| Author | Post |
|---|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 591 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 01:03 am |
|
inNV wrote: Where is the threat of violence or force to the OP in his story? I don't see it. You can sit here and continue to bring things into play that have no bearing, and have the people here drool all over you, that's fine. The fact is none of what you have been saying applies or is not present. If the OP wants to waste his time and money fighting this based on your words, I guess that's his problem. But Tim, you're completely wrong.
If you don't consider the threat of arrest as coercion, then you are beyond hope. Obviously the threat of arrest is something that most people would be coerced by, or the cops wouldn't use it to try and get people to do what they want them to do.
If a person came up to you on the street and threatened you with being locked in a cage, when you had done nothing to warrant it, I'm sure that you would not dismiss it so readily.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 01:29 am |
|
inNV wrote: Where is the threat of violence or force to the OP in his story? I don't see it. You can sit here and continue to bring things into play that have no bearing, and have the people here drool all over you, that's fine. The fact is none of what you have been saying applies or is not present. If the OP wants to waste his time and money fighting this based on your words, I guess that's his problem. But Tim, you're completely wrong. Sheesh!
" (c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force."
It didn't say "threats of violence or force."
I echo gordie; do you believe a threat of arrest does not fit as a threat? or as coercion? Especially when the threat was to try and coerce a presentation that is not backed up by statute, and the threat of arrest was for a non-existent crime? I guess you failed to read my reference to "color of law...."
Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 01:29 am by wrightme
|
DESERT ATILLA
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 01:43 am |
|
Sheepdawg wrote: Tim, you beat me to the NRS cite for coersion. SNIP
"Wheres your blue card?"
"I'm not required to carry it."
"Could arrest you right now." (THREAT #1) inNV
might talk this down as just a lie, but it sure smacks of coersion. PO is attempting compliance of action using tactic.
 SNIP
He comes back. Now he is telling my he could keep my gun and I would have to come pick it up later.(What? no arrest anymore, weird!) (THREAT #2) another threat that could be considered coersion.
On another note, what about liability? I know are gigantic "what ifs", but I'm going to bring them up anyway. One of the reasons we carry is to defend ourselves. By disarming us, a PO is removing our defense mechanism. After the PO is finished with the stop, puts our property (our defense) in an incovenient place and leaves, there is that small window of time that leaves our "dangerous weapons" beyond our immediate control. Tim's incident on the Strip comes to mind. If I remember correctly, the police left his gun well out of his reach and potentially within the reach of other civilians on the street. What if someone had beaten Tim to his gun? What if Tim had been attacked and not been able to defend himself because the LEOs took his protection? Maybe I have too much time on my hands
"A friend will help you move, a real friend will help you move a body."
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:47 am |
|
inNV wrote: Where is the threat of violence or force to the OP in his story? I don't see it. You can sit here and continue to bring things into play that have no bearing, and have the people here drool all over you, that's fine. The fact is none of what you have been saying applies or is not present. If the OP wants to waste his time and money fighting this based on your words, I guess that's his problem. But Tim, you're completely wrong.
I don't think anything I brought into play is irrelevant. Coercion is most certainly not irrelevant as others have posted in reply to you. And though you claim the cases I cited were irrelevant because no frisk was involved, I disagree. Although you claim simply to know that I'm completely wrong, do you have any actual legal basis to back up your argument?
Remember, we're talking about a police officer's lawful authority to OVERRIDE a citizen's rights. Rights are absolute. Authority is limited in many ways - that's kind of what they had in mind when they wrote the constitution. When the US Supreme Court allows authority to override rights, it is very dangerous and must be done only with safeguards against abuse. I've cited those very safeguards as the basis for some of my arguments. How am I wrong?
The case law regarding a frisk is most certainly relevant because both a frisk for weapons and the subsequent confiscation of weapons are at issue in those cases. Since that type of frisk is dependent on lawful authority to confiscate any weapons that are found, confiscating an OC weapon depends on that exact same authority. It is formed the same way by a PO and faces the same tests and scrutiny in court.
