| Author | Post |
|---|
DESERT ATILLA
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 05:11 am |
|
| Bravo, Tim. And bravo, Citizen. Tim, I hope that I will be able to handle the situation as well as you if I get stopped for OCng. Let me know if contributions to the defence fund is needed.
|
bobernet
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 06:46 am |
|
VegasGeorge wrote: I don't doubt that Tim is right on the technical legal issues he raises in his post. However, there are lots of instances where I don't want our Metro officers to feel totally constrained by legal technicalities.
Umm, legal "technicalities?" They are called LAW enforcement officers for a reason. Not "Opinion Enforcement Officers" or "Keep George Safe Officers."
Their job is to protect me, and in my mind that responsibility comes first.
No, actually that's not their job. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled on more than one occasion that the police are not obligated to provide any service to you at any time. They are not responsible for your safety, even if they have the ability to provide it.
Cops catch bad guys after the fact. People are responsible to protect themselves. No one else is obliged (or even capable) of doing it for them.
It appears obvious to me that Tim was making every effort to test the technical legal limits of his right to carry.
Tim already knows the "legal limits of his right to carry." That's why we have public laws and not secret laws. Everyone is free to read and understand them.
Tim was exercising that intrinsic right in a way that appears to be unpopular with some in the law enforcement community (and apparently also the Las Vegas gun community if the Nevada Shooters group is a representative sample).
That's OK, but it obviously and predictably resulted in more trouble than necessary.
The same sort of trouble that was caused when those pesky blacks thought they could drink from white drinking fountains, sit in the front of the bus, or send their kids to "white" schools.
The same sort of trouble that those uppity women caused thinking they had a right to vote.
The same sort of trouble those dirty jews caused when they didn't think they should wear stars on their clothes, or produce their "papers" on demand.
I think that a lesson in American civics, common law, and civil rights might be in order. Rights are not only rights when they're popular, convenient, or palatable to the government.
I always carry my photo ID (NV drivers license), my Nevada CFP, and the Blue Card for the gun I'm carrying. I am more than happy to immediately produce those for inspection on request. I will produce them for an officer, and I will produce them for anyone else who expresses a concern about the presence of my firearm. I want people to know who I am and that I am, in fact, one of the good guys.
The fact that you choose to waive your rights does not obligate others to follow you in lockstep or "face the consequences."
By your logic, police shouldn't need warrants, as any "good guys" should just let them search through their home, computer, safe deposit box, wife's underwear drawer, or body cavities, if they've nothing to hide.
That's because I'm all too aware that there are lots of bad guys out there, and I don't want to be mistaken for one of them.
Well, you see, here in America, the way to not be mistaken for a bad guy is to not be a bad guy. We have this whole system based on a presumption of innocence. It means that the government doesn't get to violate your rights, detain you, incarcerate you, or otherwise bother you unless they have a level of proof commensurate with the actions taken.
In the case of a "Terry" stop, that's Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. In the case of arrest/detention, that's Probable Cause. In the case of inprisonment, that's Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt as adjudicate by a Jury of Your Peers.
See how those Founding Fathers really thought through the stuff you seem to think is a brand new concept?
It would have been nice if God had issued us white hats and black hats like the director of an old western movie. But He didn't. So, officers and folks in general have a right to be cautious and fearful when they see me with a weapon.
You bet they have a right to be cautious or even fearful. They have a right to any emotion they want to experience. They don't have a right to violate the civil rights and legal protections of their fellow citizens. If they had chosen to follow and observe Tim, fine. They didn't. They illegally detained him. They illegally searched him. They illegally questioned him. They illegally seized his property.
The truth is, open carry although legal is unusual. I'm the one who is doing something different. I feel I have an obligation to willingly reassure anyone who asks by producing my credentials.
Being different does not carry the obligations you seem to ascribe. If I am not violating your rights or those of others, I'm under no obligation to "prove" that I'm "OK" in someone else's eyes. I can wear the clothes I want, hairstyle I want, jewelry or tattoos I want. Congregate with the people I want. Hold the opinions (and speak them) I want, and I don't owe you - Las vegas Metro Police Deapartment - or anyone else an accounting for that. I am accountable to my God, and those friends and family to whom I choose to be accountable.
It looks like the officers over reacted in the way they initially contacted Tim. But, it also looks to me like Tim failed to act reasonably under the circumstances.
I agree. I think Tim was far too cooperative given the circumstances. I would have been much hotter under the collar, but maybe that's just my Irish-Italian temper. I don't take it lightly when government bureaucrats feel they can trample all over my rights whenever it suits them.
