|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > California > Arrestted last night in Chico
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > California > Arrestted last night in Chico
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
stuckinchico Regular Member 
|
I was arrested yesterday at 8pm for "resisting interfering and delaying" a police officer. Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 07:42 am by stuckinchico |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member 
|
I wish all the best with your situation. Take a deep breath  and please keep us posted. Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 01:35 pm by nukechaser |
|||||||||
|
ConditionThree Activist Member 
|
While I really dig your enthusiasm and willingness to jump in with both feet, I do agree with Nukechasers points. Regardless of what state you live in, there is more to this than just strapping on a firearm and walk about town. California however presents a number of unique challenges- with law enforcement and the general public. It may be too late to apply the advice from this thread, but perhaps you can reap some benefit for future reference. I would recommend a healthy edit of all your posts both here and on Calguns- redacting the details of your most recent encounter with Chico police, as well as explitives and anything that conveys a sense of entitlement. I'm not saying that you dont have a 1st amendment right, however you shouldnt forsake the 5th amendment either as the things you write and say publically can be used against you in a court of law. Your attorney will probably advise you to refrain from OC until your case is resolved. Certainly get your property back- but you should hold off on OC for the time being. I would pay particular attention to your recorder- and would be anxious to see if it had been tampered with. I think that before you do anything else you should consult an attorney. Leave the contact with the chief to them, particularly if you will be seeking a civil suit against their department. Last edited on Sun Jun 21st, 2009 03:31 pm by ConditionThree |
|||||||||
|
Michigander Regular Member 
|
Sorry to hear you got popped. I've never been hassled that badly, but I still can easily sympathise with the similar experiences I've had. Assuming you were not violating any laws, here is a partial list of the federal laws and rulings you could go after them for: Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race. Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs. Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Of Rights Amendment 2: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And plus there was a nice SCOTUS ruling, Florida V JL (SCOTUS) 2000: It basically stated that possession of a firearm where possibly legal is not probable cause, and that evidence found as a result of Terry stopping merely for having a possibly legal gun is fruit of the poisonous tree. Here is a link to the actual ruling: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/90361/op-90361.pdf |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member 
|
Granted you did everything lawfully. I wish I was close I would attent the BBQ. I think that is a great idea. Are the cops going to arrest a dozen or more people for following the law? Did you carry ID? I recommend in the future as long as you are not breaking any laws, don't carry ID. Of course this means you are taking a course of action that would mean some commitment of follow through. Here Washington I have stopped carrying ID while I open carry and I leave my cpl and drivers liscense in the car. Don't give up this community will be behind you and will help in anyway we can. Thank you for taking a stand for our rights. There is nothing wrong with being proactive. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
I am half tempted to switch my major to pre law and specialize in firearms laws |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned 
|
 Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 01:41 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 01:41 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
Sons of Liberty Regular Member 
|
I agree with the others here... Since you have been arrested, you should refrain from posting and talk to an attorney. Don't talk to the police chief or anyone else without getting your attorney first and listen to what your attorney says. In addition to defending you against the "resisting, interfering and delaying" charge, you should ask about pursuing a civil suit. If that attorney is not able, find one who is. I agree that these types of encounters have to stop! |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member
|
edited at request of OP Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 01:37 pm by nukechaser |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 01:42 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member
|
edited at request of OP Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 01:38 pm by nukechaser |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member 
|
This is our lawsuit, guys. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Last edited on Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 01:42 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
