| Author | Post |
|---|
Pagan
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 6th, 2009 07:02 pm |
|
Those LEO's are suppose to know the law, "ignorance is no excuse", show them no mercy, for if they had found one minor thing illegal in your conduct you WOULD have been charged, and we all know this!
They violated your rights as an American citizen and as a citizen of your state, perhaps you don't have an agenda, and don't want to get rich, but you should look into some serious legal action, and if you get money and feel guilty about it, then donate it to a fellow OC'er that has been violated and needs funds for legal fees.
Point is, these guys know the law, and make a living from YOUR taxes enforcing those laws, and will bust your balls every chance they get, and tell you "ignorance is no excuse" show the same respect that they show you.
Glad you were not arrested ,but violated; you were.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 04:23 pm |
|
I know I posted this in another thread, but again I believe this is what you are looking for.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=6603
|
thefarce
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 05:16 pm |
|
I'd file a complaint for harassment, unlawful arrest (cuffs=arrest), ...
I agree with your comments, but I do take exception to your comment that "Cuffs=arrest". Being placed in cuffs is simply a restraint method; at most, he was detained - not arrested.
Otherwise yes, I agree - a complaint at the least is in order; the officer did do a nice job of realizing his mistake, but this is something that the department should at least be aware is a problem, if nothing else... the officers should be educated as to the proper method of dealing with someone OCing.
Last edited on Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 05:17 pm by thefarce
|
Fallschirmjäger
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 07:05 pm |
|
Legal explanations.com
(v) Arrest is the action by which a person is stopped from his normal activities by virtue of a legal authority or sanction, either by detaining him or by stopping his external accesses. By an arrest, a person is deprived of his liberty. So the law contain many provisions like requirement of a warrant, adherence of Miranda rights, arraignment within the statutory limit etc.
dictionary.reference.com
verb (used with object) 1. to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody: The police arrested the burglar. noun 5. the taking of a person into legal custody, as by officers of the law. 6. any seizure or taking by force. 7. an act of stopping or the state of being stopped: the arrest of tooth decay.
Perhaps the best, they go quite deeply into the matter.
thefreedictionary.com
A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.
...
An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.
BusinessDictionary.com
To detain a person and keep him or her in custody by lawful authority. Arrest may be made with an arrest warrant or without one (called 'summary arrest') in case of an arrestable offense, or where it is authorized by a statute.
YourDictionary.com
transitive verb- to stop or check the motion, course, or spread of
- to seize or take into custody by authority of the law
- to catch and keep (one's attention, sight, etc.)
noun- an arresting or being arrested; esp., a taking or being taken into custody by authority of the law
- a thing for checking motion
LEOTraining.com
[excerpted by me]
Q -- Handcuffing People During Frisks An officer stops a vehicle with multiple occupants and develops reasonable suspicion to search for weapons (let’s assume he does have reasonable suspicion). Can an officer handcuff the occupants of a vehicle on reasonable suspicion alone only to search for weapons?
I guess the case doesn't necessarily have to deal with passengers of automobiles. But if an officer fears someone is armed, can he/she handcuff the person to simply search for weapons or have the courts ruled that once a person is handcuffed they are in custody. I remember you lectured about this very topic but I don’t recall your opinion.
Answer
First off -- your safety is most important. If you feel that you must handcuff people present to go home at night, then do it.
BUT -- you must remember that handcuffing looks like "custody" or "arrest" to a court / judge and that requires probable cause -- so let me give you some legal advice.
1. Prior to handcuffing, tell the people they are not under arrest or in custody.
2. As soon as you have frisked, unhandcuff the people, if possible.
3. If you discover important evidence as a result of this procedure YOU must convince the court of the unusual circumstances that made it necessary to handcuff. This is not easy in lots of courts, so be prepared to tell the story to make the judge feel as if he / she were there.
And be prepared to explain that whenever you have found it necessary to do this, you ALWAYS and immediately unhandcuff the people when you determine that nobody has a weapon that can hurt you.
There are three levels (tiers) of interaction with the police as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, we all know what they are.
Tier 1 ... Voluntary Interaction
Tier 2 ... Detention
Tier 3 ... Arrest.
Ask yourself what tier of interaction you are having when you are are involuntarily placed into restraints and your freedom to go about your normal activities is halted until such time as you are released.
Last edited on Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 07:29 pm by Fallschirmjäger
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 07:36 pm |
|
thefarce wrote: I'd file a complaint for harassment, unlawful arrest (cuffs=arrest), ...
I agree with your comments, but I do take exception to your comment that "Cuffs=arrest". Being placed in cuffs is simply a restraint method; at most, he was detained - not arrested.
