| Author | Post |
|---|
mvpel
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 03:20 pm |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFXVUIiDxkc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKZfa_XweBo
Early reports that they were held at gunpoint are untrue.
This incident will be the subject of discussion at the Gun Owners of New Hampshire Board of Directors meeting this evening, Tuesday June 17 at 7:00pm at the Concord Holiday Inn to explore possible courses of action to insure that such incidents STOP before someone is seriously injured or killed due to this kind of police misconduct.
18 USC 242 and 42 USC 14141 will be subjects of discussion, needless to say.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers.
In particular, the Manchester police's conduct with me, Dave Ridley, and Neal Connor and his friends, adding up to several occasions over the past four years, would appear to establish a pattern of conduct as described in 42 USC 14141.
One of the individuals accosted on Sunday will be present, Ryan Marvin - the New Hampshire coordinator of Pink Pistols.
Last edited on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 03:34 pm by mvpel
|
MarkNH
State Researcher
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | New Hampshire USA |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 03:31 pm |
|
 
It is a shame that a minority of police officers feel the need to unlawfully detain people and lecture them on what they "feel" is right/wrong.
Incidents like this just make me want to open carry more often.
|
mvpel
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
One of the most irritating things about all this is that whenever we try to de-criminalize concealed carry and go to Alaska-style, it's the police and the Police Chiefs Association who fight the hardest against it.
They should make up their minds - if they don't want us to open carry, they shouldn't keep forcing us to get their permission and pay a tax in order to conceal.
|
mvpel
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
For those who may not be aware, here is a thread I posted on the Firing Line message board on May 18, 2004 - the text of a formal complaint I filed with the Public Integrity and Professional Standards division of the Manchester Police:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147930
As you can see, the recent incident on June 8 means that we're apparently back to Square One with Manchester, it being a nearly play-by-play repeat of my own incident four years ago right down to the condescending lectures, in spite of all the progress we seemed to have made with them in the past four years.
Last edited on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 06:59 pm by mvpel
|
MetalChris
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 11:39 pm |
|
| Wow, just wow.
|
KBCraig
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 460 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 09:43 am |
|
Thanks for the thread, Mike. I'd been waiting for more info over on the NH liberty forums before saying anything here, but no one has updated the original reports (other than the "held at gunpoint" issue).
|
mvpel
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
As it turns out, the person to whom I addressed my complaint in 2004 is now, as of very recently, the police chief of Manchester.
Also, Ryan tells me that the conduct and questions of the officers indicate that they probably knew about Dave Ridley and previous open carry incidents, and thus knew better than to act the way they did but did it anyway.
I wonder what reason they'll suggest as to why these four people should NOT file a suit along the lines of Dickenson.
|
LEO 229
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | NOVA, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 6750 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 12:16 pm |
|
Harm to your self and the public? 
I have no problem with people being armed! I is logical to want to be able to fight off criminals.
And there was a good cop in the group that knew it was their right to OC.
|
nakedshoplifter
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | CTU Northern VA |
| Posts: | 1316 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 02:21 pm |
|
| Excellent report by Dave.
|
KBCraig
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 460 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 07:18 am |
|
Excellent opinion piece in NHinsider:
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2008/6/20/manchester-police-vs-gun-rights.html
Wonderful letter from one of those involved, to the police chief, mayor, and attorney general:
http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.msg5459#msg5459
|
smithman
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 1st, 2008 02:57 am |
|
I saw the video on YouTube. Though NH is a pretty friendly place for OC I understand, we are dealing with the same type of incidents more often in WI.
|
mvpel
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 1st, 2008 12:58 pm |
|
And there was a good cop in the group that knew it was their right to OC.
That makes it WORSE for him, because he KNEW he was violating the civil rights of the group - a federal crime - but he did it and allowed others to continue to do it anyway. That means that he satisfies the "willfully" element of 18 USC 242.
Last edited on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 12:58 pm by mvpel
|
nh92d
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 12:15 am |
|
not meaning to hi-jack this thread or something like that,just had a question about something that happened during the incident..(might be off-topic though)
ryan(i think)mentioned in the vid that the police checked serial #s on their guns to see if they were stolen...
the gun i have was basically a gift (so i didn't get from dealer) from a friend that had a room mate leave it behind when he left for germany(which was 2-3 yrs before it was given to me)..
my question is-would i beable to have history of gun checked (or should i even worry about it)..i mean what if by some slim chance the guy stole it or something and i get questioned by PD and they do the same and check the #s..(or am i thinking about it to much)
(i could always check with my friend to see if he remembers where his room mate got it from..)
|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 01:32 am |
|
nh92d wrote: my question is-would i be able to have history of gun checked (or should i even worry about it)..i mean what if by some slim chance the guy stole it or something and i get questioned by PD and they do the same and check the #s..(or am i thinking about it to much)
Generally you hand the gun over to officers who run the check. If it comes back stolen they keep it and investigate you. If it isn't stolen, they should return it, but may investigate why you suspect it's stolen. If you can't prove it's yours, they may not return it, depending on the department.
|
Statkowski
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 03:30 pm |
|
| The problem we have (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, others) is that the police automatically run a check to see if it's stolen without having any probable cause, thus making it an illegal search in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and whatever similar articles/section apply to individual state constitutions). Running a check presumes guilt, not innocence.
|
N00blet45
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 09:53 pm |
|
That seems like a load of crap to me. If they do run checks like that they should need to have a reason to run those checks. I don't see how they could just take your gun and then check to see if it was stolen unless they had cause to do so. And then ask you for proof that it is your gun? So now we have to carry proof that anything we have is actually ours? What about my MP3 player? I don't have the receipt for that. The clothes off my back? My wallet? The cash in my wallet?
The burden of proof is on the accuser. I don't know how it is in New Hampshire but if they accuse you of having a stolen firearm they are the ones who are supposed to prove it, it's not your job to disprove it (unless they have proof to the contrary).
|
nh92d
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 06:23 am |
|
i don't plan on walking into the local PD and ask them to check the history of my gun,was just wondering if there was a way to check without involving police..
when i first got the gun,i contacted the permit dept or dept of safety(i think,it's been awhile) and was told that i didn't have to register it..the women sounded confused that i mentioned about the registration history..
i know i'm just thinking to much into it.......OK,done and out of my mind.(not gonna think about it again)
|
mvpel
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 03:25 pm |
|
Ryan Marvin, one of the four victims of the illegal seizure that is the subject of this thread, will be meeting this afternoon at 1:00pm with Mayor Frank Guinta.
Supporters are invited to arrive at City Hall around 12:00 to 12:30 in advance of the meeting.
Last edited on Wed Jul 16th, 2008 03:26 pm by mvpel
|
Thundar
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
Statkowski wrote: The problem we have (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, others) is that the police automatically run a check to see if it's stolen without having any probable cause, thus making it an illegal search in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and whatever similar articles/section apply to individual state constitutions). Running a check presumes guilt, not innocence.
Put elecrtical tape over the serial number.
|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 04:51 pm |
|
Thundar wrote:
Put elecrtical tape over the serial number.
You'll have to walk me through that one. Since guns (made after xxxx) must contain a serial number, seems the police will claim probable cause because you're trying to conceal either a gun with the number removed or a stolen gun.
I'd think the better route would be to ask if you're being detained, then what the suspected crime is, then what you did to cause the officer to fear harm. A hammer is also a deadly weapon, and we wouldn't expect to be interrogated for carrying one, especially if it were in a retention holster.
|
Current time is 11:36 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
