|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran 
|
This is the content of a complaint form I just sent to the FBI, Internal Affairs, and Citizens Review Board. This situation mimics very closely what DONT TREAD ON ME went through in NW Las Vegas a few weeks back, including the unloading of my weapon and making me play hide and go seek to reload it. I was out for a walk along Las Vegas Blvd and openly carrying my firearm. I was stopped by what seemed like 10 officers as I was swarmed by police officers with weapons drawn. They blocked the right lane of southbound Las Vegas Blvd approximately 1/4 mile south of Charleston. Sgt Tom Miller was the initial contact officer and he instructed me to put my hands on my head with backup officers pointing guns in my direction. He then proceeded to handcuff me. He lectured me about carrying a firearm but acknowledged it was legal. I objected to being detained and handcuffed but did not resist physically. My objections were dismissed. I was clearly being seized in the form of a Terry stop, though the Terry standards were not met. I repeated that I do not consent to being detained and would like to be released immediately. I demanded that Sgt Miller articulate his "reasonable suspicion" which is one of the required components of a terry stop. His response was that I was being stopped on suspicion of armed robbery, clearly absurd and not-the-least-bit reasonable. By Miller's own admission, there were no reports of any armed robberies, any threatened armed robberies, nor any report of a suspect who's description I matched. He later conceded I was stopped merely because he witnessed me carrying a holstered firearm. I was stopped at gun point and held against my will despite the fact that I did not consent to the detainment and there was no Reasonable and Articulable suspicion. This was a violation of my 4th amendment rights and I also believe an egregious violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, as the unlawful stop was combined with Assault with Deadly Weapon, having at least 2 officers pointing weapons at me (it was dark and there were spotlights in my eyes, so there may have been more I did not see). Plain Clothes officers began questioning me as Sgt Miller tried to remove my weapon from its holster. He was not successful in removing it, so he unsafely started pulling it with great force. Though I was handcuffed, I verbally repeated several times I do not consent to having my firearm seized. Sgt Miller responded he didn't care. My belt is a custom made leather gun belt with internal strengthening rod and my holster is a retention holster, the combination of which renders the firearm secure upon my person. A plain clothes officer had to show Sgt Miller that the retention holster has a manual release that must be depressed to release the gun. As the plain clothes officer removed the gun, I again repeated I do not consent to them seizing my firearm. He just looked at me asking if I had any other guns on me as he proceeded to lift my shirt. I immediately stated I do not consent to a search (Terry standards limit the "search" for weapons to an external pat down). To his (limited) professionalism, he immediately ceased the search and instead turned his attention to my gun and asked if I have a "blue card to carry that weapon". A blue card is a registration card, and according to the LVMPD web site (http://www.lvmpd.com/permits/firearms_registration.html) is not required to be carried upon your person. As I consider it like a car title, I leave it safely at home in my safe so in the event of a theft, I have some proof of ownership. This question was repeated nearly a dozen times throughout the detainment. I advised the officers that the LVMPD web site specifically states it is not required to be carried and that if they are unsure (clearly they did not know), they should call the firearms detail. I explained I was exercising my right to remain silent and requested an attorney be present before they question me further. I even produced a business card repeating these statements and assertion of rights. All the officers examined this card and then placed it on the hood of the cruiser, a copy of which can likely be seen from the dashboard camera footage from Sgt Miller's cruiser. Despite my request for an attorney, both verbally and in writing, I was continually questioned in violation of my 6th amendment rights. Admittedly, I did make voluntary statements following my assertion of my 5th amendment right to remain silent. However, those statements made, temporarily waiving my 5th amendment right, did not change the fact that I was questioned without an attorney and was detained absent reasonable articulable suspicion, probable cause, or a warrant. While Sgt Miller made his absurd assertion of me being an armed robbery suspect, the plain clothes officer who previously removed my firearm without permission (in fact, with a demand that he not touch my property period), he was so unsafely handling the weapon and ammunition, a bullet dropped upon the hood of the cruiser and rolled down, landing on the road. I begged them "Please stop damaging my property." as I was unable to physically do anything, having my hands bound behind my back. Sgt Miller continued his lecture and stated that he will stop everyone with a firearm, as that is "enough" reasonable suspicion for him to detain any citizen he so chooses. He said I have to prove I'm not a felon, since a felon in possession of a firearm is a crime. I replied that since this was not Nazi Germany, citizens need not produce their papers to prove they're "legal". I again demanded to be released immediately and have my firearm placed back in my holster. In response, Miller demanded "I want to see a blue card." I again explained that I did not have it in my possession and I was not required to carry it, according to the LVMPD web site I responsibly checked prior to carrying my firearm. Unsatisfied, the plain clothes officer want back to questioning me "Do you have a blue card for that firearm?". I again replied I'm not answering any questions without an attorney present and repeated I do not consent to having my firearm seized. Miller raised his voice and began yelling "DID WE SAY THAT?" I explained that simply having my property on the hood of the cruiser and not in my possession constituted seizure under the law. "Listen hear Mr Lawyer" Sgt Miller taunted, upon which he again tried questioning