Otherwise yes, I agree - a complaint at the least is in order; the officer did do a nice job of realizing his mistake, but this is something that the department should at least be aware is a problem, if nothing else... the officers should be educated as to the proper method of dealing with someone OCing.
Even a traffic stop is considered an arrest.
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 09:35 pm |
|
madrevar wrote:
First he gives me the speil about how open carry is not the best idea, sheeple will call MWAG, and how if enough sheople would have been disturbed he would have charged me. He also told me that when and if I have law enforcement respond again I should be fine if I do as I did that day. He also admitted that he didn't have much experience with carrying off-duty much so he hasn't had to deal with it himself.
If he "didn't have much experience with carrying....hadn't had to deal with it himself." why is he arresting you? What law did he think you had broken? This jerk is just enforcing his own personal feelings.
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 12:08 am |
|
It is clear that the officer made errors in his handling of OP. Using this case as an example, what would the damages be from a legal standpoint? And how would the damages be quantified?
Anyone know?
I usually have this question whenever there is a post about being treated badly and unlawfully by cops is introduced here. When people suggest suing (e.g. Pagan), I suspect its suing for damages. But what are they, using this case as an example?
I'm sure if the cop would have beat up or shot the OP, then the physical injuries and cost for treatment of those would serve as the basis for damages.
But is the false arrest (if it is an arrest) in this case worth, say, $200, if one were to spend $5000 to run it through the court system?
Or, are there no damages, since the LEO corrected his error in thinking that OP was violating the law?
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 01:20 am |
|
HankT wrote: It is clear that the officer made errors in his handling of OP. Using this case as an example, what would the damages be from a legal standpoint? And how would the damages be quantified?
Anyone know?
I usually have this question whenever there is a post about being treated badly and unlawfully by cops is introduced here. When people suggest suing (e.g. Pagan), I suspect its suing for damages. But what are they, using this case as an example?
I'm sure if the cop would have beat up or shot the OP, then the physical injuries and cost for treatment of those would serve as the basis for damages.
But is the false arrest (if it is an arrest) in this case worth, say, $200, if one were to spend $5000 to run it through the court system?
Or, are there no damages, since the LEO corrected his error in thinking that OP was violating the law?
How does one "correct" the violation of another's rights? How much money does it take to replace abused liberty? A person's ability to come and go as he sees fit and to be secure in his own person is one of the fundamental tenants of liberty. The seizure of a person is a serious violation, as serious as kidnapping. The amount of money to compensate for that loss is uncountable.
|
thefarce
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:13 am |
|
I think it would be disproportionate and downright excessive to sue in this instance. Yes, he was detained. BUT, to be realistic, police officers cannot be expected to know every obscure statute in the state they work in.
Yes, these laws may seem "common sense" to those of us on this forum, but keep in mind that this sort of situation is not one that an officer comes across often - indeed, I'd bet many officers never come across this even once throughout their career.
Yes, I think he should file a complaint - that's more than reasonable. However, given that the officer released him immediately upon learning he was not in violation of the law should give the officer some credit.
Also, keep in mind that while in the courtroom, the laws state "innocent until proven guilty", for a police officer in a potential confrontation with an unknown individual with a (presumably loaded) weapon, the best course of action would be to do exactly what this officer did.
Remember: a police officer's number one concern is making sure he goes home at night. Everything else is secondary, as it should be when someone is risking their life potentially daily.
This situation could be "what ifed" to death as far as "why didn't he ask if he had a permit or just stand there" but keep in mind, the officer sees a loaded gun, and his first instinct is to make sure that he isn't going to get shot, and the best way to do that is for him to take possession of it.
Just try to remember that cops aren't "bad guys" - they're just trying to, like all of us, do a job and make a living. Just think about how you'd like it if somebody came to your desk and started telling you how to do a job you've done for x years... clearly a mistake was made here, but it was rectified as immediately as possible, and I think that deserves some credit.
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:36 am |
|
thefarce wrote: I think it would be disproportionate and downright excessive to sue in this instance. Yes, he was detained. BUT, to be realistic, police officers cannot be expected to know every obscure statute in the state they work in.
Yes, these laws may seem "common sense" to those of us on this forum, but keep in mind that this sort of situation is not one that an officer comes across often - indeed, I'd bet many officers never come across this even once throughout their career.
Yes, I think he should file a complaint - that's more than reasonable. However, given that the officer released him immediately upon learning he was not in violation of the law should give the officer some credit.
Also, keep in mind that while in the courtroom, the laws state "innocent until proven guilty", for a police officer in a potential confrontation with an unknown individual with a (presumably loaded) weapon, the best course of action would be to do exactly what this officer did.
Remember: a police officer's number one concern is making sure he goes home at night. Everything else is secondary, as it should be when someone is risking their life potentially daily.
