". If I were any other color than white I would probably be sitting in jail right now or a slab.
scout26
Member
wideym, if what you say is true, you need to find a good civil rights attorney.
Local attorneys wouldn't touch a case like this with a ten foot pole, besides it happened about four years ago. I never had any problems getting my CCW permit and haven't been hassled since. One LE guy I know said that people always concent to pat downs and searches, even guys who have dope on them, and when someone do not he must be hiding something bad.
The one good thing that happened that night is it caused me to study up on my rights and what the police are allowed to do.
Also: Thank God For Video!
The one good thing that happened that night is it caused me to study up on my rights and what the police are allowed to do.
Also: Thank God For Video!
Lack of doing indepth research does not equate to reading comprehension levels. Both 24-1 and 520 5/2.33(n) are both easily found in the book and clearly written.
Jeff pretty well answered NukemJim's question as to the "why" so I won't repeat his points. Where the law gets "confused" isn't from the statutes but when someone with their personal agenda tries to interpret a specific statute to fit whatever is their agenda. They take a bit here, a bit from there, add their own beliefs of what they want it to be and then claim that's the law as they read it. Again, someone with a 3rd grade reading comprehension level interjecting their own beliefs. Jeff mentioned the "6 seconds to safety" that's often spouted by some on here. There is no "6 seconds to safety". It is a phrase ginned up by someone with their own agenda, not doing any research, and thinking they have found a way to bypass the law. There is no legal precedent for "6 seconds to safety". It's not law, it's not recognized in a court as being law, and it has not bearing on the law. It was formulated by someone and has been repeated by enough people that some think it's law because they've never read the statute. Then when someone who hears about something called a "6 seconds to safety" law they wonder why someone gets arrested. Simple enough if they just read the statutes, there is no "6 seconds to safety".
Another thing that gets people confused has been demonstrated right in this very thread. Someone claims the fanny pack carry is legal and they cite as their sources the 2 cases previously mentioned. Sorry, but neither of those cases settled anything. Those cases were dismissed prior to going to trial. Dismissing charges does not set precedent, it only means the SA decided not to pursue the case in court. That is very common. SAs dismiss cases all the time for various reasons. People outside the legal system don't see it and don't realize how common it is for cases to be dismissed prior to trial. Dismissal of a case doesn't mean the case didn't have merit or that the person didn't violate the law, it only means the SA didn't want to proceed with it. Often times it's the result of behind doors deals cut with defense attorneys. People don't understand it because they aren't involved in it on a day to day basis and don't see what really goes on in your courthouses.
All this for having antique vehicle plates on your car that the computer showed coming back to another vehicle?
There's more to this story than is being told.
To Jeff White and ISP2605,
The point I was trying to make is
So if the law means what the courts interpret it to mean then I am not sure what grade level the law is written at is at all important.
I am NOT trying to give either of you gentleman (I'm assuming that you are Male ISP2605 ) a hard time.
I am tring to figure out how someone who wants to obey the law (local, state, or federal) can figure out how to obey the laws.( sorry but it is a habit of mine to try and obey the law)
From the point of view of the average persone who is not a lawyer or a LEO how do you know what is the law?
How do you obey the law when you do not know what it means and
Whom do I contact to find out?
Again I am not trying to give anyone a hard time. I appreciate the service both of you have rendered and sharing you experience and views on this board.
NukemJim
PS gotta run to work I hope this post was clearer than my last. NJ
You are both 100% correct and I apologize I was not trying to push for fanny pack carry. That was an example. I am sorry If I was unclear.
The point I was trying to make is
ISP2605
Jeff White
ISP2605
So if the law means what the courts interpret it to mean then I am not sure what grade level the law is written at is at all important.
I am NOT trying to give either of you gentleman (I'm assuming that you are Male ISP2605
) a hard time. I am tring to figure out how someone who wants to obey the law (local, state, or federal) can figure out how to obey the laws.( sorry but it is a habit of mine to try and obey the law)
From the point of view of the average persone who is not a lawyer or a LEO how do you know what is the law?
How do you obey the law when you do not know what it means and
. Without getting arresting, charged and brought before a judge how do I find out what the law means.
Whom do I contact to find out?
Again I am not trying to give anyone a hard time. I appreciate the service both of you have rendered and sharing you experience and views on this board.
