OC individual sues police for false arrest

[oldbear]

You will note that it was "a customer" who went and alerted the police. The police officer was responding to the citizen's request for assistance. The police officer inquired of the guy who was OCing what he was about and who he was. The guy gives the cop a ration and the cop brings him in. Exactly how it should have been handled.

These OC guys are trying to make their point entirely the wrong way. In this case they prompted a citizen to request help from the police. Why? Probably because he/she was scared. It was 4:30 in the morning in a convenience store. Is it ever smart to scare people who have the right to go about their business unmolested?

These tactics just blow up in the face of gun rights advocates, including OC. It makes us all look stupid.
__________________

Moxie AA + 1.
Some of the open carry folks do all of much more harm than any good they will ever do. How does it help our cause to scare private citizens and give L/E a ration when they approach them.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Post #78, OK state trooper....

If the remarks of #78 are true, then shouldn't the OK State Trooper who throttled the EMT in the traffic stop face assault charges?
The OK state trooper was wrong in the event(pulling over & fighting with a EMT who ran code to transport a heart attack victim).
The video clips clearly showed the trooper used excessive force & he was later disciplined by the state agency.
I had a incident in 2012, with a metro police officer(field training officer) who was fully out of line. Even his trainee(patrol officer) questioned what was going on.

Not all officers or troopers are level headed or ethical.

 

[DCR]

Reasonable, Articulable...[OMISSION] Suspicion

The missing word here is "PARTICULARIZED" - just a pet peeve of mine.

The LE apologists who even hint at the "How do we know the individual is/isn't [insert phrase here - e.g., a prohibited person, a danger to self or others, committing some other crime, etc.] argument sure wouldn't have passed constitutional law, criminal law or criminal procedure at any accredited institution....

I'm reminded of something I once read, this forum if I'm not mistaken:

The difference between a hack and a professional LEO is:

A hack says "How do I know you're not...."

A professional says "Based on X, Y, and Z, I have a reasonable, articulable, particularized suspicion that the subject was engaging in criminal activity."

The arresting officer in this case was a HACK.

I'll refrain, per forum rules, from labeling the similar commenters.

 

[zxcvbob]

Nobody says "particularized". (I have a hard enough time with articulable) I always say R.A.S. of a specific crime. Is that close enough?

 

[akodo]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

I stand corrected. In many states we must now identify ourselves ever since a 1968 Supreme Court decision. Wow. Never would have guessed that. Glad I learned that!

I feel compelled to point out that Stop and Identify only kicks in when a person is detained. Detention can only legally happen when police have a REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

I won't go into what constitutes reasonable suspicion, but a good thing to do if asked to produce ID is to ask if you are being detained, and if you are for what crime.

 

[akodo]

<.....>

I'll vote for legislation prohibiting open carry right now! Why? Because a percentage of gun toters are idiots who don't know how to behave, like to create problems, and find it amusing when others do so. There are many who feel the same way and the list is getting longer. Keep it up boys, cuz you can, for now!

Under that logic you should be for a total gun ban because percentage of gun owners are idiots too.

Further, the 'idiotic' things these gun carriers are doing is simply acting normally while doing something others do not like. It's not like some guy open carries into a restaurant and uses his handgun to reach across the counter and snag a napkin. Actually, what these open carry people are doing is very similar to what inter-racial couples did, have the audacity to expect people including the police to obey the law and mind their own business.

OR do you think that once interracial couple stated holding hands in public, and that upset some racists, that the conduct of those people alone should have been sufficient to reinstitute the laws banning interracial relationships.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

That may or may not be the case, like you said, it is hard to tell.

One of the aspects that some OC activists press on is when and under what conditions anyone can be legally required to identify themselves and/or provide identity papers.



If nothing else, it does to the question of what is strictly legal and what is not, as well as under what auspices an officer starts an investigation, whether that interview becomes a detention, and then an arrest, etc. All of that is very specific to relevant state law. And if officers overstep the black letter of what they're lawfully allowed to do to someone who is not obviously breaking the law, then they or (alas) their departments absolutely should be held vigorously accountable.

The law is the law, and a certain degree of kudos is due to those who take steps to hold law enforcement to a strict standard. Overstepping the law HURTS when the citizen is caught out. It should similarly HURT when a law enforcement officer does so.

I concur the bite needs to be equally painful both ways.

 

[akodo]

Hanshi,
Using terms like "pampered public" is just so much condescending dreck. There are plenty of "unpampered" citizens who are either scared of or just don't like OC. This type of talk just further alienates the antis and can indeed push some pro-gun folk over the edge.

There is a list as long as my arm of things that at one time 'ordinary' folk didn't like. Unfortunately (well...actually fortunately) police need to be concerned with what the LAW states not what the general public likes, nor what the individual officer likes

 

[gamestalker]

Not too awfully long ago I answered my door and it was a sheriff. There had been a shooting in the neighborhood, and the sheriff had climbed over my locked gate, knocked on my door, and when I answered tothe door, without saying anything at all, he opened my screen door, grabbed me by the arm and pulled me out the door, and then removed my firearm from my holster on my hip. I didn't resist, as I didn't want to escalate the situation, but I was very ticked off and uncooperative from that point forward. They had no basis for grabbing me and pulling me out the door, or for physically removing my firearm without good cause presenting. They wanted to search my home, my sheds, and the rest of my property, to which I refused them further access, and they did search the exterior of my home anyway, and regardless of my refusal to allow them to. When they had finished inspecting my firearm to see if it had been recently discharged, they tossed it on the ground, totally and deliberately disrespected me, and my property / firearm.

I've had similar circumstances happen over the years, but nothing where they were at my door / home and showing such blatant disregard for my constitutional rights, as they did on that day.

GS

 

[zxcvbob]

I think a lot of police *want* to be hated. It proves to them how righteous they are.

I would have been in the Sheriff's office the very next morning filing a complaint. And if was The Sheriff Himself that assaulted you, I would be there with my lawyer, and a if possible a reporter from the local newspaper.

In either case, remind him that he is elected to his office and he has one chance right now to do the right thing, otherwise he just made an enemy who will actively support whomever or whatever runs against him in the next election.

 

[Bighouse Doc]

"When police break the law, there is no law. Just a fight for survival.." -Billy Jack.