If an officer would not have had authority to frisk the OP had his weapon been CC, his confiscation of an OC weapon is not lawful. I think a statement from the police officer would have a lot of bearing here in determining whether it was lawful. According to OP, after the officer took the OC'd weapon, he neglected to frisk the suspect and instead merely asked him if he had any other weapons. Had the officer actually formed reasonable suspicion that OP was dangerous, it seems an unlikely and illogical decision to simply accept OP's word that no other weapons were present and a frisk should then ensue.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:02 am |
|
The NRS was already posted that stated an officer can secure a weapon from someone for his safety, if he feels him a threat. Like I said, try to prove a PO's thoughts. Keep running around in circles buddy...it's not coercion to say "I can arrest you for not having a blue card". It is coercion if the PO threatens arrest for compliance or non compliance of a legal act. In other words, to get you to do or not do something. It is obvious your reading comprehension is lacking considering taking what I said:
Just because you think/know the OP is not dangerous, doesn't mean Joe Cop will take your or his word on it that all OC'ers are law abiding citizens. And no, it doesn't mean they are all criminals either.
as this:
I don't think I've ever said all cops are criminals
How you took the above statement as me referring to cops, I haven't a clue.Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:04 am by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:20 am |
|
inNV wrote: The NRS was already posted that stated an officer can secure a weapon from someone for his safety, if he feels him a threat.
No, NRS does not state that.
Like I said, try to prove a PO's thoughts. Keep running around in circles buddy...it's not coercion to say "I can arrest you for not having a blue card". It is coercion if the PO threatens arrest for compliance or non compliance of a legal act. In other words, to get you to do or not do something. It is obvious your reading comprehension is lacking considering taking what I said:
But you feel it is not coercion to threaten arrest to coerce information not required by statute? 
Just because you think/know the OP is not dangerous, doesn't mean Joe Cop will take your or his word on it that all OC'ers are law abiding citizens. And no, it doesn't mean they are all criminals either.
as this:
I don't think I've ever said all cops are criminals
How you took the above statement as me referring to cops, I haven't a clue. You seem to have trouble comprehending the statute, and "color of law."
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:30 am |
|
Personal attacks aren't needed. I either read it wrong or you wrote it wrong. I don't always read word-for-word perfectly every time, I imagine you probably don't write perfectly every time either.
To my own defense though, we were talking about cops committing criminal violations of rights, so the assertion of cops being criminals was already in my mind at that point. When you said "Joe Cop" I took it as a generalization of all cops.
Yes, the NRS was already posted. I've repeated I think now four times, the text says "reasonably believes". The NV Supreme Court case law expands this meaning of reasonable belief and gives it the same meaning ascribed to "circumstances which reasonably indicate" in NRS 171.123.
The question I have posted, which you have refused to answer each and every time, is why this reasonable suspicion, in your mind, does not require the same level of unquestionable authority as required in this country to IGNORE a citizen's constitutional rights? A cop feeling one way or another is IRRELEVANT in the eyes of the law. He must have REASONABLE and ARTICULABLE suspicion. As previously discussed, subjective hunches and feelings are not lawfully authoritative.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:39 am |
|
Prove he didn't have a REASONABLE suspicion.
Hey, next time you get pulled over, or a cop approaches you for a lawful purpose, and he asks to secure your firearm, tell him no and see what happens.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:53 am |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: The NRS was already posted that stated an officer can secure a weapon from someone for his safety, if he feels him a threat.
No, NRS does not state that.
It absolutely does say that.
If any peace officer reasonably believes that any person whom he has detained or is about to detain pursuant to NRS 171.123 is armed with a dangerous weapon and is a threat to the safety of the peace officer or another, the peace officer may search such person to the extent reasonably necessary to ascertain the presence of such weapon. If the search discloses a weapon or any evidence of a crime, such weapon or evidence may be seized.
What it comes down to is what the cop thought, good luck proving that.
Like I said, try to prove a PO's thoughts. Keep running around in circles buddy...it's not coercion to say "I can arrest you for not having a blue card". It is coercion if the PO threatens arrest for compliance or non compliance of a legal act. In other words, to get you to do or not do something. It is obvious your reading comprehension is lacking considering taking what I said:
But you feel it is not coercion to threaten arrest to coerce information not required by statute?
No, it isn't. Harassment maybe, coercion no.
