Security Ninja, caught and arrested!!!

[DRZinn]

Doc: if the inital stop and search wasn't righteous, then no evidence produced by it can be, either. That's that pesky old Fourth Amendment in action.

:banghead: You're still acting as if I'm saying that any of it is right. All I'm saying is that what he was arrested for is, in fact, illegal. That's all.

I'm not saying he was wrong.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have had the stuff.

I'm not saying the cops should have searched him. I'm not saying he should have been arrested.

And neither is anyone else.

Get it?

 

[Art Eatman]

It has been the will of every community in these disUnited State since even before I showed up in 1934 that the cops check out suspicious characters. That comes under the heading of what the vast majority of all citizens want their cops to do. Ergo, the cops are gonna check out suspicious characters.

"Suspicious" is a judgement call. I think it's fair to say that it's a function of the individual cop and his experience--and character/personality. Argue all day about that...

Regardless, checking out a "Mall Ninja" will be done in the future just as it was done this time. That's what people think cops are for. Those who think otherwise are on the short end of a 99:1 vote.

Art

 

[Herself]

So, Doc, when Jeff White writes:

There are a lot of suspicious person calls. Most of them are dealt with by driving past and seeing what's going on. The person who was the subject of the suspicious person call often never even knows about it. If the person or his activities does look out of the ordinary, then they answer a couple questions about who they are and what they are up to. Often we even catch criminals on those calls.

You would have me believe he isn't saying the Kankakee counterfeit cop should have been arrested? It it okay if I wait to see what Officer White has to say for himself about it, instead? It may be that we have three differing opinions here, not just two. (And in IL, what you and I think about it doesn't matter; another reason for me to avoid the place, IMNSHO).

Closer to home, when you wrote:

You're missing the distinction. people have been stopped for speeding and then arrested after assaulting police officers. Were they arrested for speeding? Not a perfect analogy, I know, because they were arrested for an act they committed after being stopped, but that's because I'm having a hard time thinking of something that someone could legitimately be arrested for the mere possession of. Still, he was arrested after they found that he was actually breaking the law, not because he looked weird.

Am I incorrect to read you as equating speeding, which is a well-defined offense, with looking a bit out-of-place in public, which is just some guy's opinion? Did I miss your point when you assert that an arrest based on evidence produced by a gee-you're-not-our-sort stop and search is equivalent to an arrest produced by aggressive actions towards others after a stop for speeding?

BTW, the substances a person might be arrested for the mere possession of include a large number of herbs and pharmaceuticals; or in IL, a normal-capacity gun magazine might do the trick, depending on the gun -- I am not saying that such laws are legitimate but if we are going to respect some laws that are a bit questionable freedom-wise, we'd better respect them all, don't you think?

--Herself

 

[Herself]

"Minority's always wrong -- or at least dead," ey, Mr. Eatman? And there's nothing quite as suspicious as an old-geezer security guard. I sure hope nobody from THR ever has to do such work to make ends meet after retirement; sounds like a sure trip downtown in handcuffs unless you dot every t and cross every i and never, ever attract attention.

I tell you three times, this is the foundation of the road to Dachau: being suspicious of people who are doing no harm, eccentrically.

--Herself

 

[Art Eatman]

Good job of a tortuous twisting of words and meaning, there, Barbara.

First off, SCOTUS has held that any cop can ask anybody, "Who are you?" SFAIK, that includes, "What are you doing here?"

From the various descriptions of the scene in the early posts in this thread, I'd sure be curious as to what the guy was doing. Every shopping mall's security I've ever seen is either inside and obvious or is in a bubble-gummed and identity-signed vehicle, patrolling. The guy was different, which is a hard-wired, biological thing saying, "Check this out."

Regardless, the cops did what all cops are asked to do, every day.

Art

 

[Jeff White]

Herself said;

How common? Can you produce any data to support your assertion? If not, I shall have to file it under "scare tactics," as occurances of this in Indiana are so uncommon as to produce front-page headlines when it does happen. I recall one occurrance in the last 30 years but I have not been tracjing them closely.

We had someone in my neck of the woods doing this about 5 years ago. However I will check and see if I can find some statistics for you. Just so I have this right, your position is that this is so rare an occurance that a cop poser shouldn't be checked out?

Well we haven't had a nuclear powerplant accident in this country in about 30 years, perhaps we should think about cutting back on some of those expensive safety features?

Police spokepeople in Indiana urge great caution when stopped by persons presenting themselves as LEOs: moving to a lighted area where others are present before stopping, not leaving your vehicle over a simple traffic stop and similar tactics. I can assure you that is what I would do and have done and for any stop where I knew I had not violated a traffic rule, I would be very likely to call 911, too.

Now why would they do that? You just said that incidences of a police poser pulling over someone as a prelude to an abduction, rape or murder are so rare that it's not worth the trouble to check out someone who poses as a police officer. You can't have it both ways. Either there is a danger of a poser using a traffic stop to abduct someone or there isn't. I suggest you call the police spokespeople in Indiana and tell them they are wasting their breath.

I would suggest this tactic might work best in places where citizens have been indoctrinated to submit unthinkingly to persons presenting themselves as police officers. And it is my judgement that the problem would be the indoctrination. What created the niche for such predators to function, Jeff?

Are you telling me that tactic wouldn't work in Indiana? It's never happened in Indiana? Why don't you explain why it won't work East of the Wabash river? The pull over in a well lighted area thing won't cut it for an explanation. The police spokespeople here say the same thing. Besides, didn't we just establish that there was no need for that warning because you had a better chance of getting struck by a piece of Haley's Comet that didn't burn up in the atmosphere?

"Potential victims?" Oh -- you mean what I refer to as "citizens." Gosh, I never thought of my fellow citizens as a victim-pool. Why would one do so? The key word here is potential. Has a crime been committed? No. Fear-mongering doesn't make a crime less likely to be committed, either.

We're all potential victims. There are predators all over the place. And yes a crime was committed. If we can believe the news report that the man was in possession of several switchblade knives. Which by the way, I believe are also illegal over the in free Indiana.

Jeff, are you sure everything you have done and possess will pass muster? No brass-knuckle paperweight in a drawer? Never messed up an IRS form? Nothing at all? Are you certain?

There are so many laws, probably no one is not guilty of something. But that's not the point here. The point you're making is that the man had a right to sit there all dressed up, possibly picking out a likely victim and that no police officer should have contacted him until he grabbed someone.

And if he was let to sit there unchecked and he had grabbed a woman leaving the mall, you would have been ok with the police knowing he was sitting there dressed as a cop and didn't even ask him what he was doing there. And you are prepared to look the victim in the eye and say; "Sister it was his right to sit there and those evil cops had no right to ask him what he was doing there. Your bruises, both physical and mental are a small price to pay for the right to be left alone by the jack booted thugs."

BTW, the substances a person might be arrested for the mere possession of include a large number of herbs and pharmaceuticals; or in IL, a normal-capacity gun magazine might do the trick, depending on the gun -- I am not saying that such laws are legitimate but if we are going to respect some laws that are a bit questionable freedom-wise, we'd better respect them all, don't you think?