NukemJim
PS gotta run to work I hope this post was clearer than my last. NJ
The one point Jeff and I both failed to mention on charges filed (I'm not speaking for Jeff tho) is often times a SA won't file or will file on charges based on their own personal agenda. I know a few SAs and ASAs who won't file on certain gun or drug charges because they personally don't believe in certain laws. Therefore they won't file charges. Doesn't mean the person didn't violate the law only that a particular SA has his own agenda too. That agenda is often driven by votes. That is why you get so many variations from the 102 SAs on fanny pack carry. It has nothing to do with the statute but politics. The AG's refusal to give an interpretation at the time of the poll is a good example. Jim Ryan was running for governor at the time. Normally, whenever any entity such as LE or an SA asks for the AG's opinion on application of a particular law the AG's office will render a decision. They refused to do such on the fanny pack. Why? Because it was an election year. To answer either way was a no win situation politically as one side or the other would take him to task for an opinion on a hot button issue. A lack of response didn't mean the statute changed , it just meant the AG didn't want to be on paper being viewed as leaning one way or the other. Same with the SAs saying they will or won't charge. That was one person's opinion and did not change what the statute said, only what that particular SA would be willing to do. SAs are politicians and to alienate a voting block can cost them their job. So as to avoid alienation of voters it's often easier to avoid hot button issues if they feel their voting base would split.
We haven't been real clear on explaining what the courts say as law. They still base their decisions on the written laws. Take for an example something completely unrelated to guns as guns is an emotional issue for a lot of people and their emotions cloud their thinking when trying to discuss the topic. So let's use something like speeding. A judge may not agree that heavy trucks are limited to 55 mph on the interstates. A judge can't rule in court that he's throwing out the 55 mph limit because he thinks trucks should be able to drive 65 mph. The judge does not have that authority and can be, and some have been, removed from the bench for misfeasance of his job. A judge's job is to rule based on the facts of the case as it applies to the statute.
It's not easy for LEOs either. Ask any LEO who has been at the job any length of time and who has made some criminal arrests. The arrest was made in complete compliance with the statute yet the SA will refuse to file charges. That's what people outside the system don't see or understand. Refusing to file charges has nothing to do with the arrest being 100% legal and in compliance with the law. It's a SA's decision whether they want to proceed with a particular case. To give an example, many yrs ago on a traffic stop I arrested a guy who was carrying a loaded gun, a S&W Model 15. The guy was a bar owner and we were also working him for dealing coke out of the bar. The ASA refused to file the gun charges telling me the guy was a businessman and therefore the ASA thought businessmen should be able to carry guns as they often carry cash. Was that the real reason? As we progressed with our drug investigation it turned out the ASA and the businessman were long time friends since childhood and the ASA was just doing a buddy a favor by not charging him. It didn't change the fact the bar owner had violated the law or that he was till dealing coke, it was just one of those deals I mentioned that were cut behind closed doors. Would you or any other person have gotten the same deal? Not at all likely. Still didn't change what the statute said and still didn't change future arrests and charges. However, for those with their own agenda they would point at the case and say the SA believes the law doesn't mean you can't have a loaded gun on your person while driving down the road. But if they knew the real story they'd know the ASA's actions had nothing at all to do with what the law actually said.
ISP I believe what we are seeing here is that not all LEO's are as honest or honorable as you...We have no reason to doubt Wideym story any more than we have to believe what you or I say...I have seen some really bad cops in my line of work...some that want to be "Dirty Harry"...luckly I have seen more really good LEO's like yourself I'm sure...but let's never doubt that they are out there...that why there is an IA dept.
isp2605: Jeff White already pm saying prove it.
The charges were dropped and the record expunged. The problem was with two local PD who were investigated by the FBI and Oklahoma Department of Safety for misconduct and banned from patroling I40 and Hwy64.
I'm not out to bash all cops, but some bad cops breed distrust and hostility from the "civilian" population. I would like to give cops the benifit of the dought, but one bad experince can make you a skeptic.
The charges were dropped and the record expunged. The problem was with two local PD who were investigated by the FBI and Oklahoma Department of Safety for misconduct and banned from patroling I40 and Hwy64.
I'm not out to bash all cops, but some bad cops breed distrust and hostility from the "civilian" population. I would like to give cops the benifit of the dought, but one bad experince can make you a skeptic.
The reason I said there's no doubt more to his story is I've investigated and seen a lot of similar type reports. I worked IA for over 8 yrs. I ran downstate IA operations for several yrs and I was #2 at IA for a while. I was also district cmdr for several yrs and reviewed a lot of complaints. I learned that these type stories are usually very one sided, slanted, and when they don't meet the smell test there's a lot more that's not being told.
Taken to jail for suspicion of drugs? What was there that gave rise to the suspicion. Resisting arrest for refusing to a pat down? Sorry, but that one really doesn't meet the smell test. Terry v Ohio gave pretty clear allowances for when a pat down is allowed and it doesn't matter if the person consents or not. We've only got once side of his story and it doesn't meet the smell test.
Taken to jail for suspicion of drugs? What was there that gave rise to the suspicion. Resisting arrest for refusing to a pat down? Sorry, but that one really doesn't meet the smell test. Terry v Ohio gave pretty clear allowances for when a pat down is allowed and it doesn't matter if the person consents or not. We've only got once side of his story and it doesn't meet the smell test.
Now this one really doesn't meet the smell test. The FBI and OK DPS have no authority to ban any agency from doing anything.
- Status