me, and I again refused. Finally, the plain clothes officer returned and asked my name. Being familiar with NRS 171.123, which requires a person held by police to identify himself (though NRS 171.123 does repeat the Terry standard requiring reasonable articulable suspicion, which the police did not have in my case), I opted to cooperate and identified myself by name, spelling both first and last name and also providing my middle names. He was still unhappy. I was the one being held illegally, but still cooperating as required by law, but the plain clothes officer was still unhappy. He asked for my date of birth, which is not required to be furnished under state law, and so I did not provide that information, citing that I was not required to provide him with it. He threatened me "You're in a lot of @#$%". I asked "I am?" and he said "Yes, you are. Listen, once we get you identified, and find out that you're John Q Citizen, you know what, you'll be on your merry way." I again repeated I did not consent to being seized and wanted to be released immediately. By now, we're only 7 minutes into the detainment and I've asked to be let go 5 times. Sgt Miller again wanted to have a debate there while I'm in handcuffs, sweating from the heat (and danger) of the passing traffic and the close proximity of the cruiser. He stood comfortably (and safely) on the sidewalk. He repeats "You are totally right...except for one point...we do have reasonable suspicion to stop anybody with a firearm...(debate)...how do we know you're not a felon...(I reply "I'm not required to prove that to you")...that's reasonable suspicion right there". Clearly this whole dialog shows that the original assertion of "armed robbery" was absurd, and Miller is now fishing for a more reasonable explanation for why he's stopped me and I'm not free to go. No longer enjoying the debate, the plain clothes officer said "fine exercise your right" to which I replied "Fine, may I have my firearm back?". His reply is "No, not until we figure out who you are." I had already identified myself, and he had already illegally seized my weapon and ran the registration. I'm not sure what else I would be required to do. Already impatient and intolerant of this unlawful detention, I asked again a few minutes later whether I was free to go and they repeated not until they knew who I was and that this gun was not stolen. I said I have no receipt for my hat or my shoes, but that doesn't give you the right to check whether they're stolen. Our country faces an illegal immigration problem but that doesn't give you the right to come into my home and check for illegals. We have a drug problem, but that doesn't give you the right to stop every citizen and check his pockets. Sgt Miller responded "You're wrong, you're totally wrong." Miller goes on to explain that in addition to the rights I've explained, I also have the right to "be stopped and be detained and make sure that firearm belongs to you". I'm rather amused at this continued absurdity and tried educating him that that's what the 4th amendment is all about. At this point, the officers gang up, go off on the sidewalk and have a jovial conversation. Loud laughing can be heard but I cannot hear their conversation. They come back and tell me that although I've given them my name, how do they know I'm not lying. I then, out of an obvious desire to get out of handcuffs and the heat and danger of traffic, I give the plain clothes officer my drivers license number. They said I still could be making it up or giving them my brother's license number or something. I said look, I'm being more cooperative that I'm required to be under the law, go type the number in and my picture will probably pop up on your computer. If not, I've given you my name, including middle name, including spelling, I've given you my driver license number, you've seized my gun and ran the registration. All of them match, what else do you want?! Apparently trying his best to cite the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Plain Clothes officer threatened to arrest me for hindering his investigation because I was not cooperating. In that case, the court ruled that a suspect must identify himself or can be charged with hindering an investigation. However, I complied with NRS 171.123 by identifying my name. I went above any beyond the requirements of the law and provided my driver license number so they could positively confirm my identity (compared to another person in Las Vegas who may share my name). With his limited, dangerous, knowledge of the law I decided it was now in my best interest to provide a copy of my driver license, which I did under duress. I was threatened that if I did not, they would arrest me for this "hindering" charge and would seize my weapon and I'd have to convince a judge to give it back to me, which is "very expensive" according to the officer. But now, he no longer needs just my ID. He wants my social security number and again asks for the elusive blue card. I get a smile on my face (didn't he hear me the prior 8 times I mentioned that I do not have it in my possession, it is not required to be in my possession, etc.). Apparently my smile comes across as attitude as I'm threatened again. I tell him "You may take my identification only, please return the remainder of the contents of my wallet back to my pocket." He ignores me and takes everything out, credit cards, cash, business cards, frequent shopper cards, casino player cards, concealed weapons permits, social security card, and takes the 4th amendment violations even further. When he sees my concealed weapon permit he says "Hey what is the law about carrying a concealed weapon?". I said you already frisked me and know I'm not carrying any concealed weapons. I repeated that I wasn't carrying any concealed weapons about 4 or 5 times as he asked me even more questions without my attorney present. As I explained I was well versed in NRS 200, NRS 202, NRS 244, and NRS 268, all governing firearms in this state, he stopped trying to trick/intimidate me with his blatant lies. As I see him taking all my cards, I said "I told you only to take my ID". Knowing he was in the wrong, he made up something about my ID being hidden behind several cards and he had to find it. He disappears into the cruiser to run my information again. Another few minutes goes by. The "silence" was uncomfortable, so I thank the officer for placing me in two pairs of handcuffs