Here is the Illinois Statue for Unlawful Use of Weapons:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=53000000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

Please read through it and post the section on magazine capacity. I'd be interested in seeing it. In July I will have 21 years on the job and I'm still unaware of any restrictions on magazine capacity. If you are going to throw accusations at least take the time to do a bit of research. Makes them more believeable if there is some truth to them.

BTW I know quite a few Indiana officers. Even one or two from Indianapolis. And you know what, they all have the same attitude toward the job that I do. Unless they are lying to me. I'll be up in Lebanon in June for some training. I'll ask the guys again and see if they don't do their job about the same way I do.

Jeff

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Eatman, when you said,

First off, SCOTUS has held that any cop can ask anybody, "Who are you?" SFAIK, that includes, "What are you doing here?"

I think you may have stepped on it and I don't mean that you tack drove the nail upon it's head.

If a cop asks me who I am and I am not driving, I will tell them.

If a cop asks me for identification while I am not driving, I will show them a dog tag which I carry on my key ring for ID in case I get run down by some careless driver while I am on my bike.

If a cop asks me for a DL while I am not driving or while I am a passenger in a car, I will politely refuse.

If I am not in a prohibited place, such as a nookular plant or somewhere posted lawfully and a cop asks me, "What are you doing here?" I will look them in the eye and say, "It's personal."

I think I understand the law and I think I have described it well.

 

[Jeff White]

Cropcirclewalker said;

If a cop asks me who I am and I am not driving, I will tell them.

Fair enough....

If a cop asks me for identification while I am not driving, I will show them a dog tag which I carry on my key ring for ID in case I get run down by some careless driver while I am on my bike.

Well considering it's not state issued ID, but fear not, name and DOB will get us all the info we need.

If a cop asks me for a DL while I am not driving or while I am a passenger in a car, I will politely refuse.

I'm really curious as to why. Now here in Illinis that's not a problem if you are a passenger in a car. In November of 2003 the state sumpreme court ruled that we could not ask for passengers to identify themselves or run them for outstanding warrants unless we could articulate reasonable suspicion that they were wanted on a warrant or involved in criminal activity.

If I am not in a prohibited place, such as a nookular plant or somewhere posted lawfully and a cop asks me, "What are you doing here?" I will look them in the eye and say, "It's personal."

Ok, but depending on the circumstances you may be detained longer then necessary then if you just answered.

Let me ask you this. Ever been overseas? To a real totalitarian country? To a place where the police officer (who may be a soldier or a member of a paramilitary unit) point his machine pistol at you every time you have a conversation with him? How about a place where they will openly shake you down? I get real tired of the police state rhetoric here, and I wonder how many people who are preaching it have any idea what a real police state is like.

The average person in the US has almost zero contact with the police in their life. Unless they are unlucky enough to commit a traffic offense in front of an officer or be a victim of a crime it's easy to go your whole life and have no official contact with a police officer. We tend to have our regular customers who we deal with.

So why the fear and loathing? Two New York detectives were convicted as being Mafia hitmen. Is that why? Well, if that's the case, unless you screwed over your local mafia don down there in the Ozarks, you probably don't have to worry about getting whacked by the criminal police on his payroll .

See law abiding gun owners and cops should be natural allies. I've been here since TFL started and I still can't figure out where the breakdown is at.

Jeff

 

[john1911]

I have no problem being allies with the police, as long as the police are willing to quit standing on the podium with the dems. and denounceing my right to keep and bear arms.
John

 

[garyk/nm]

One minor detail seems to be lacking in this story: how did the police get from the "who are you" stop to the arrest for possession of illegal items? Were those items plainly visible on his person? Dunno, doesn't say. That would seem to be the key to whether or not this is questionable under 4A.
Just looking funny (IMO) isn't PC for a search of his person and vehicle.

 

[Herself]

I asked about police impersonators in IL:

We had someone in my neck of the woods doing this about 5 years ago. However I will check and see if I can find some statistics for you. Just so I have this right, your position is that this is so rare an occurance that a cop poser shouldn't be checked out?

It is rare, and we differ on what qualifies as a "cop poser." Had, in fact, the 68-year-old armored avenger presented himself as a police officer? I see no evidence of it. In fact, wearing a hat that says "SECURITY" is an open admission of not being a sworn officer.

Well we haven't had a nuclear powerplant accident in this country in about 30 years, perhaps we should think about cutting back on some of those expensive safety features?

Glad you asked! Yes, sir, we should and right the dickens now! Nuke regs and enforcement in ths country are about as convoluted -- and as productive -- as the tax code. We haven't even built a new civilian nuclear powerplant in the country in the last 30 years, AFAIK, and that is a crying shame. How much are you paying for gas? Or does the city/county buy it for you?

Police ... urge great caution when stopped by persons presenting themselves as LEOs ...

Now why would they do that? You just said that incidences of a police poser pulling over someone as a prelude to an abduction, rape or murder are so rare that it's not worth the trouble to check out someone who poses as a police officer. You can't have it both ways. Either there is a danger of a poser using a traffic stop to abduct someone or there isn't. I suggest you call the police spokespeople in Indiana and tell them they are wasting their breath.

Actually, I can have it both ways. A kitchen fire is not a hugely probable event; there is a firehouse not five blocks North of my home. Yet I have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in my kitchen anyway.

Low probability: not worth spending my tax dollars on. Doesn't mean it's not worth a bit of my time or money when I am involved; but it's not worth diverting you from your patrol.

I believe they call it "personal responsibility." Very crackpot concept in the States these days but I'm not much for herd behavior or pack action.

... this tactic might work best in places where citizens have been indoctrinated to submit unthinkingly to persons presenting themselves as police officers.

Are you telling me that tactic wouldn't work in Indiana?

There's a much greater probability that such predator will be shot, stungunned or pepper-sprayed* in Indiana, that is certain.

It's never happened in Indiana?

It has happened in Indiana. We have no shortage of predators or those who fallprey to them. Unlike IL, however, not all the "prey" in Indiana is required by law to be helpless.

Why don't you explain why it won't work East of the Wabash river?

I have explained why it doesn't work as well. Don't forget that we're a stubborn, individually suspicious lot over here, too.

The pull over in a well lighted area thing won't cut it for an explanation. The police spokespeople here say the same thing. Besides, didn't we just establish that there was no need for that warning because you had a better chance of getting struck by a piece of Haley's Comet that didn't burn up in the atmosphere?

Halley's Coment has not yet intersected the atmosphere and may never; orbital mechanics involve so many variables that we cannot be certain it will never occur. Here's a better analogy: hailstorms are so rare that I had seen only one until last Friday; but when I found golf-ball-sized hail starting up as I pulled in my driveway, I chose to stay in the car until it was over. Beat my car up pretty seriously, too.

I should hope police in IL say the same thing and they say here about moving to a lighted area. But it's only part of the behavior, mindset and tools needed. IL's locked the citizen's toolbox and taken the key.

"Potential victims?" Oh -- you mean what I refer to as "citizens."

We're all potential victims. There are predators all over the place.

Which is why we should take responsibility for our own protection rather than begging a thinly-spread, underpaid and humanly falliable group of government employees to do it for us. This may be the most basic disconnect between me and you. A prepared individual may still be victimized, but he or she is not a victim.

And yes a crime was committed. If we can believe the news report that the man was in possession of several switchblade knives. Which by the way, I believe are also illegal over the in free Indiana.