Just because you think/know the OP is not dangerous, doesn't mean Joe Cop will take your or his word on it that all OC'ers are law abiding citizens. And no, it doesn't mean they are all criminals either.
as this:
I don't think I've ever said all cops are criminals
How you took the above statement as me referring to cops, I haven't a clue. You seem to have trouble comprehending the statute, and "color of law."
No I comprehend it just fine, obviously you don't. I guess you guys can keep bringing up case law or NRS' that look good, but are not case on point or that don't apply here...I'm done. I suggest some of you study up a little bit before you go out and try some kind of OC assembly.
BTW, it seems that you all forgot that breaking a traffic law, no matter how minute it is, is still breaking the law, and hence you are a criminal. This is why they can secure your firearm. Same as if you just shoplifted, or robbed someone. You don't have to be put in handcuffs, you can just as easily be left in your car, or in this case your motorcycle..Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:55 am by inNV
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:55 am |
|
Just because a cop will predictably violate my rights does not make him right in doing so.
And yes, I will refuse. I won't physically resist, but I will make sure he knows I do not consent. And that's only if he knows I'm armed. Because if he asks if I have any weapons, my answer is simply "I don't answer questions from police." This might mean he orders me out of the car, then he'll know I am OCing. If he takes it from me, what can I do but file a complaint and hope IAD does the right thing.
I know it will probably get me nowhere...did you read my strip encounter? I was pulled over while walking. I was detained in handcuffs and my weapon seized from me. I was doing nothing wrong and the cops were unable to articulate any lawful authority for why they stopped me. There's an open criminal investigation against those guys. Were they right?
Yea, I know, different situations, OP was stopped for a traffic infraction. Just thought I'd punch myself in the face so you don't have to.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 07:57 am |
|
timf343 wrote:
Just because a cop will predictably violate my rights does not make him right in doing so.
And yes, I will refuse. I won't physically resist, but I will make sure he knows I do not consent. And that's only if he knows I'm armed. Because if he asks if I have any weapons, my answer is simply "I don't answer questions from police." This might mean he orders me out of the car, then he'll know I am OCing. If he takes it from me, what can I do but file a complaint and hope IAD does the right thing.
I know it will probably get me nowhere...did you read my strip encounter? I was pulled over while walking. I was detained in handcuffs and my weapon seized from me. I was doing nothing wrong and the cops were unable to articulate any lawful authority for why they stopped me. There's an open criminal investigation against those guys. Were they right?
Yea, I know, different situations, OP was stopped for a traffic infraction. Just thought I'd punch myself in the face so you don't have to.
Again, bringing in situations that have NO BEARING in this matter. To repeat what I said above:
It seems that you all forgot that breaking a traffic law, no matter how minute it is, is still breaking the law, and hence you are a criminal. This is why they can secure your firearm. Same as if you just shoplifted, or robbed someone. You don't have to be put in handcuffs, you can just as easily be left in your car, or in this case your motorcycle.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 08:02 am |
|
| I should clarify my point here. Many people come to these types of sites for advice. If someone sees the people on here saying not to listen to the police, or do what the police tell you, such as letting them secure your firearm during a lawful, criminal, traffic stop, they may do it and be in big trouble. Obviously I will probably never get through to most on here who are so hard pressed into believing they should carry a gun anywhere, because all that matters is them, but if at least someone who comes here and just likes to read threads can see dissent, maybe they will think twice before doing something stupid.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 08:02 am |
|
inNV wrote: Prove he didn't have a REASONABLE suspicion.
Hey, next time you get pulled over, or a cop approaches you for a lawful purpose, and he asks to secure your firearm, tell him no and see what happens.
Actually, I did bring in a situation which was helpful in answering your question.
See what happens....I will refuse, but if an innocent man (me, being stopped while walking on the street) is victimized by this type of treatment, if I'm pulled over for a "lawful purpose" I stand no chance of having my rights upheld.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 08:03 am |
|
inNV wrote: No I comprehend it just fine, obviously you don't. I guess you guys can keep bringing up case law or NRS' that look good, but are not case on point or that don't apply here...I'm done. I suggest some of you study up a little bit before you go out and try some kind of OC assembly.