I will filing a lawsuit against City of Chico, Chico Police Department for violations of my rights, excessive force unlawful arrest and unlawful detainment. It is not for the money. quite frankly i kinda just being able to pay rent and get food. I dont have to worry about a lot of things. This is solely on principle that they can not continue to violate law abiding citizens even if it is for their " safety" As til i speak to my attorney, I will not be devulging any further details.. However i will ask anyone that wants and is truely willing to step forward and join me in this lawsuit.. NO BS..... no backing out I will gladly acccept their help |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member
|
stuckinchico wrote: I will filing a lawsuit against City of Chico, Chico Police Department for violations of my rights, excessive force unlawful arrest and unlawful detainment. It is not for the money. quite frankly i kinda just being able to pay rent and get food. I dont have to worry about a lot of things. This is solely on principle that they can not continue to violate law abiding citizens even if it is for their " safety" As til i speak to my attorney, I will not be devulging any further details.. However i will ask anyone that wants and is truely willing to step forward and join me in this lawsuit.. NO BS..... no backing out I will gladly acccept their help YAY!  |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: If you did, I would, though I'd probably PM you. I see validity in your point about the PM. However, if it was only a PM no one else would glean all the infinite wisdom I would be imparting (MAJOR tongue-in-cheek). As for citizen resistance, I hope so!  |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member 
|
You need to WIN your 148 PC charge. It's also a firearms disqualifying misdemeanor in CA I believe (no it's not I was wrong). I would not and we have not encouraged members here to disobey orders (even unlawful ones) given by officers attempting to detain UOCers. That is not good strategy IMO. You seem to be ignorant of some basic laws and case laws which we have discussed here that are still controlling of 12031 "e" checks and detentions. Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:08 am by cato |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
cato wrote: I would not and we have not encouraged members here to disobey orders (even unlawful ones) given by officers attempting to detain UOCers. That is not good strategy IMO. In California, the smartest thing to do is to disobey the cobecause of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFNDK8PQGNw |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
cato wrote: You need to WIN your 148 PC charge. It's also a firearms disqualifying misdemeanor in CA I believe.What am i missing here?? WHat exactly are you trying to say?? THat is lawfull to detain citizens that are acting lawfully because other citizens are afraid?? Am i missing something?? Do i have to let the violate my rights just cuz im persueing a career in law enforcement?? WTF!! I served in the marines i had no rights then and yesterday i felt that feeling all over i again |
|||||||||
|
pullnshoot25 Regular Member 
|
marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves. I think that we actually need to assert that the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional right here first. That takes incorporation... |
|||||||||
|
pullnshoot25 Regular Member
|
stuckinchico wrote: cato wrote:You need to WIN your 148 PC charge. It's also a firearms disqualifying misdemeanor in CA I believe.What am i missing here?? WHat exactly are you trying to say?? THat is lawfull to detain citizens that are acting lawfully because other citizens are afraid?? Am i missing something?? Do i have to let the violate my rights just cuz im persueing a career in law enforcement?? WTF!! I served in the marines i had no rights then and yesterday i felt that feeling all over i again stuckinchico, the trick is to get the evidence to prove that they violated your rights. Disobeying orders, however asinine or illegal or otherwise, just gets people shot, injured or fighting B.S. PC 148 charges. If you can get the evidence (voice recording, video recorder, etc) then you can come out on top and make a dent in some police budgets. I know it sucks and I know it is frustrating. Unfortunately, we have to take the moral, ethical and legal high ground in everything we do or else we end up on the losing team. Keep your chin up and your voice recorder (DIGITAL RECORDER!) on and plug away. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
Yeah im just afraid that if i lose this pc charge that i will no longer be able to have my firearms That would be hell!!!! I am hoping that this doesnt go to court but i am unsure i have never heard of anyone going ot court with this being the only charge have any of you guys??? how jacked up am i?? |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member
|
I wonder if the disarming/search/seizure was an unlawful act by LEO in the first place, in which case the PC 148 is a bad call? If you were resisting, delaying or obstructing while they were UNLAWFULLY seizing does it stick? I'm no lawyer, but I'd ask one if I was in the hot seat.  |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
pullnshoot25 wrote:marshaul wrote:If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves. What's wrong with Nordyke? |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
nukechaser wrote: I wonder if the disarming/search/seizure was an unlawful act by LEO in the first place, in which case the PC 148 is a bad call?THATs exactly my strategy If the detention is unlawful nothing else matters I am in law classes and my professor is a retired city police chief and he continually stresses that point |