To sum up, your whole post can be summed up as:
"You have to go along, to get along."
While that might be great advice for those wanting to fit in to a social situation. It is incredible bad advice when it comes to government employees who are whittling away your rights day by day, year by year.
Bob
Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 06:48 am by bobernet
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 08:32 am |
|
NavyLT wrote: It doesn't make sense to me or a lot of others here.
I think about it this way....Anti-OC means anti-2A. If right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to all forms of carry, then the support for that "right" is quite limited.
In other words, they support 2A, but only as it applies to them. Although I have a 2A right to carry openly, since they do not OC, it doesn't matter whether 2A allows OC or not, and I should not be permitted to carry openly because it puts at risk their right to CC.
I liken it to the 15th (black people can vote) and 19th (women can vote) amendments. As I am neither black nor female, neither apply to me. Following their logic, since neither apply to me, I do not need to support them. In the spirit of freedom and free rights for all, that simply makes no sense, and I obviously support these rights as I do all human civil rights.
|
wayneco
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:28 am |
|
Tim, you're absolutely amazing, I envy your courage and conviction. We don't have those sort of troubles up north, Clark County seems like another state, frankly, it sounds a lot like California.
I can't wait to see how this goes, if you take it all the way with the right counsel, you're going to mop the floor with these officers actions that will solidify hands-off policies and an end one and for all to these illegal civil rights violations.
"Give me your blue card!" seems to be Clark County's version of Nazi Germany's "Papieren Bitte!"
(worth the click)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsO1KwF64OwLast edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:28 am by wayneco
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 10:53 am |
|
VegasGeorge wrote:
However, there are lots of instances where I don't want our Metro officers to feel totally constrained by legal technicalities. Their job is to protect me...
Funny, the Supreme Court of the US doesn't agree with you there.
|
wayneco
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 11:22 am |
|
Hey marshaul, nice to see you over here on the NV board.
wayneco
|
joeschmo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 11:24 am |
|
I am new here, but after reading this thread, I have a couple things I want to say.
First off, why do you keep saying that dash cam? How do you even know Metro has dash cameras? (Here's a hint - they don't)
Secondly, you state that they told you on suspiscion of armed robbery was thier reason for stop. What makes you think they made it up? How do you know that there was not some armed robbery at some point during the day where the suspect's description was the same as yours? How do you know that the officers were not told to BOLO for an armed robbery suspect matching your description?
Also, since you seem to be trying to force a "pattern" of 'illegal" stops, and have posted that on a message board, should you end up filing a civil lawsuit, I can all but guarantee your postings will come up, and with them, I can also be pretty sure that a jury of your peers may be unlikely to decide the case in your favor. Just something to think about.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 11:42 am |
|
wayneco wrote:
Hey marshaul, nice to see you over here on the NV board.
wayneco
Nice to see you too. 
I get all over this forum.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 01:56 pm |
|
joeschmo wrote: I am new here, but after reading this thread, I have a couple things I want to say.
First off, why do you keep saying that dash cam? How do you even know Metro has dash cameras? (Here's a hint - they don't)
Secondly, you state that they told you on suspiscion of armed robbery was thier reason for stop. What makes you think they made it up? How do you know that there was not some armed robbery at some point during the day where the suspect's description was the same as yours? How do you know that the officers were not told to BOLO for an armed robbery suspect matching your description?
Also, since you seem to be trying to force a "pattern" of 'illegal" stops, and have posted that on a message board, should you end up filing a civil lawsuit, I can all but guarantee your postings will come up, and with them, I can also be pretty sure that a jury of your peers may be unlikely to decide the case in your favor. Just something to think about.
1.) I found that out and posted as much on this very thread. Read back a page or two and you'll see that downtown area command confirmed there are no such dash cameras. I hope there is a recording somewhere to prevent any "testi-lying" by law enforcement should this go to court - it is my intention to follow through to that end.
2.) The officer admitted there were no armed robberies, no threatened armed robberies, and I did not match the description of any suspects. I asked them this specifically and said as much in the very same paragraph as I explained their absurd and made-up "suspicion" - actually, the very next sentence explain this. Perhaps you would enjoy reading the entire post. I know it's long, but this question has already been answered.
3.) I'm not trying to "force" a pattern of illegal stops; I was trying to demonstrate a pattern of illegal stops. Again, had you read my entire post, and the subsequent posts on this thread, you would have seen my purpose is to put an end to these illegal stops. Another forum member, who I've only met once, was similarly detained in his own neighborhood in the middle of the day, far from any tourist area.