BTW, it seems that you all forgot that breaking a traffic law, no matter how minute it is, is still breaking the law, and hence you are a criminal. This is why they can secure your firearm. Same as if you just shoplifted, or robbed someone. You don't have to be put in handcuffs, you can just as easily be left in your car, or in this case your motorcycle..
OK, I'm done too. It's just a circle. You're obviously the authority, because you refuse to cite any other authority. And you claim the cites we do give you are "not case on point" without explanation, despite our assertions that they are in fact with valid reasoning.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 08:08 am |
|
inNV wrote: I should clarify my point here. Many people come to these types of sites for advice. If someone sees the people on here saying not to listen to the police, or do what the police tell you, such as letting them secure your firearm during a lawful, criminal, traffic stop, they may do it and be in big trouble. Obviously I will probably never get through to most on here who are so hard pressed into believing they should carry a gun anywhere, because all that matters is them, but if at least someone who comes here and just likes to read threads can see dissent, maybe they will think twice before doing something stupid.
None of us ever suggested anyone physically resist. In fact, I think our suggestion is always to do what the cop tells you, and file a complaint later. "I DO NOT CONSENT BUT WILL NOT RESIST YOU PHYSICALLY."
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 01:21 pm |
|
inNV wrote: Prove he didn't have a REASONABLE suspicion.
Hey, next time you get pulled over, or a cop approaches you for a lawful purpose, and he asks to secure your firearm, tell him no and see what happens. No, it is up to the LE to prove that he DID have a reasonable suspicion.
Your post is a strawman. No one here argued that anyone tell any LE "NO" when asked to secure a firearm.
Most of us here also understand that during the stop, the LE by statute, can claim officer safety during the stop. We do not agree that there was ANY justification for the use of its seizure to attempt to coerce the OP to provide information that is not required by statute. Typically in this thread, you have still failed to address that point.
Detainment for the infraction is a given. Detainment beyond that is not justified.
Why do you ignore the "color of law" point I presented?
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 01:56 pm |
|
inNV wrote: I should clarify my point here. Many people come to these types of sites for advice. If someone sees the people on here saying not to listen to the police, or do what the police tell you, such as letting them secure your firearm during a lawful, criminal, traffic stop, they may do it and be in big trouble. Obviously I will probably never get through to most on here who are so hard pressed into believing they should carry a gun anywhere, because all that matters is them, but if at least someone who comes here and just likes to read threads can see dissent, maybe they will think twice before doing something stupid. Where have we tried to state that others should not listen to police?
Where have we argued that police cannot secure a firearm during a traffic stop?
Where have you supported your contention that the LE in this case acted properly with the threat of arrest, and threat of continued confiscation of the firearm? You have not.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 02:11 pm |
|
inNV wrote: timf343 wrote:
Just because a cop will predictably violate my rights does not make him right in doing so.
And yes, I will refuse. I won't physically resist, but I will make sure he knows I do not consent. And that's only if he knows I'm armed. Because if he asks if I have any weapons, my answer is simply "I don't answer questions from police." This might mean he orders me out of the car, then he'll know I am OCing. If he takes it from me, what can I do but file a complaint and hope IAD does the right thing.
I know it will probably get me nowhere...did you read my strip encounter? I was pulled over while walking. I was detained in handcuffs and my weapon seized from me. I was doing nothing wrong and the cops were unable to articulate any lawful authority for why they stopped me. There's an open criminal investigation against those guys. Were they right?
Yea, I know, different situations, OP was stopped for a traffic infraction. Just thought I'd punch myself in the face so you don't have to.
Again, bringing in situations that have NO BEARING in this matter. To repeat what I said above:
It seems that you all forgot that breaking a traffic law, no matter how minute it is, is still breaking the law, and hence you are a criminal. This is why they can secure your firearm. Same as if you just shoplifted, or robbed someone. You don't have to be put in handcuffs, you can just as easily be left in your car, or in this case your motorcycle. Cite to authority.