|||||||||
|
pullnshoot25 Regular Member
|
marshaul wrote: pullnshoot25 wrote: Nothing at all, except that it is under en banc review and as such is not binding case law. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
i just got done doing my legal brief and my motion to dismiss my case. I have enough grounds to prove that my detention was unlawful........ |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member
|
marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves. We already have CA Appellate Court case law which says "e" checks do not violate the 4th A. He would need to be convicted and then ride the case up to the CA SC and from there lateral to SCOTUS. Does he have a spare mil lying around? |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
UMMMM god if only !!!! I would be OC and CC my weapons ha how do you like them beans |
|||||||||
|
Sons of Liberty Regular Member
|
cato wrote: marshaul wrote:If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves. Could you cite the case, please...for my case library collection? Thanks. |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member
|
Sons of Liberty wrote: cato wrote:marshaul wrote:If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves. Ya I don't know it off the top of my head. Let me find the case and get back to you (I knew some one would want me to cite   ) Theseus might know it's name (I'll send him a pm).HERE IT IS : http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/27689.html Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:46 pm by cato |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
cato wrote: Sons of Liberty wrote:cato wrote:marshaul wrote:If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves. Its been cited before here on the forum, if I recall. Try the search feature. |
|||||||||
|
ConditionThree Activist Member
|
I think we are missing some important details regarding the encounter where stuckinchico was arrested. Unfortunately, discussing any of them on a public forum will not really help a defense. 12031 (e) checks, while unconstitutional in my view, still give police PC to detain and demand inspection in specific circumstances- refusal of this inspection would have opened up the PC148 charge, but I would have also concluded that 12031 would be applied as well. How jacked up is this? We have no idea, because we are not privy to the totality of the circumstances. This is not the arena you want to aire those circumstances pending permission from counsel. If you havent nailed down an attorney, I think you better get cracking- While there are a dozen laymen here with commentary, none of us will be able to keep you out of jail or from losing your firearm rights. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member 
|
stuckinchico wrote: Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine Did you mention it to the evidence clerk? I would have filed a report immediately to document that your property, and your evidence that your rights were violated had been stolen by someone in the evidenciary chain of custody. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
notified attorney |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
stuckinchico wrote: Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine Spoliation. |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher 
|
stuckinchico wrote: Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine I would report the theft - have them take a report so you can document it thoroughly. Then report it to internal affairs and the local DA. You may also wish to talk to your local news media. There's obviously some coverup occurring. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: stuckinchico wrote:Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine Which will reflect all the worse on the police since no complaint or lawsuit has yet been filed. |
|||||||||
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member 
|
Not that it matters, but the judge in my case agrees that any detention further than the few moments it takes an officer to conduct the "e" check is unlawful detention. No running of serials and no wants and warrants check. People v. DeLong (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 786, 792-793 [90 Cal.Rptr. 193] Is the case that rules 12031 constitutional. They claim that an (e) check is not a search, but an examination with a singular purpose and scope. I like how they also said "legislation which is passed "with an evil eye and an unequal hand" (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373 [30 L.Ed. 220, 227, 6 S.Ct. 1064]), the legislative purpose being discriminatory enforcement, must be struck down. But there is not a shred of evidence in the record before us that the statutes in question have been enforced unequally." I wonder if that might be our avenue of attack. . . The legislature specifically intended to avoid discriminatory language and then instead used discriminatory jurisdiction... Last edited on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 07:44 am by Theseus |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
Theseus wrote: Not that it matters, but the judge in my case agrees that any detention further than the few moments it takes an officer to conduct the "e" check is unlawful detention. No running of serials and no wants and warrants check. Off topic a bit, but how did you discover the judge's opinion? Did I miss an update on your case? If there is an update, can you post/link it on this forum? (Haven't been to CGN in a couple weeks...) |