This situation could be "what ifed" to death as far as "why didn't he ask if he had a permit or just stand there" but keep in mind, the officer sees a loaded gun, and his first instinct is to make sure that he isn't going to get shot, and the best way to do that is for him to take possession of it.
Just try to remember that cops aren't "bad guys" - they're just trying to, like all of us, do a job and make a living. Just think about how you'd like it if somebody came to your desk and started telling you how to do a job you've done for x years... clearly a mistake was made here, but it was rectified as immediately as possible, and I think that deserves some credit.
Cops don't have to know the ins and outs of every law. They only need to know that the 4th amendment says no illegal search and seizures, no Terry stops without RAS, and no gun exception to Terry. That's it. If they can't or won't do that they need to go home from other employment. After a trip to court to let a judge decide what is "disproportionate and downright excessive".
Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:41 am by gutshot
|
thefarce
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:40 am |
|
Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:46 am |
|
thefarce wrote: Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law.
It is definitely NOT too much to expect that every department that has had an incident, advise their officers of the legality of OC. Two, three or more incidents is not a "whoops - sorry" incident, it starts to border on training deficiency and neglect.
Yata hey
Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:47 am by Grapeshot
|
thefarce
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:49 am |
|
Grapeshot: Oh absolutely, I agree. However in this case, it does not appear to be a recurring incident - it seems like this could even be the first time this department has had to deal with this.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not trying to be a troll or anything of that nature - I fully support OC and individual citizens' rights. I just also have a certain empathy for individuals who risk their lives every day for a living and more often than not simply receive ridicule for their (ordinarily) selfless service.
Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:51 am by thefarce
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 06:28 am |
|
gutshot wrote: HankT wrote: It is clear that the officer made errors in his handling of OP. Using this case as an example, what would the damages be from a legal standpoint? And how would the damages be quantified?
Anyone know?
I usually have this question whenever there is a post about being treated badly and unlawfully by cops is introduced here. When people suggest suing (e.g. Pagan), I suspect its suing for damages. But what are they, using this case as an example?
I'm sure if the cop would have beat up or shot the OP, then the physical injuries and cost for treatment of those would serve as the basis for damages.
But is the false arrest (if it is an arrest) in this case worth, say, $200, if one were to spend $5000 to run it through the court system?
Or, are there no damages, since the LEO corrected his error in thinking that OP was violating the law?
How does one "correct" the violation of another's rights? How much money does it take to replace abused liberty? A person's ability to come and go as he sees fit and to be secure in his own person is one of the fundamental tenants of liberty. The seizure of a person is a serious violation, as serious as kidnapping. The amount of money to compensate for that loss is uncountable.
This last thing is highly unlikely to be true. There is most definitely a way to "count" the amount of money to legally compensate for losses.
It's one of the first classes that lawyers take. Compensation Maximization:Theory and Practice, I think it's called. One of those jumbo classes... 
They can definitely "count" it....
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 03:55 pm |
|
HankT wrote:
This last thing is highly unlikely to be true. There is most definitely a way to "count" the amount of money to legally compensate for losses.
It's one of the first classes that lawyers take. Compensation Maximization:Theory and Practice, I think it's called. One of those jumbo classes...
They can definitely "count" it....
If so, it needs to be counted in a court of law by a judge and jury.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 04:59 pm |
|
thefarce wrote: Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law.
Bullsnort! Any moderately competent post officer should KNOW w/o hesitation the primary types of illegal activity he is liable to encounter on his post and within his sector. It's called 'Law Enforcement'... not 'Opinion Enforcement'. Drawing his weapon put the OP in immediate danger, when there was no causative overt action on the part of the OP to justify doing so. 911 Operators are also at fault as is the Police Dispatcher for not asking the proper questions of the MWAG alarmist.
This is just another reactionary JBT with a badge. Yes... I've been a sworn LEO... before somebody accuses me of cop bashing. This was a false arrest... PERIOD! Half-assed 'understanding' of a law is incompetence. I'd sue the bastards.
|
gutshot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 08:29 pm |
|
thefarce wrote: Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law.
Please post a link to or cite of this exception.
|
NightOwl
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 374 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 07:08 pm |
|
thefarce wrote: Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law.
Everything is legal unless there is a law specifically against it. So I don't find it to be asking a whole lot for officers to not make up laws based on assumption or guesses.
|
patrick james
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 12:29 am |
|
| Yeah, Minnesota has a "Carry Law" Not Conceal and Carry. Although it is legal to conceal your firearm. And i find it hard to believe that cops in our state[most if not all]are not aware of this law. Crazy if you ask me. Cops like that [unprofessional] just bug me out. I think they feel or their egos feel threatened when they see someone with a firearm other than them.
|
Current time is 12:04 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