Your statement is not correct. The statute is clear. Unless you can cite to the authority that a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code (in this case, the speeding and failure to signal) causes one to be as you name it, a criminal. 171.123 is clear on the point.
timf presented a case that clearly discussed the reasoning LE could use:
As indicated, Gates' actions were not dependent on cause to arrest. Terry v. Ohio, cited above, recognized that a policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop has the right to protect himself when he "is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous." 392 U.S., at 24. See also: NRS 171.1232(1). In our view, when police see two adult males in a car bearing stolen out-of-state license plates, they may reasonably fear either passenger or driver is armed and dangerous.
The OP was not stopped for a crime of this level. In the beginning, the LE is likely justified in securing the firearm during the investigation into the alleged traffic violations. Beyond that, no. The LE had no RAS for keeping the firearm secured, yet continued to do so, and attempted to coerce the OP into presenting a blue card, which he was not required to carry or produce. He used a threat of arrest, and a threat of continued seizure of the firearm in an attempt to coerce compliance with a non-existent statute. Do you at least understand that?
|
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 08:49 pm |
|
| Teach me to go to Florida for a week, riding harleys and having fun. I never posted this before But I too was stopped on my Harley, by NHP.6/15/2009 Pulled over for non DOT compliant Helmet. (read PROFILED) the Trooper DUDLEY #484 never did inspect the helmet, I declared My firearm, CC at the time,(MISTAKE)it was 6:30 AM and I was on 1 cup of coffee coming home from a lady friends house. The trooper took my 1911 ultra compact .45 and released the mag, tried to rack the slide ... while struggling and changing hands as the mechanical safety was on. The end result was my loaded firearm ended up being pointed at me, and the direction of the very busy Starbucks drive thru. I to was threatened with jail over not having my blue card on my person, And asked the trooper for the NRS he would be taking me to jail for. he kept on about the blue card even stating that he carries his so I have to carry mine, he then accused me of drinking and asked me when I took my last drink, I told him I had 1 cup of coffee this morning. he told me I was inebriated and we were going to do a field sobriety test. I told him I would be fine blowing into the tube to show him that what he smelled was mouthwash (no tooth brush @ my lady- friends) he said we do it my way or you go to jail. I didn't do so good on the FST but blew a .08 on the meter the trooper said that is like a small sip of beer or wine (no mention of mouthwash) and went back to the Blue card after he told me if I was a .1 or .2 he would gave taken me to jail I knew the law but stayed silent he had a metro show up for back up and even asked that officer if he carried his blue card, and got a resounding of course. The trooper then started comparing my CCW to the firearms listed on the back and was asking why I own 2 Springfield armory .45's but only have 1 listed on my CCW. and many more uneducated questions Just like it. the bottom line was I was held on the side of the road for approx 1 hr. the Trooper wrote me a 17.00 non compliant helmet ticket, the trooper told me since I was a known alcoholic and in possesion of a CCW he would pull me over every time he sees me. at the end he told me to unlock my trunk on my bike, I said it is unlocked he stood their and so did I he yelled I am not going to wait all day, open it up, or you wont get your gun back. I did and after he set my gun in there he started rummaging through the contents. since then I have filed a complaint with the office of professional responsibility been to the meeting and was allowed to view my dash cam footage (worthwhile) wore out then colonel Perry, and started in on Chief Toney Almerez when he replaced Perry, it was I that brought up the blue card problem at the chiefs and sheriffs meeting and it seems that no matter what INNV says, they are using the blue card as a detainment tool. I called NHP this morning LV office and the desk Sargent said if the Trooper says you have to have your Blue card than that is the law, and followed it up with he wouldn't tell you that if it wasn't right ... So I have a call in to Chief Almerez. I went to court for my non DOT compliant helmet, and the prosecutor never let me see the court room, He asked me if I had purchased a new helmet? I said no, mines fine. He asked me if I was a good rider, I hesitated wondering where he was going with this, he got impatient and blurted , well are you at least decent? to which I responded yes. "dismissed " he exclaimed. when I asked him wasn't I due my day in court? He said, you just had it. Sorry about the grammer and spelling it was a lot of typing for one sitting. Sheep, IM me if you want help I can tell you about the internal affairs stuff and the like.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 10:11 pm |
|
| paragraphs please.....
|
Current time is 11:59 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...   |
|
|
|