|||||||||
|
TatankaGap Regular Member 
|
pullnshoot25 wrote: marshaul wrote:pullnshoot25 wrote: Correction: Nordyke is the binding law of the land unless and until the 9th Cir votes to take it en banc - as of now they have only asked for briefing and are voting on it now - the vote won't be done until mid-July so as of now, Nordyke is the law. However, if en banc is voted and approved, the Nordyke ruling (re: incorporation) will be suspended pending the en banc hearing - From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King On May 18, 2009 an anonymous judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called for briefing from both sides on whether the case should go en banc. Based upon Ninth Circuit General Orders, the en banc vote should be final July 13, 2009. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
Thats absolutely GOOD NEw my arraignment ( should they choose to proceed) is on july 17 |
|||||||||
|
KylaGWolf Regular Member
|
Nordyke is not binding till they rule on the En Banc. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
KylaGWolf wrote:Nordyke is not binding till they rule on the En Banc. This is certainly not my understanding. Perhaps you can share more than mere blind assertion? |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member
|
KylaGWolf wrote: Nordyke is not binding till they rule on the En Banc. Nordyke is good law now. But it WILL we withdrawn IF the circuit votes to have an En Banc hearing. artwork by oleg volk: Attached Image (viewed 290 times): |
|||||||||
|
KS_to_CA Regular Member
|
On May 18, 2009 an anonymous judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called for briefing from both sides on whether the case should go en banc. Based upon Ninth Circuit General Orders, the en banc vote should be final July 13, 2009. And for what purpose does the anonymous judge from the 9th circuit rise and call an en banc desicion on the Nordyke? |
|||||||||
|
stephenruckle Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: cato wrote:I would not and we have not encouraged members here to disobey orders (even unlawful ones) given by officers attempting to detain UOCers. That is not good strategy IMO. I assume you meant "cops", and so I have to disagree. You should obey, and deal with any mistakes they made later, in court. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
Yea we just throw the fourth out the window , sort it out later. |
|||||||||
|
stephenruckle Regular Member
|
sudden valley gunner wrote: Yea we just throw the fourth out the window , sort it out later. The Fourth Amendment describes our rights against unreasonable search, seizure, and warrants without probable cause. Nowhere in my post did I say we should "throw it out the window". |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
Post was meant in sarcasm. Everybody can do what ever they want. Personally I feel complying with unlawful orders is throwing your 4th and other rights out the window. There is very valid reasons why we should do our best to resist these. People have complied for too long and now the police expect it, and they have the gall to make you feel like you are the crook for not wanting to be harrassed by them. |
|||||||||
|
stephenruckle Regular Member
|
sudden valley gunner wrote:...Personally I feel complying with unlawful orders is throwing your 4th and other rights out the window.... I disagree, because you can comply and file your complaint later. Either way ends up with you exercising your rights. One is more beneficial to our cause than the other. ...There is very valid reasons why we should do our best to resist these... I agree, we should do our best to resist. I, however, think that we should do it in a forum that increases our chances of success in permanently abolishing objectionable police behavior. ...People have complied for too long and now the police expect it... Yes. I agree. But just imagine their surprise when we are no longer arguing our rights on the spot and start winning in court. Complete with favorable case law. ...and they have the gall to make you feel like you are the crook for not wanting to be harrassed by them. Who cares. Do you? Because I don't care what police think of me. Nobody should, in my opinion. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
Have you ever been on the business end of harrassment? I have and trust me you do care about looking and feeling like a crook when they are handcuffing you and berating you in public veiw. Plus the viewing us as crooks promotes the us vs. them attitude. I don't want to see that. I have respect for all LEO's that do their job within their legal limits. And no you have given up your rights and contrary to your belief it is not reversed in court. With an encounter with LEO once you comply, you have relinquished that right. We should not have to argue our rights in courts.....that is ridiculous. The only thing we should argue is when we don't comply to unlawful orders and our rights are trampled by the authorities. You can comply all you want, I am saddened that a fellow American won't stand up and are intimidated by unlawful LEO, I will not unless it is under duress. |
|||||||||
|
KylaGWolf Regular Member
|