Well, yes and no; by a quirk of the law, they are often sold as "curios." Why anything as useful as a one-hand-openable knife should be banned has never ceased to stymie me. I carry springless Japanese carpenter's knife, instead, which flips open with a snap of the wrist. Legal here, maybe not in IL.
Point is, what was he doing with those Evil Black Knives? Juggling them? Ear-notching innocent little children? Or were they stashed out of sight in a pocket or compartment of his vehicle, doing no harm?
How can an inanimate tool be evil in and of itself? It has no will, no intention.

Jeff, are you sure everything you have done and possess will pass muster?

There are so many laws, probably no one is not guilty of something. But that's not the point here.

Actually, it is: when police admit that no one is "not guilty of something," it means nobody is safe from arrest when stopped by police; by your words, your side of the ol' blue line no longer sees "bad guys" and "good guys" on my side, just those who have been caught and those who haven't been caught yet. That's a facet, an important one, of the police-state mentality.

The point you're making is that the man had a right to sit there all dressed up, possibly picking out a likely victim and that no police officer should have contacted him until he grabbed someone.

Emphasis added is mine. "Possibly picking out a likely victim?" That is nothing but fear-mongering speculation; as far as can be told from the reports, this was just an old guy that worked security sometimes and who had a taste for the tacticoooool. There is no evidence that he was any sort of rapist or killer and last time I checked, we were still prentending that police and the courts considered suspects innocent until otherwise proven.

Next point, tossing his car is a bit more than mere "contact." And that was based on, what, Being Tacticool In Public Without Convincing Excuse? Statute, please!

And if he was let to sit there unchecked and he had grabbed a woman leaving the mall, you would have been ok with the police knowing he was sitting there dressed as a cop and didn't even ask him what he was doing there. And you are prepared to look the victim in the eye and say; "Sister it was his right to sit there and those evil cops had no right to ask him what he was doing there. Your bruises, both physical and mental are a small price to pay for the right to be left alone by the jack booted thugs."

I don't have to, sir: it didn't happen. It had not happened in the past, either, of his record would have been prominently mentioned in the original article or follow-ups. This is merely more fear-mongering, an attempt to justify what appears from the published account to amount to an over-reaction to anyone aspiring to the high and majestic status of The Police. The police overlook really bad guys who do really bad things to sweet, innocent housewives, all the time. LEOs are not supposed to be babysitters or Mom and Dad, anticipating and preemptively preventing all dangers to us weak and helpless subjects and that's good, because they do a miserable job of it, especially when they view us all as merely uncaught offenders. On the other hand, police do fairly well at solving cromes and rounding up those who commit them.

BTW, the substances a person might be arrested for the mere possession of ... in IL, a normal-capacity gun magazine might do the trick, depending on the gun ...

Here is the Illinois Statue for Unlawful Use of Weapons:
[link]
Please read through it and post the section on magazine capacity. I'd be interested in seeing it. In July I will have 21 years on the job and I'm still unaware of any restrictions on magazine capacity. If you are going to throw accusations at least take the time to do a bit of research. Makes them more believeable if there is some truth to them.

Are these cities and towns located in IL? Packing.org seeems to believe they are:
Aurora (§ 29-49) bans the possession, sale, or acquisition of large capacity feeding devices (magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds).

Chicago (§ 8-20-030(i) and 8-24-025) bans the transfer, acquisition or possession of assault ammunition (any ammunition magazine having a capacity of more than 12 rounds).

Franklin Park (§ 3-13G-3) bans the transfer, acquisition, possession, manufacture or distribution of assault ammunition (any detachable ammunition magazine having a capacity of more than 16 rounds).

Oak Park (§ 27-2-1 and § 27-1-2) bans the possession and sale of large capacity feeding devices (magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds).

Riverdale (§ 5.120.180 and 5.120.190) bans the possession, transfer, acquisition or manufacture of assault ammunition (a detachable magazine box with a capacity of “more than 35 rounds centerfire.”)

BTW I know quite a few Indiana officers. Even one or two from Indianapolis. And you know what, they all have the same attitude toward the job that I do. Unless they are lying to me. I'll be up in Lebanon in June for some training. I'll ask the guys again and see if they don't do their job about the same way I do.

I won't be surprised to learn that they do. But they interact with an armed populace and their Illinois counterparts do not, other than in the citizens own homes. Indy is dressing the combined IPD/MCSD in storm-trooper black and I am not hopeful about the future. But for now, Indiana is a freer state than Illinois.

--Herself
___________________________
* I'll go look that up. Maye I'm wrong; maybe any non-felon adult anywhere in IL can legally carry pepper spray. But I'd bet not.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. White asks me,

Ok, but depending on the circumstances you may be detained longer then necessary then if you just answered.

Let me ask you this. Ever been overseas? To a real totalitarian country? To a place where the police officer (who may be a soldier or a member of a paramilitary unit) point his machine pistol at you every time you have a conversation with him? How about a place where they will openly shake you down? I get real tired of the police state rhetoric here, and I wonder how many people who are preaching it have any idea what a real police state is like.

The average person in the US has almost zero contact with the police in their life. Unless they are unlucky enough to commit a traffic offense in front of an officer or be a victim of a crime it's easy to go your whole life and have no official contact with a police officer. We tend to have our regular customers who we deal with.

So why the fear and loathing? Two New York detectives were convicted as being Mafia hitmen. Is that why? Well, if that's the case, unless you screwed over your local mafia don down there in the Ozarks, you probably don't have to worry about getting whacked by the criminal police on his payroll .

See law abiding gun owners and cops should be natural allies. I've been here since TFL started and I still can't figure out where the breakdown is at.

Jeff

Last first. This guy was funny looking. He ALSO THOUGHT THAT HE WAS AN ALLY TO THE POLICE. Look what it got him.

When this big ugly LT asked me why I was carrying a piece in my car at the airport, I responded, "We are at war with terrorists. One reason that I open carry in my car is so that I can assist the civil authority if lawfully summoned." Sounds a little funny, but it verbatim from the MO constitution. He thought I was trying to be funny.

So why the fear and loathing? No loathing, just fear. Down here in the Ozarks my experience has shown that I am in more contact with le than I am with criminals. Yes, a cop can shoot me and walk. The criminal might be charged and convicted.

I guess I am not the average citizen. I got arrested and imprisoned for driving around the circle at the airport with a lawfully carried firearm. Down here in the Ozarks a firearm in the car is the rule, not the exception.

The clever allusion to totalitarian countries is a red herring. I spent more than 4 years of my life protecting and defending my constitution and I will continue to do so. I yam sorry if my idealism puts a clamp on your ability to violate my rights.

This is a hoot. Clinton was bad so we should be happy to have Bush?

Finally, My dog tag does not have my DOB and if you asked my name and DOB, I would tell you my name and respectfully decline to tell you my DOB. Like I said in another string. I have been immunized, innoculated. You can hook me up, put my face on the concrete, whatever. I would merely say, "Cha-ching, the meter is running. Do whatever you must and or can afford."

 

[DRZinn]

[Is] it okay if I wait to see what Officer White has to say for himself about it, instead?

Makes sense to me. I'd hate to defend, on his behalf, an opinion he doesn't hold. Jeff?