I was taking a walk. I chose the location I did because I figured with the high saturation of police officers I would be seen. I, however, did nothing illegal, suspicious or unusual. I was merely walking. I expected NOT to be stopped as I haven't been stopped for more than 2 years OCing here in Las Vegas, but knew that if Metro does in fact have such a pattern of abuse, I would see it that night.
And I'm not trying to win any financial awards here. My purpose is solely intended to put an end to unconstitutional and illegal behavior by Las Vegas Metro Police Dept.
Tim
|
irish
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 04:38 pm |
|
After recommending Nevada Shooters on this board I now feel it is full of irresponsible, immature and uninformed people. Sorry. As evidenced here by people's responses to my sound advice http://www.nevadashooters.com/showthread.php?t=3846
My offer still stands to video any and all future outings.
Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 04:40 pm by irish
|
Vegassteve
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 297 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 06:18 pm |
|
joeschmo wrote:
Also, since you seem to be trying to force a "pattern" of 'illegal" stops, and have posted that on a message board, should you end up filing a civil lawsuit, I can all but guarantee your postings will come up, and with them, I can also be pretty sure that a jury of your peers may be unlikely to decide the case in your favor. Just something to think about.
Sort of like al those pesky black folks that kept trying to go to school and ride the front of the bus.
|
R a Z o R
Banned
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 06:47 pm |
|
Topless Disneyland Strip visiting sheep must not be frightened by the informed and liberty & freedom loving citizenry of the U.S.A.
Amasing Tim , thanks for your courage .
We will be visiting in August for her birthday . It's her 1st trip out west . I just posted about carrying a pocket knife while in Las Vegas and read about your expience .
|
joeschmo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 02:30 am |
|
timf343 wrote: joeschmo wrote: I am new here, but after reading this thread, I have a couple things I want to say.
First off, why do you keep saying that dash cam? How do you even know Metro has dash cameras? (Here's a hint - they don't)
Secondly, you state that they told you on suspiscion of armed robbery was thier reason for stop. What makes you think they made it up? How do you know that there was not some armed robbery at some point during the day where the suspect's description was the same as yours? How do you know that the officers were not told to BOLO for an armed robbery suspect matching your description?
Also, since you seem to be trying to force a "pattern" of 'illegal" stops, and have posted that on a message board, should you end up filing a civil lawsuit, I can all but guarantee your postings will come up, and with them, I can also be pretty sure that a jury of your peers may be unlikely to decide the case in your favor. Just something to think about.
1.) I found that out and posted as much on this very thread. Read back a page or two and you'll see that downtown area command confirmed there are no such dash cameras. I hope there is a recording somewhere to prevent any "testi-lying" by law enforcement should this go to court - it is my intention to follow through to that end.
2.) The officer admitted there were no armed robberies, no threatened armed robberies, and I did not match the description of any suspects. I asked them this specifically and said as much in the very same paragraph as I explained their absurd and made-up "suspicion" - actually, the very next sentence explain this. Perhaps you would enjoy reading the entire post. I know it's long, but this question has already been answered.
3.) I'm not trying to "force" a pattern of illegal stops; I was trying to demonstrate a pattern of illegal stops. Again, had you read my entire post, and the subsequent posts on this thread, you would have seen my purpose is to put an end to these illegal stops. Another forum member, who I've only met once, was similarly detained in his own neighborhood in the middle of the day, far from any tourist area.
I was taking a walk. I chose the location I did because I figured with the high saturation of police officers I would be seen. I, however, did nothing illegal, suspicious or unusual. I was merely walking. I expected NOT to be stopped as I haven't been stopped for more than 2 years OCing here in Las Vegas, but knew that if Metro does in fact have such a pattern of abuse, I would see it that night.
And I'm not trying to win any financial awards here. My purpose is solely intended to put an end to unconstitutional and illegal behavior by Las Vegas Metro Police Dept.
Tim
Alright, here is a tip - the next time you get stopped, don't tell the officer how to do his/her job. You have not been trained on law enforcement policies and procedures nor have you gone to law school. Even if you feel the are in the wrong, if you attempt in any way, shape, or form to tell them how to do thier job what what they "must do according to so and so law" it will make it ten times worse for you. If you wish, file a complaint afterwords. Trying to take it up with the officers on scene will not do any sort of good for you.
Also, since you seen to not like identifying yourself to law enforcement when stopped, I CANNOT WAIT until you get pulled over for speeding and refuse to provide your information, if you chose not to. I will enjoy reading your thread about that once you get out of CCDC or the LV City Jail.