sudden valley gunner wrote: Have you ever been on the business end of harrassment? I have and trust me you do care about looking and feeling like a crook when they are handcuffing you and berating you in public veiw. Plus the viewing us as crooks promotes the us vs. them attitude. I don't want to see that. I have respect for all LEO's that do their job within their legal limits.Yes I have been on he receiving end of it. Although I didn't end up arrested it was close and YES my 4A rights were violated in multiple areas along with three other peoples. Yes it sucks to have to fight for our rights but until the laws are changed which are only going to change is if we fight them and fight them in court or manage to get representatives with brains that can think for themselves and not what the Brady Bunch and other anti's tell them. |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
Don't get me wrong I am not talking about being antagonistic. I am talking about Unlawful orders, when we voluntarily give up our rights, I.D. searches etc, you can't then fight those in court. The courts won't do nothing you gave them up willingly at the seen. And in the end it doesn't help you even if you are totally innocent. I know from experience. |
|||||||||
|
KylaGWolf Regular Member
|
No worries I didn't take any offense |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
But here is the Golden Question: Is 6 Officers with guns pointed at You a LAWFUL order? No , hey we are here to see if your are unloaded.... Just straight get your black A** on the ground..... In my mind that is NOT a Lawful order.... But hey I just had an attorney agree with me that the US Supreme Court does out trump CAL APPS so this trial should be edge of your seat mud slinging ... ( sorry dont know how else to describe it) Yes i will file a motion to suppress all evidence arguing Terry V Ohio If that works.... Well Ill be dipped ... Im prayin that the DA say hey those officers messed up and doesnt file But..... In my life i dont tend to get the lucky breaks sooooo Im polishing up my Combat boots getting ready to strap them on tight and get if we can get some curb stomping going on |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member
|
stuckinchico wrote: But here is the Golden Question: Is 6 Officers with guns pointed at You a LAWFUL order? No that definately is complying under duress, if you hadn't done anything wrong it is an unlawful order but a demand that I would comply with too!!!! Then I would keep my mouth shut and not say another word to them. If you are willing to fight this I wish you the best of luck. Those officers were way above the call of duty if you hadn't done anything wrong that is. (disclamer....LOL) |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
sudden valley gunner wrote: stuckinchico wrote:But here is the Golden Question: Is 6 Officers with guns pointed at You a LAWFUL order? It seems to me you are all agreeing, but are confused by terminology. I think most of us agree "cooperating" is not good. "Cooperation" is when we do it because we want to. We are co-operating, that is, operating with the LEO. For example, agreeing to show ID or granting permission for a search. I also think we all agree that compliance is good. "Complying" is simply obeying. It is cooperation under duress. We're not doing it because we want to, but because we are averse to the consequences. For example, putting your hands above your head because there are guns pointed at you, or allowing your firearm to be "examined" under threat of arrest if you refuse. I think we also all agree we should not resist in most cases. "Resistance" being taking physical actions to prevent or stop a LEO from doing something illegal. (The only thing I can imagine myself physically resisting is a mortal threat.) I hope my definitions aren't too arbitrary, and are maybe even helpful to the discussion. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
Fair warning if you OC in Chico, they will violate you with a smile. Draw you down at gun point and remove your weapon by force with out asking... Continue on by running your serial number ,Driver license , even count your lunch money just to make sure you are not carrying too much money on ya. AS said by a local lawyer, they are a bunch of cowboys that think the laws dont apply to them and that their personal safety truimps our right. |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member
|
Seems like it's past time for you to be carrying with friendly witnesses and multiple recording devices. The other side is powerful and if you are going to carry openly you need to be over prepared with plans to document any encounters in ways where the evidence can not be taken and destroyed. Think about a broadcasting mic with the receiving unit in a locked case in the trunk or a follow vehicle. If you get some really good evidence then you can talk to some one about making permanent changes to the way business is taken care of up there. Many rural agencies have not experienced the "exposure" many big city depts have dealt with in the last few decades and may need to be brought into realization that violating civil rights has consequences which can include loss of $$$$$ and federal prison time. Consider different tactics. You seem to be doing the same things with the same results. |
|||||||||
|
SteveInAshand Regular Member 
|
sudden valley gunner wrote: Granted you did everything lawfully. I wish I was close I would attent the BBQ. I think that is a great idea. Are the cops going to arrest a dozen or more people for following the law? Did you carry ID? I recommend in the future as long as you are not breaking any laws, don't carry ID. Of course this means you are taking a course of action that would mean some commitment of follow through.STONE WALL REBELLION 25 + years ago..... MAY DAY IN L.A aka L.A-RAZA.... two years ago.... You pick on one homosexual or one illegal and you get the whole dam banana bunch or enchilada armada What about Us 3 P's / Pistol Packing Patriots..Do we get picked off and picked on one @ at time ? (( I'm not anti Mo or anti Jozay, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night with a white woman )) Last edited on Wed Jul 8th, 2009 05:09 am by SteveInAshand |