Am I incorrect to read you as equating speeding, which is a well-defined offense, with looking a bit out-of-place in public, which is just some guy's opinion?

Yes, you are. I'm not equating those two, I'm pointing out that in the example I give, as well as in the case in question, the person is arrested for an entirely different reason than that for which they were initially contacted.

Did I miss your point when you assert that an arrest based on evidence produced by a gee-you're-not-our-sort stop and search is equivalent to an arrest produced by aggressive actions towards others after a stop for speeding?

Yes, you did. In the case in question, as well as in the example I gave, the person was arrested for an actual crime, which was not the reason he was detained.

BTW, the substances a person might be arrested for the mere possession of include... I am not saying that such laws are legitimate but if we are going to respect some laws that are a bit questionable freedom-wise, we'd better respect them all, don't you think?

Let me get this straight: You still have not understood that I am defending neither the cops nor the law?

 

[Edmond]

I work next to Orland Park. Believe me, if you're a black or hispanic person, you will have trouble in that town. They are quite notorious for keeping blacks and hispanics out. It's not a preferred place of mine to go.

If the man was black, they would've searched him and had him handcuffed sitting on the curb for everyone to see. It's not a knock against LEO's, it's a thing about their town.

Did you guys know that Tim McCarthy is the police chief of that town? Yeah, the same McCarthy who "took one" for Reagan. My bosses can't stand the guy, they say he's a jerk who in reality, tried to get out of the way when Reagan was being shot at.

Orland Park is anti-gun, anti-black and anti-hispanic. If you're Asian, you're still okay.

Trust me when I say they have a system of keeping blacks and hispanics from living in their town. I worked a few years in Orland Park and I've seen more racial profiling there than I've seen anywhere else. And speaking to the residents, they say the same thing.

As for the wannabe's, we have one of those guys who works for us. Tinley Park (right next to Orland Park) stopped him at 7-11 one day because the idiot decided that he was going to wear his handcuffs and baton in plain view (he works as a security guard for us). He wants to carry a firearm badly but he won't because we don't tolerate the guys who want to show off. If I'm carrying my gun, you'll never know because it will always be covered. And no, I do not carry handcuffs or a baton on me, I'm one of the investigators and we have no need to carry those items.

 

[Autolycus]

I grew up in Orland Park. I lived 2 blocks from Orland Square mall, right by Jerling Jr. High School. Its nutcases like this that make me feel the need to carry.

As much as I hate to say it he should not be charged with Unlawful use of a Weapon... cause he did not use it. They should create a new law called possession rather than one that sounds like the person being charged used it.

 

[Herself]

Tecumseh: or maybe IL could stop arresting people for the mere possession of objects? Just an idea. We could use a bit more of that attitude in IN, too, especially in regard to switchblades and brass knuckles.

Doc Zinn: I had asked, am I incorrect to read you as equating ... a well-defined offense, with ... just some guy's opinion?

Yes, you are. I'm not equating those two, I'm pointing out that in the example I give, as well as in the case in question, the person is arrested for an entirely different reason than that for which they were initially contacted.

It looks to me that you are equating the legitmacy of both, however, by claiming the arrests in both cases are of equal status or worth. But they're not! If the reason to stop and seach is not legit -- and "looking hinky in public" most certainly is not a violation of even IL law -- then any evidence seized or charges filed as a result of it are not legit, either.

I think it is an example of trying to reason backwards, pointing out that he was arrested for an actual violation of an actual law as though that justified the 4th-Amendment violation that resulted in the arrest. The Founders would not have agreed and neither have most courts.

Does this mean the occasional bad, bad man sometimes goes free? Yes, it does; and if he manages to subsequently stay out of trouble with the law and hasn't left any evidence they can dig up by legitimate means, he will stay free, too. (What're the odds? Not real good for him). And that's the price we pay for freedom.


I had asked: Did I miss your point when you assert that an arrest based on evidence produced by a gee-you're-not-our-sort stop and search is equivalent to an arrest produced by aggressive actions towards others after a stop for speeding?

Yes, you did. In the case in question, as well as in the example I gave, the person was arrested for an actual crime, which was not the reason he was detained.

But while the reason for detaining him -- even searching his person, under some circumstance -- can be pretty thin, thinner than I believe it should be (see "Terry" and "Hiibel"), the reason for a more thorough search than that still has to have some sound basis.

Let me get this straight: You still have not understood that I am defending neither the cops nor the law?

It certainly sounds as if you, at least, defending the arrest, and the arrest is the most offensive part of the whole deal.

If the police had not freaked out that he was, oh, horrors, dressed sort of like a policeman, we wouldn't be having this discussion, Mr. Mall Ninja might have picked up a few more bucks guarding a furniture store against the depredations of Visigoths and Ostrogoths and everyone would have slept soundly in their own beds.

--Herself

 

[Strings]

where the heck is Biker when I need him?

I've been the subject of searches before, for "lookin' hinky". The actual reasoning is "looking suspicious": ie: "there's something wrong here". While it's an irritant when it happens to you, I also don't have a problem with the initial encounter in the OP: There was something suspicious, and the police checked it out. They found evidence of a crime (they never DO say wether the stuff was open to plain view or not... that could be a sticking point, unless Ninjaboy consented to a search), and arrested him for it. Them's the breaks...

While I think that laws against possession of an item (like a switchblade or stungun) are foolish, you are also asking to get unfortunate attention from Officer Friendly if you have such items in your possession. This ain't rocket science. If you choose to violate the law (and you'ld think any adult, especially in the security field, would know that sitchblades and stunguns are illegal in IL), you're choosing to deal with the consequences*...

I understand Herself's point, but I think you're obsessing on it a bit too much darlin'. Depending on wether any of the contraband was visible from outside the car (or there was consent to a search), this probably doesn't qualify as "fruit of the poisoned tree", no matter how bad you think it is that the initial encounter was because "he seemed weird". And ranting about it isn't gonna change anything...


*This said by someone who, years ago, was carrying a gun in Wisconsin "and the law be damned". I grew up, learned what I was actually risking, and decided the risk wasn't worth it...

 

[DRZinn]

It certainly sounds as if you [are], at least, defending the arrest, and the arrest is the most offensive part of the whole deal.

AAAARRRGH!

I've had this same argument a thousand times, with different details. I'm not defending the arrest, I'm not defending the detainment, I'm not defending the law, I'm not defending the cops.

I'm simply pointing out that, the detainment having been made, the actual arrest was prompted by an actual violation of the law.

 

[GoRon]

I'm simply pointing out that, the detainment having been made, the actual arrest was prompted by an actual violation of the law.

Quit defending the jack booted thugs

Just kidding

 

[Jeff White]

Herself said,

It is rare, and we differ on what qualifies as a "cop poser." Had, in fact, the 68-year-old armored avenger presented himself as a police officer? I see no evidence of it. In fact, wearing a hat that says "SECURITY" is an open admission of not being a sworn officer.

Just like everyone pays attention to all the little wording on badges and patches? What was on the badge of the last uniformed officer you encountered? What does their shoulder patch say?