Have fun with your little "crusade"
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 02:41 am |
|
joeschmo wrote: SNIP Even if you feel the are in the wrong, if you attempt in any way, shape, or form to tell them how to do thier job what what they "must do according to so and so law" it will make it ten times worse for you.
I also recommend being polite with police, to a certain degree anyway.
However, nothing in the 4th Amendment authorizes police to make things ten times worse, or even a little worse if the detainee argues the legality when the police are performing an illegal detention.
|
Vegassteve
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 297 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:11 am |
|
joeschmo wrote:
Alright, here is a tip - the next time you get stopped, don't tell the officer how to do his/her job. You have not been trained on law enforcement policies and procedures nor have you gone to law school. Even if you feel the are in the wrong, if you attempt in any way, shape, or form to tell them how to do thier job what what they "must do according to so and so law" it will make it ten times worse for you. If you wish, file a complaint afterwords. Trying to take it up with the officers on scene will not do any sort of good for you.
Also, since you seen to not like identifying yourself to law enforcement when stopped, I CANNOT WAIT until you get pulled over for speeding and refuse to provide your information, if you chose not to. I will enjoy reading your thread about that once you get out of CCDC or the LV City Jail.
Have fun with your little "crusade"
Are you a LEO?
Tim and others of us here are very well versed in our rights. A traffic stop for speeding and showing a DL is much different than being stopped for NO REASON while on the street.
Maybe you are ready to live in a country of show us your papers, but many of us are not.
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 702 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:14 am |
|
joeschmo wrote:
<snip>
Even if you feel the are in the wrong, if you attempt in any way, shape, or form to tell them how to do thier job what what they "must do according to so and so law" it will make it ten times worse for you. If you wish, file a complaint afterwords. Trying to take it up with the officers on scene will not do any sort of good for you.
<snip>
Here's the problem I have with people who think and believe the way you do:
In the state of Oregon it is not a defense against a charge of 'resisting arrest' if the arrest is illegal.
Think about that one for a moment. IT. IS. NOT. A. DEFENSE. EVEN. IF. THE. ARREST. IS. ILLEGAL.
A police officer could be beating the ever living (bleep) out of you, and regardless if you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE or not, it is a CRIME to resist in any way shape or form if he claims to be arresting you. You are required to just lay there and take the beating, and file a complaint later..........if you live.
Now... admittedly, this example is taking your sentiment to the extreme, but this begs the question... just how much violation of ones rights should one be forced to endure before they are justified in standing their ground against such an assault?
You can apologize for the police all you want, but at the end of the day you are advocating, in application, complete supplication to jack-booted thugs, up to and including the extreme of my example.
Shame on you.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
-Barry Goldwater
|
GoldCoaster
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:33 am |
|
Of course he's a cop, that was starkly obvious from his first post.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:36 am |
|
GoldCoaster wrote: Of course he's a cop, that was starkly obvious from his first post.
If he is, that last little comment about "ten times worse" becomes intimidation.
|
joeschmo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 04:59 am |
|
Citizen wrote: GoldCoaster wrote: Of course he's a cop, that was starkly obvious from his first post.
If he is, that last little comment about "ten times worse" becomes intimidation.
I am not a cop, I just have common sense and know how to properly pick my battles. Like I said, fight it in the courts, not out on the streets. Have peaceful protests and demonstrations all you want - I am all for your right to open carry and think more people should do it.
Constantly asking if you are free to leave isn't going to do anything for you. Ask once, if they say you are not, you don't need to keep asking every 5 minutes. Once you are free to leave, they will let you know. Same thing goes for the siezure of your property. If you do not consent, tell them. If they then sieze your property, reaffirm that you do not consent one more time. After than, be quiet until you are released. If anything, doing those above things and being polite but firm with your rights will give you a better case.
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 702 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:06 am |
|
joeschmo wrote:
Constantly asking if you are free to leave isn't going to do anything for you. Ask once, if they say you are not, you don't need to keep asking every 5 minutes. Once you are free to leave, they will let you know. Same thing goes for the siezure of your property. If you do not consent, tell them. If they then sieze your property, reaffirm that you do not consent one more time. After than, be quiet until you are released. If anything, doing those above things and being polite but firm with your rights will give you a better case.
I disagree.
Silence begets consent.
If you do not consistently repeat your objections, and non-consent, then the argument could be made that your silence indicates a terminations of your objections, AKA: CONSENT.
|
Current time is 12:23 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...   |
|
|
|