|||||||||
|
AyatollahGondola Regular Member 
|
SteveInAshand wrote: sudden valley gunner wrote:Granted you did everything lawfully. I wish I was close I would attent the BBQ. I think that is a great idea. Are the cops going to arrest a dozen or more people for following the law? Did you carry ID? I recommend in the future as long as you are not breaking any laws, don't carry ID. Of course this means you are taking a course of action that would mean some commitment of follow through.STONE WALL REBELLION 25 + years ago..... MAY DAY IN L.A aka L.A-RAZA.... two years ago.... Uhhhhh; Whaaaaat? |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
OKAY now put the kool aid down |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
NOw my booking photo is up in the local pd station on their Alert board with my name and officer safety alert weapons below it I hope to god they dont think that this is probble cause to stop me if they dont see a weapon I gotta try and get an appointment with chief to get these to end |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member
|
talk to your attorney and listen to him/her. that is all you have to do right now. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
Well i go to court today to see if they are going ot file charges.... UPDATE::: No charges filed yet Last edited on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 08:11 pm by stuckinchico |
|||||||||
|
Roy Regular Member
|
open carry meet in chico? |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member
|
If the DA reads People v DeLong honestly it will be a non-proc. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
Definetely A meet in CHico im working out the school zones.. I keep reading the encounters in socal im jealous they treat yal with respect Last edited on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 12:14 am by stuckinchico |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member
|
stuckinchico wrote: Definitely a meet in Chico. I'm working out **************.. I keep reading the encounters in So Cal. I'm jealous (that) they treat y'all with respect Your humor is not appreciated especially when those on the fence look at this national site to help them study the issues If you really want to improve your situation up there stop thinking and speaking like a front line grunt and start acting like a recruiter, and be the best ambassador for this cause you can. Last edited on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 06:51 am by cato |
|||||||||
|
ConditionThree Activist Member
|
cato wrote: stuckinchico wrote:Definitely a meet in Chico. I'm working out the Kiddy kill zones.. I keep reading the encounters in So Cal. I'm jealous (that) they treat y'all with respect I am in agreement with Cato. The string of flip comments and braggadocio from stuckinchico makes it impossible for me to endorse or promote an OC event there. I am unwilling to gamble my freedom based on the unpredictable and somewhat inflammatory commentary- and unless there is some significant demonstrable changes in attitude and presentation, I think it would be irresponsible for me to attend, organize or assist in organizing the suggested meet in Chico. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
I understand your concern however most of it is from frustration.. I challenge you to come here on your own nd try it out before an event and see where I am coming from JUst make sure you have access to a chiropractor after your encounter which i guarantee will happen Addition I dont sugar coat alot of things I call it like is see it. I am polite In encounters.. I speak my mind Stand up for yourself or sit down and take whats coming to you Setting a bbq or a cleanup day three weeks from now PM if you are intrested Last edited on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 12:01 am by stuckinchico |
|||||||||
|
KylaGWolf Regular Member
|
ConditionThree wrote: cato wrote:I have to agree with both Cato and Condition Three on this one.stuckinchico wrote:Definitely a meet in Chico. I'm working out the Kiddy kill zones.. I keep reading the encounters in So Cal. I'm jealous (that) they treat y'all with respect |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
While I respect stuckinchico for what he's trying to do and what he's enduring, I have to agree with ConditionThree. I would love to show my support, but I don't feel comfortable with what I've seen from you so far. It's not that you're wrong, just that you're making things worse for yourself, and harder for the rest of us. You say, "Stand up for yourself or sit down and take whats coming to you." I say, "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes." Our numbers are few. We can't stand in formation and exchange shots against vast armies. There's no shame in keeping your head low when you're under fire. Survive and fight on your terms. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