People see a uniform, an official looking car and they assume things that often aren't so. This is human nature. In 1943 at the height of WWII, London was so full of uniformed personnel from the UK's forces, Commonwealth forces, and allied forces that one of the newspapers (IIRC it was the Times) hired an actor to walk around town in an SS officers uniform to gauge public reaction for a story. It seems no one paid him any attention.

My younger brother is a paramedic in the security department on one of the riverboat casinos in metro east. Their uniforms are deliberately chosen for their similarity to what the local police wear.

Actually, I can have it both ways. A kitchen fire is not a hugely probable event; there is a firehouse not five blocks North of my home. Yet I have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in my kitchen anyway.

No you can't have it both ways. Not and have anyone view your argument with credibility. We're not discussing fire department response times v. the need for a smoke detector. The issue here is if the danger of someone posing as a police officer to abduct a woman is so slight the the police are committing a flagrant civil rights violation by checking someone out, there is no need to advise people to procede to a well lighted area or calling the dept on a cell phone to verify someone official is in fact trying to pull them over. Obviously if the probablility of a police poser abducting someone is so low that the police should never check out a suspicious person, then the TV and radio stations are wasting the money they spend on giving the police spokesmen free airtime for those PSAs. Obviously that money would be much better spent encouraging people to save the whales or drive slower to save energy.

So which is it?

I should hope police in IL say the same thing and they say here about moving to a lighted area. But it's only part of the behavior, mindset and tools needed. IL's locked the citizen's toolbox and taken the key.

it's not the states responsiblity to provide people with the mindset and tools needed to survive in this world. I always considered it a parent's responsibility, but what would I know?

Despite the most openly antigun governor in state history, we are prying open that tool box. We passed our castle law, without any national fanfare in 2004, and the antigun governor signed it. Despite an unholy alliance in Chicago, they have been beaten back every time they tried to expand their antigun/antifreedom agenda. This is in spite of the fact that they hold every statewide office but one and both houses of the legislature.

Quite frankly I'm tired of members who feel the need to bash members who don't live in as free a state as they do. The idea that THR members who live in Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachussetts and any of the other states that have more restrictive gun laws then you do in Indiana. You are not more committed to freedom and RKBA then THR members in other states by an accident of birth anymore then being born in the USSR made Oleg a committed communist. In case you need reminded, there are plenty of antifreedom people in political office in every state. And if you are so willing to depend on the moral superiority of the Indiana people to keep you free, then you're just a an election or two away from wearing the same shackles we do. I've seen plenty of antigun legislation come out of Indianapolis and Gary. Just stop fighting it and see if it doesn't get passed.

Which is why we should take responsibility for our own protection rather than begging a thinly-spread, underpaid and humanly falliable group of government employees to do it for us. This may be the most basic disconnect between me and you. A prepared individual may still be victimized, but he or she is not a victim.

If a prepared individual is victimized, that person is a victim. They failed to prepare adequately. Plain and simple.

Well, yes and no; by a quirk of the law, they are often sold as "curios." Why anything as useful as a one-hand-openable knife should be banned has never ceased to stymie me. I carry springless Japanese carpenter's knife, instead, which flips open with a snap of the wrist. Legal here, maybe not in IL.

Why is it a quirk of law? The Indiana legislature (now how could the morally superior, freedom loving people of Indiana have ever allowed that to happen?) Obviously passed the law and a governor signed it. Doesn't sound like a quirk to me. It sounds like the nanny state government decided that the Indiana serfs couldn't be trusted to handle switchblade knives without injuring themselves or others. And the morally superior, freedom loving serfs (shoes on the other foot now, how's it fit? ) rolled over and said, "oh yes, great wise one's thank you for saving me from evil switchbalde knives!"

Now do you see what that kind of rhetoric lends to civl discourse? Absolutely nothing.........

Point is, what was he doing with those Evil Black Knives? Juggling them? Ear-notching innocent little children? Or were they stashed out of sight in a pocket or compartment of his vehicle, doing no harm?
How can an inanimate tool be evil in and of itself? It has no will, no intention.

Doesn't matter what he was doing with them does it. They were contraband. Just the same as they would have been contraband in Indiana. When it comes to switchblade knives, neither Illinois, Indiana or most other states permit them. So he could be arrested for having one now couldn't he? We're not talking about if the law is correct or just, we're talking about the actions of the police. You need to stop taking out your inability to affect the political process that creates the laws on the people you hire to enforce them. If you have a problem with a law, then take it up with the people who wrote the law, pased it and signed it. The police officer didn't have any part in that process.

Actually, it is: when police admit that no one is "not guilty of something," it means nobody is safe from arrest when stopped by police; by your words, your side of the ol' blue line no longer sees "bad guys" and "good guys" on my side, just those who have been caught and those who haven't been caught yet. That's a facet, an important one, of the police-state mentality.

How can you take a comment that was clearly saying there are too many laws to mean that it's the start of a police state mentality because a police offcier recognizes there are too many laws. Wouldn't it be more of a sign of a police state mentality if my statement said there weren't enough laws?

Emphasis added is mine. "Possibly picking out a likely victim?" That is nothing but fear-mongering speculation; as far as can be told from the reports, this was just an old guy that worked security sometimes and who had a taste for the tacticoooool. There is no evidence that he was any sort of rapist or killer and last time I checked, we were still prentending that police and the courts considered suspects innocent until otherwise proven.

Yeah, that's why he was protecting a mall he wasn't employed at? There is also no evidence that he wasn't a potential rapist and killer either. In fact the preponderance of evidence is that he was most likely up to something. Perhaps he was like the kid we used to have in town here and just protecting the mall from dragons and demons? Or perhaps he was up to no good? Your contention is that he should have been left unbothered intil he committed a crime.

So after he used his police regalia to assist in an abduction, rape and murder of a victim, your're telling me that you would not have been joining the hue and cry that the police are useless after it came out that they knew he sat outside a mall he didn't work at all dressed up and no where to go?

Next point, tossing his car is a bit more than mere "contact." And that was based on, what, Being Tacticool In Public Without Convincing Excuse? Statute, please!

Were you there? Do you know what transpired? Do you know what was in plain sight and what wasn't? In fact why don't you just tell me under what condiditons the police can conduct a contact, advance it into an investigative stop and conduct a search here in Illinois. We're in the same federal appellate district as Indiana is, so the federal rules will be the same. But what are the rules in Illinois?

Are these cities and towns located in IL? Packing.org seeems to believe they are:
Aurora (§ 29-49) bans the possession, sale, or acquisition of large capacity feeding devices (magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds).

Chicago (§ 8-20-030(i) and 8-24-025) bans the transfer, acquisition or possession of assault ammunition (any ammunition magazine having a capacity of more than 12 rounds).

Franklin Park (§ 3-13G-3) bans the transfer, acquisition, possession, manufacture or distribution of assault ammunition (any detachable ammunition magazine having a capacity of more than 16 rounds).

Oak Park (§ 27-2-1 and § 27-1-2) bans the possession and sale of large capacity feeding devices (magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds).

Riverdale (§ 5.120.180 and 5.120.190) bans the possession, transfer, acquisition or manufacture of assault ammunition (a detachable magazine box with a capacity of “more than 35 rounds centerfire.”)

Sure are. And all rendered toothless by this STATE LAW:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...ode+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/24‑10)
Sec. 24‑10. Municipal ordinance regulating firearms; affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self‑defense or defense of another as defined in Sections 7‑1 and 7‑2 of this Code when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.
(Source: P.A. 93‑1048, eff. 11‑16‑04.)

Passed overwhelming in 2004.

cropcirclewalker said;

Last first. This guy was funny looking. He ALSO THOUGHT THAT HE WAS AN ALLY TO THE POLICE. Look what it got him.

I'm glad your crystal ball works. I dropped mine and it cracked. Since that happened I've often been unable to tell what someone was thinking when I talked to them. Your's is good enough that you can get this guy's state of mind from a news article posted on an internet discussion board....Man I'm impressed.

When this big ugly LT asked me why I was carrying a piece in my car at the airport, I responded, "We are at war with terrorists. One reason that I open carry in my car is so that I can assist the civil authority if lawfully summoned." Sounds a little funny, but it verbatim from the MO constitution. He thought I was trying to be funny.

That's not hard to imagine.

So why the fear and loathing? No loathing, just fear. Down here in the Ozarks my experience has shown that I am in more contact with le than I am with criminals. Yes, a cop can shoot me and walk. The criminal might be charged and convicted.

Really, In Missouri an officer can shoot anyone he wants and get away with it? I suppose it was just a disturbance in the force that got the deputy from up around Hannibal indicted after he shot the two men when they backed up in their pickup truck towards him? Obviously his lawyer and the Attorney General missed that rule in Missouri law. I'm sure he'll be ok once they find it.

I guess I am not the average citizen. I got arrested and imprisoned for driving around the circle at the airport with a lawfully carried firearm. Down here in the Ozarks a firearm in the car is the rule, not the exception.

So you were arrested and imprisoned for driving around the circle at the airport with a firearm, even though firearms in cars is the norm and it wasn't against the law? How many years did you have to serve?

The clever allusion to totalitarian countries is a red herring. I spent more than 4 years of my life protecting and defending my constitution and I will continue to do so. I yam sorry if my idealism puts a clamp on your ability to violate my rights.

No it's not a red herring. I wore our nations uniform for almost 29 years, and I have been in totalitarian countries. All but the very worst excesses of our legal system pale compared to how people in most of the rest of the world live.

When have I ever violated your rights?

Finally, My dog tag does not have my DOB and if you asked my name and DOB, I would tell you my name and respectfully decline to tell you my DOB. Like I said in another string. I have been immunized, innoculated. You can hook me up, put my face on the concrete, whatever. I would merely say, "Cha-ching, the meter is running. Do whatever you must and or can afford."

Not a problem. I'd simply run your name without the DOB. Of course there would likely be several soundex hits for people with similar sounding names or aliases who were wanted on warrants. If any of the physical descriptions were close to matching, you'd be faced with the choice of providing me enough information to establish you really weren't the person with the same name or alias as you gave me who was wanted or sit in jail until your figerprints came back. So you can gamble that there is no one wanted on a warrant in NCIC with the same name or alias and similar physical charactoristics as you if you want, or you could just answer a question about your identity.

There is no way you'd prevail in a lawsuit if a person was wanted in NCIC under the same name you gave an officer and you refused to provide any additional information to establish your identity. Warrants in NCIC are assumed to be valid by the officer that gets the hit. Responsibility for the warrant being valid rests with the agency that entered it.

Every time you stand on your right not to identify yourself, you're spinning the wheel and betting that someone with the same or similar name and physical charactoristics isn't wanted somewhere.

Why would an officer look harder at someone who is evasive about who they are? It's simple, people who are wanted on warrants often give us bad information or are evasive in an attempt to aviod being arrested on the warrant.

There is a good chance that taking a stand like that, that sounds so principled when you read it on a message board, is just going to buy you unnecessary problems in the long run. It's your choice.

Jeff

 

[.45FMJoe]

If the man in question were black, the article would have been crying about profiling and how evil the po-lice are. Reverend Al would be preaching on TV about this innocent man being a victim of the system.

My $0.02

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. White, I yam impressed that you would take the time to respond so fully to my ramblings and obvious personal beef with law enforcement.

Just a brief response.

cropcirclewalker said;

Quote:
Last first. This guy was funny looking. He ALSO THOUGHT THAT HE WAS AN ALLY TO THE POLICE. Look what it got him.

I'm glad your crystal ball works. I dropped mine and it cracked. Since that happened I've often been unable to tell what someone was thinking when I talked to them. Your's is good enough that you can get this guy's state of mind from a news article posted on an internet discussion board....Man I'm impressed.

Jeff, you're using some tortured logic. You are stretching it. Seriously.

Let's get analytical. The "subject" is either
1) a good guy
2) a bad guy or
3) neither (confused, sick, alzheimic, whatever)

When the cops pull up, he gets out of the car, dressed funny with fatigues, weapons belt, security hat, body armor and like that. Now, using just simple common sense, and through my perspective, this guy appears to me to be either 1 or 3. I know I do not have the heightened senses of Law Enforcement, but I would think if he was no. 2 he would either drive off, sit in his car with concealed weapons or come out guns blazing. At least from my simple non criminal perspective that's what I would do if I was a bg.

I could be wrong.

When this big ugly LT asked me why I was carrying a piece in my car at the airport, I responded, "We are at war with terrorists. One reason that I open carry in my car is so that I can assist the civil authority if lawfully summoned." Sounds a little funny, but it verbatim from the MO constitution. He thought I was trying to be funny.

That's not hard to imagine.

Yes, Jeff, being a guy who is not from around here it is understandable that you would imagine that. However,

Missouri Constitution
Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23

Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

being a part of the MO constitution, a LT in MO Law Enforcement that does not recognize that portion of our Bill of Rights is STUPID Like I said, present company is of course, excluded.

So why the fear and loathing? No loathing, just fear. Down here in the Ozarks my experience has shown that I am in more contact with le than I am with criminals. Yes, a cop can shoot me and walk. The criminal might be charged and convicted.

Really, In Missouri an officer can shoot anyone he wants and get away with it? I suppose it was just a disturbance in the force that got the deputy from up around Hannibal indicted after he shot the two men when they backed up in their pickup truck towards him? Obviously his lawyer and the Attorney General missed that rule in Missouri law. I'm sure he'll be ok once they find it.

I yam not inclined to specifically state the occurance to which I refer. I am aware of the incident you refer to except I did not know that he had been indicted. There must have been witnesses.

I think you are stating the exception, not the rule.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain or disprove to you that of which everybody else here is painfully aware.

I guess I am not the average citizen. I got arrested and imprisoned for driving around the circle at the airport with a lawfully carried firearm. Down here in the Ozarks a firearm in the car is the rule, not the exception.

So you were arrested and imprisoned for driving around the circle at the airport with a firearm, even though firearms in cars is the norm and it wasn't against the law? How many years did you have to serve?

I understand that you may not be familiar with Missouri Statutes. Thus.....

Arrest.

544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.

False imprisonment.

565.130. 1. A person commits the crime of false imprisonment if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully and without consent so as to interfere substantially with his liberty.

2. False imprisonment is a class A misdemeanor unless the person unlawfully restrained is removed from this state, in which case it is a class D felony.

I spent 2+ hours chained to a bench at the airport. Does that qualify in accordance with MO law?