Out of respect for Cato's daughter and any other children that may happen to stumble on this site, I am going to keep this PG as possible. NOTE none of this is aimed at humiliating degrading belittling anyone I hear your concerns, however unmerited they maybe, I want to address them at this time. Yes I hear the words coming out of your mouth, but do you know what they sound like?? First Ill give you a history of me. Started off in High School As an Explorer for San Berdoo City Fire, went to Marines because I believed in fighting for my freedom. CAme out went into Wildland Fire with US Forest Service Because I believe in serving my community. I can no longer do that due to an injury that hasnt fully recovered yet, so I m goiong to school to get my BS in Criminal Justice. I am still very active in volunteer work in Community I have been OCing since last year before i knew about this website. I d go up and down the Skyway collecting cans, bottles, and trash on my own. Not for some political statement, but because I want to make a difference . Everyday I go out, I strap up. I have no vehicle so Im walking everywhere. Doing that has more exposure to LEO encounters but what can i do about that. Sh*t happens. I know the laws and follow the laws, therefore holding LEOs to the same standard I expect them to know theirs. i believe in education first. If that seems to not work, I am well aware of how effectively pain retains. I was raised to do the right thing no matter how hard or how painful it maybe, because if we dont have morals how can we expect anyone else to. YOu keep talking about your freedom, but really what have you done to ensure that those freedoms remain there for your children??? Get on a website, talk about Im gonna do this, Im gonna do that?? Well You done yet?? Im tired of all the jawboning..... "Your humor is not appreciated especially when those on the fence look at this national site to help them study the issues " Well If they take a look and see whats happening with the school zone thats exactly the conclusion that they are going to get . Dont believe me?? Virginia Tech, Columbine Do i need to continue. Maybe someone will actually look here and say "GEE I didnt think of it that way, maybe we should do something about it." So Condition Three, whether or not you want to support an event here or not thats up to you. I wear my big girl panties everyday, I watch my own back, I even tie my own shoes. Yes, it would be great to have more people here to help encourage those who lack the courage to exercise there rights, but am I going to wait til someone gives me a green light. Stay off the drugs!!! Your a big girl make your own decisions, IM not going to hold your hands. However I will also be down in PNS s area when I go visit my hometown, and I will make trips down there just to support them. As far a OCing goes, theres only two options that cities are presented with if they dont like it. They can continue wasting their time and resources harrassing us, or when they are tired of for lack of better word dealing with us they can start issueing CCWS.As you know it will take an act of legislation to take away OC not some city ordinance as state trumps them already. SO come to the event or not your choice. NO matter what your choice is your still invited. And with that I, leave you with words of wisdom from gentlemen alot smarter than we will ever be Fighting the fight, with or with out you Justin (hell they already know who i am Ive got nothing to hide) Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. -Thomas Paine- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania - 1759 Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway. ~ John Wayne, 1907-1979 Reason or force - when the first fails, the second becomes inevitable.Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Last edited on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 11:51 pm by stuckinchico |
|||||||||
|
KylaGWolf Regular Member
|
Um I don't just sit on the sideline I DO open carry. Here is something to keep in mind. You are working on two criminal justice degrees. That is even MORE reason to watch your back and make sure that you do NOTHING that can wind you up in front of a judge and get a conviction those degrees will mean squat. Secondly even you admit the ones that make laws go to this site as well as others in looking on how to draw legislation...well you got upset when people let you know to be careful what you posted. I won't say it again because you say you got the message. Then know that they use these forums to make laws to make what we do illegal. I have seen what they are doing to the school zones. Guess what if their latest revision passes it will now become ILLEGAL for me to even take my guns out of my house even IN a LOCKED CONTAINER. Yes you read it right, I won't have the right to take my guns out of my house. I am disabled I have even less chance of defending myself without a firearm and they are taking my rights away. Yes if it passes I am going to look in to taking legal action...not so much for the money aspects but to overturn bad law. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
YEAH Id fight that one too. I dont want the money I just want them to stay out of my life stop telling me what i can and cant have If i wanted to be told what I could possess Id move to Mexico |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member 
|
I really hope they do pass the law that doesn't even allow citizens to carry locked up guns through a school zone. There will be so many lawsuits that are instantly launched against that law that it will be hilarious. Not that I really think it makes a difference in the long run, this time next year the second will be incorporated and we'll be having laws ruled unconstitutional left and right. |
|||||||||