The clever allusion to totalitarian countries is a red herring. I spent more than 4 years of my life protecting and defending my constitution and I will continue to do so. I yam sorry if my idealism puts a clamp on your ability to violate my rights.

No it's not a red herring. I wore our nations uniform for almost 29 years, and I have been in totalitarian countries. All but the very worst excesses of our legal system pale compared to how people in most of the rest of the world live.

When have I ever violated your rights?

You failed to understand what I posted. If you cannot understand that the idealism of myself and some others of us here who have sworn an oath to protect and defend our constitution prohibits us, on principle, from succombing to a violation of our rights, there is not much else I can do to help you.

Finally, My dog tag does not have my DOB and if you asked my name and DOB, I would tell you my name and respectfully decline to tell you my DOB. Like I said in another string. I have been immunized, innoculated. You can hook me up, put my face on the concrete, whatever. I would merely say, "Cha-ching, the meter is running. Do whatever you must and or can afford."

Not a problem. I'd simply run your name without the DOB. Of course there would likely be several soundex hits for people with similar sounding names or aliases who were wanted on warrants. If any of the physical descriptions were close to matching, you'd be faced with the choice of providing me enough information to establish you really weren't the person with the same name or alias as you gave me who was wanted or sit in jail until your figerprints came back. So you can gamble that there is no one wanted on a warrant in NCIC with the same name or alias and similar physical charactoristics as you if you want, or you could just answer a question about your identity.

There is no way you'd prevail in a lawsuit if a person was wanted in NCIC under the same name you gave an officer and you refused to provide any additional information to establish your identity. Warrants in NCIC are assumed to be valid by the officer that gets the hit. Responsibility for the warrant being valid rests with the agency that entered it.

Every time you stand on your right not to identify yourself, you're spinning the wheel and betting that someone with the same or similar name and physical charactoristics isn't wanted somewhere.

Why would an officer look harder at someone who is evasive about who they are? It's simple, people who are wanted on warrants often give us bad information or are evasive in an attempt to aviod being arrested on the warrant.

There is a good chance that taking a stand like that, that sounds so principled when you read it on a message board, is just going to buy you unnecessary problems in the long run. It's your choice.

Jeff

Yes, you got it. What you just posted may be construed in some circles as a threat, but I do not believe it to be so.

Let me reiterate..I have been innoculated.

I am not a criminal. I am self employed. I do not punch a clock. I have gone months without a paycheck. I can go months without a paycheck. I do not report to an employer. My house is paid for.

If you think you can intimidate or coerce me into knuckling under because of the potential of law suit expenses or incarceration, feel free. Like I said before, whatever you can afford.

If a person bearing my name was wanted for a serious crime, I would have been previously contacted.

If there is somebody out there with my name that has unpaid parking tickets in Cleveland, well maybe. If you are prepared to defend your actions of throwing my face onto the concrete and putting your knee on my neck.......well, like I said......

Whatever you can afford.

 

[Jeff White]

cropcirclewalker said;

Mr. White, I yam impressed that you would take the time to respond so fully to my ramblings and obvious personal beef with law enforcement.

First off, Mr. White was my father, please call me Jeff. Secondly, I think it's important for all of us that we understand each other. If you have a beef with law enforcement and I can maybe explain why some of the things are done the way they are, maybe we don't fight when as freedom loving individuals we should be allies in the war to disarm all of us.

Jeff, you're using some tortured logic. You are stretching it. Seriously.

Let's get analytical. The "subject" is either
1) a good guy
2) a bad guy or
3) neither (confused, sick, alzheimic, whatever)

When the cops pull up, he gets out of the car, dressed funny with fatigues, weapons belt, security hat, body armor and like that. Now, using just simple common sense, and through my perspective, this guy appears to me to be either 1 or 3. I know I do not have the heightened senses of Law Enforcement, but I would think if he was no. 2 he would either drive off, sit in his car with concealed weapons or come out guns blazing. At least from my simple non criminal perspective that's what I would do if I was a bg.

The problem here is that nobody who's posted in the thread knows what really happened. We're in two camps because one side sees this guy as a harmless old man who is now in trouble with law because he chose to be eccentric. And the other side sees him as someone who was potentially up to no good. The fact that he arrested at all tells me that he was probably up to no good. Why, you ask. Because you don't have to do this job very long before you learn that arresting somebody is often not the best way to solve the problem. The man is facing a misdemeanor unlawful use of weapons charge. The kind of thing that he will most likely end paying $100 fine plus costs if convicted. So we have a lot of work, arresting and booking the man, incident report, arrest report, supplemental report. They most likely towed his car, so there is a tow sheet and maybe other paperwork to be filled out. That's a whole lot of trouble for a misdemeanor offense that the states attorney is most likely to nole pros or plead down to disorderly conduct.

There are only a couple reasons an officer would go through all that trouble. (1) The old guy was truely a danger to someone. In that case there probably weren't any other charges to file, but the idea is to get the guy into the system, maybe scare him if nothing else.

(2) The old guy was really looney tunes. After all he was guarding a mall he didn't work at. So you get him into the system and maybe he gets court ordered help.

In either case you call the states attorney and say don't file 13 this case. We'll be dealing with this guy again if you do. Maybe next time it will be more serious.

See the courts are so underfunded that only a very small fraction of the cases that are filed ever get into court. A good portion of them, especially a misdemeanor UUW where the crime was simply possession of a prohibited item, and that item wasn't a handgrenade, machine gun or small hand held thermonuclear device simply end up in file 13 at the states attorney's office.

Yet many people have the mistaken attitude that we get brownie points and feel real good about taking a 68 year old man off the street. It really doesn't work that way. I think you'll find that most officers simply want to keep the peace.

Yes, Jeff, being a guy who is not from around here it is understandable that you would imagine that. However,
Quote:
Missouri Constitution
Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23

Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

being a part of the MO constitution, a LT in MO Law Enforcement that does not recognize that portion of our Bill of Rights is STUPID Like I said, present company is of course, excluded.

It was quite probably the first time anyone ever said anything like that to him. You have to admit, it's not someting everyone would say.

Quote:
So why the fear and loathing? No loathing, just fear. Down here in the Ozarks my experience has shown that I am in more contact with le than I am with criminals. Yes, a cop can shoot me and walk. The criminal might be charged and convicted.

Really, In Missouri an officer can shoot anyone he wants and get away with it? I suppose it was just a disturbance in the force that got the deputy from up around Hannibal indicted after he shot the two men when they backed up in their pickup truck towards him? Obviously his lawyer and the Attorney General missed that rule in Missouri law. I'm sure he'll be ok once they find it.

I yam not inclined to specifically state the occurance to which I refer. I am aware of the incident you refer to except I did not know that he had been indicted. There must have been witnesses.

I think you are stating the exception, not the rule.

If you really believe that there was an incident in which the police shot someone who shouldn't have been and the local authorities are covering it up, then you should talk to the Attorney General for an independent investigation or even the FBI about a civil rights violation.

The deputy from up around Hannibal was indicted after an independent investigation by the Missouri Attorney General's office. Around here a polcie department won't even invesitgate it's own traffic accidents, much less a shooting. We're very careful to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Quote:
I guess I am not the average citizen. I got arrested and imprisoned for driving around the circle at the airport with a lawfully carried firearm. Down here in the Ozarks a firearm in the car is the rule, not the exception.

So you were arrested and imprisoned for driving around the circle at the airport with a firearm, even though firearms in cars is the norm and it wasn't against the law? How many years did you have to serve?

I understand that you may not be familiar with Missouri Statutes. Thus.....
Quote:
Arrest.

544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.

False imprisonment.

565.130. 1. A person commits the crime of false imprisonment if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully and without consent so as to interfere substantially with his liberty.

2. False imprisonment is a class A misdemeanor unless the person unlawfully restrained is removed from this state, in which case it is a class D felony.

Isn't there something in the Missouri statutes that states you can hold someone for either 12 or 24 hours without charging them? I seem to remember a St Louis officer telling me that. If that's the case, it probably wouldn't be false arrest or false imprisonment until that time limit expired. You might look under courts or criminal procedure in the Missouri statutes.

You failed to understand what I posted. If you cannot understand that the idealism of myself and some others of us here who have sworn an oath to protect and defend our constitution prohibits us, on principle, from succombing to a violation of our rights, there is not much else I can do to help you.

I took the same oath to which I am still bound because military retirees are subject to recall. I also took an oath to carry out my duties to enforce the law in the state of Illinois when I was commissioned as a peace officer.

Where we differ is that I accept the fact that the legislature and the courts have passed laws and made rulings as to how I am to do my job. I don't think you accept that. But like it or not, good decision or bad, the supreme court is the final arbiter when it comes to how our rights are interpreted. All in all they have done a pretty good job of balancing the rights of the individual with the power of the state. At least in criminal matters. Police officers from other countries are usually amazed by the legal restraints we have on how we do our job. And the great majority of us wouldn't have it any other way.

Yes, you got it. What you just posted may be construed in some circles as a threat, but I do not believe it to be so.

You're right. It's not a threat. It's just a statement about how things are. I (and virtually all of the other officers I know) really don't care one bit about who someone is or what they are doing unless something attracts our attention. Here in Illinois I can't even ask the passenger in a car for ID unless I can articulate reasonable suspician that he's wanted or is involved in criminal activity.

So if I ask a subject to identify himself, I have a reason for wanting to know. And flip, evasive answers make me wonder why he's being flip and evasive. Most people aren't upset with telling someone who they are. We do have an anti-government group in the area who refuse to register their vehicles or get drivers licenses or recognize any authority but the county sheriff. So there is a good possiblity that someone who would answer like you say you would is one of them. In which case, it's an officer safety issue. The other general reason people give us evasive answers about who they are, is that they are wanted somewhere. Once I had a subject lie to me about who he was because he knew he had a warrant in a county South of us. I finally got the truth out of him (the sitting in jail waiting on figerprint confirmation thing) and you should have seen the grin on his face when he found out he was outside the geographical limitations of the warrant. He was positive he beat the system, until I told him I was arresting him in this county for obstruction of justice. He wasn't quite so happy then.....

Let me reiterate..I have been innoculated.

I am not a criminal. I am self employed. I do not punch a clock. I have gone months without a paycheck. I can go months without a paycheck. I do not report to an employer. My house is paid for.

If you think you can intimidate or coerce me into knuckling under because of the potential of law suit expenses or incarceration, feel free. Like I said before, whatever you can afford.

I'm not trying to intimidate or coerce anyone into anything. I'm just trying to do my job using the tools the legislature and the courts have given me. As I stated before, if I ask someone for ID, it's because I need to know their identity for a reason.

If a person bearing my name was wanted for a serious crime, I would have been previously contacted.

Nope, there are many people with the same name in our nation of 300 million. There aren't enough cops to go around and check out everyone who has the same name of a wanted person. I was involved in a traffic accident with my personal vehicle some years ago. I was sitting in the squad car with the state trooper while she prepared the report. When she ran my license she got a hit on a Jeff White from Chicago who was wanted for burglary. Now in this case all the physical description didn't match, and I had known this trooper for several years. But if she didn't know me she could quite easily have held me on that warrant until my ID was verified, enough of the physical description matched and one of his alias DOBs matched my actual DOB. Yet no one from Chicago PD ever contacted me about this guy. She still teases me about it every now and then.

If there is somebody out there with my name that has unpaid parking tickets in Cleveland, well maybe. If you are prepared to defend your actions of throwing my face onto the concrete and putting your knee on my neck.......well, like I said......

I don't think I'd have to throw your face onto the concrete and put my knee on your neck. If I thought that you were the wanted person and you steadfastly refused to provide me with anymore information then what I had, there are no actions for me to defend.

Whatever you can afford.

Do you really think you'd prevail in a civil rights suit when I had a legitmate warrant for someone who used your name and fit your description? After you testified that you had every opportunity to provide information that would have proven you weren't the wanted person and refused? How sypathetic do you think the jury would be after they viewed the dash cam tape of you politely refusing numerous times to tell me your date of birth, even after it was explained to you that I had every reason to believe you were the wanted person without that information?

Jeff

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yo, Jeff, I feel your pain. It has to be Really hard on a guy to be a cop in Illinois. Especially hard for a guy who spent many years protecting his constitution who is interested in guns such as I suspect you have and are.

It must pain you every time you have to run someone in for crimes like "Being armed and not a cop" or some such. I can understand how you would eventually rationalize that it's for the old feller's own good. Get him off the street and into a nice institution.

And Yes, having a name which is pretty common such as you do (assuming you post with your real name) I can see how there must be bunches of warrants out there floating around.

Last time I looked in the NYC phone book for "Walker, Crop C." (name has been changed to protect the innocent) I found none. O'course that was like 30 years ago and I think I only looked in maybe 2 burros.

I suspect now when a cop looks at my "Permanant Record" it will show up on my rap sheet that I got arrested at the Loo Airport and "Beat the Rap" for lack of crime or something. They can't say lack of evidence because I answered every question, never resisted and kept repeating to them that I was not committing any crime.

They probably put an asterisk next to my name for "Trouble Maker" or maybe "thinks he's free".

I further am confident that there are no other bad guys out there using my name, since at one time they ran me for my FFL (fed.gov) and since my arrest and imprisonment by a state for my "Permission Slip" to carry concealed. I didn't put my socialist security number on either application and I know they love to hold up things if you don't get in line right and bend over.

Yes, I am confident that there are no bad guys out there using or having my name, and yes, since I have spent the time chained to a bench, I know what is likely and still I kinda wonder how far a real JBT (not just a stupid leo) would go to teach me some humility.

And if a cop says to me, "It says here that there is a warrant out for you." Hey, their not even gonna get my name after that. I will choose to remain silent. Remember Martha Stewart?

Finally, you (maybe it was Mr. Alduro) think that a dog tag is not a state issued identification. Sorry, it is. fed.gov is a state and there is everything on it that .gov needs to identify me. Just because it is so old that it doesn't have my socialist security number on it doesn't mean that it is not a unique identifier.

As an aside, whoever dreamed up using the socialist security number as a service number is about as falling down stupid as they can get. Obviously someone who does not consider it likely that he, himself will ever be captured by an enemy. Why not just issue everybody in the military a Master Card?

edited to clarify a concept.