rather than a single pair, minimizing the discomfort upon my wrists. He responds the only reason I'm in cuffs is that I refused to answer their questions. I wasn't aware asserting my 5th amendment rights was grounds to escalate an encounter. Sgt Miller offers a story about his father who used to carry his six shooter and cooperated with police every time they illegally stopped him. A heartwarming story no doubt, but I opt to exercise my 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights in addition to my 2nd amendment rights. I protest being forced to stand here listening to family stories while I'm in handcuffs and not free to leave. The plain clothes officer emerges from the cruiser, explains he found me, I'm in fact not a felon, nor do I have any disqualifying reasons for carrying/possessing a firearm. But, as if it were some Saturday Night Live Skit, when I ask if I'm NOW free to leave, he says as soon as I show him my blue card. I can't help but laugh, though I find the situation far from humorous. They start asking me even more questions. I've completely lost my patience at this point and say "I don't want to answer any questions man, am I free to go?" They decide to hold me longer as they examine the type of ammunition I'm carrying. The only handgun ammo illegal in Nevada is a tracer (an bullet with incendiary tip designed to allow a shooter to follow the trajectory visually). However, I patiently explain that the chambered bullet is an "Extreme Shock Air Freedom" round carried by Federal Air Marshals. I carry it as my chambered round to be as absolutely responsible as I can be. These rounds are designed to be fired on board aircraft because they disintegrate when they come into contact with a solid surface, such as an aircraft skin (so they don't shoot the bad guy and crash the plane at the same time). Because they disintegrate upon contact, any accidental discharge minimizes risk to innocent people and the risk of any penetration of wall or window. I again repeat I'd like to be on my way immediately. Before removing the handcuffs, the plain clothes officer takes every round out of my magazine (illegally and without consent) and puts them in my pocket. Rather than just dropping the rounds into my pocket, I feel him rooting around touching each and every thing I had in there (again, furthering the 4th amendment violations). He removes the handcuffs and hands me the unloaded gun. The slide is pulled back and locked in place by the retaining clip and I'm told to put it in my holster without releasing the slide. In some kind of hide and seek game, the officer then walks my magazine a 100 feet away and puts it on top of an irrigation box (out of their control and out of my control). He tells me to stay where I am, so even though the handcuffs are off I'm still being detained as I'm not free to leave. He said I'm not to reload the weapon until they leave otherwise they'll arrest me. "Just shut up and listen to me" he says. I ask "Am I free to leave now?". He says not until we leave. I'm not free to move until they leave. Ridiculous and illegal. I return to Miller and get a copy of the event number. Miller tells me there is no paperwork, but there is a computer record of the officers that respond, etc. He said next time I should just cooperate. This incident has insured that next time I will not cooperate. I will leave my wallet at home or in the car and will not have ID on me. Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:43 am by timf343 |
|||||||||
|
CowboyKen Regular Member 
|
So, Tim, you have your test case and it is you. Have you talked to a lawyer yet? Ken |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
 In the works Ken. I'm going to head out to the strip again this weekend. This time I will not have ID on me and will not debate anything. They'll get my name after they respond to my demand for their RAS, and I'll keep my mouth shut. A pattern of abuse is the most important element. As my situation so closely mirrored another forum member, I think the pattern is quite clear and is almost certainly a department policy of some kind (unloading the magazine, don't reload till we leave, etc). If they really intended to arrest me then, I'll probably wind up getting arrested this weekend, because when the situation turns "ugly" I'll be unable to provide them with my ID to get the cuffs off. Tim |
|||||||||
|
CowboyKen Regular Member
|
On a side note, have you looked into what it takes to set up a 501(c)(3) so I can send my tax deductable contribution to the "timf343 legal defense fund"? We will keep a light on for you. Ken |
|||||||||
|
DrMark Lone Star Veteran 
|
Wow. |
|||||||||
|
geoffw Regular Member
|
Im shocked....but thats expected when you are OCing on the strip. Id probably just givem my damn ID and bluecard. |
|||||||||
|
Agent19 Regular Member 
|
Wow!!! If you can have someone follow you with a video camera. Post where donations can be sent. NVHP did something similar with my ammo/mag during a traffic stop. The officer handed me my gun back but unloaded the magazine and placed it on the hood of my car and the ammo behind my car on the shoulder. Have you filled your FOIA request? You should probably do this before filling a complaint. Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:54 pm by Agent19 |
|||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member 
|
Quite an encounter. How long were you detained overall? Also, what type of holster and belt were you wearing? Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 04:36 pm by Felid`Maximus |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
CowboyKen wrote: On a side note, have you looked into what it takes to set up a 501(c)(3) so I can send my tax deductable contribution to the "timf343 legal defense fund"? Yea, that was the tricky part. I might be able to get away with a $300 "filing fee" but will most likely wind up needing to pay the $750 filing fee. It's been the only holdup to this point. It will take a few days (literally 30-40 dedicated hours) to compile all the information they requested from scratch but it's in my plan. I hope to have this filed with IRS by mid July. Tim |
|||||||||
|
Tophog Regular Member
|
geoffw wrote: Im shocked....but thats expected when you are OCing on the strip. From his description of the events, it sounds like that wouldn't have satisfied the cops either. They would want him to prove that the card was his, and not stolen. "Proof you're not a felon"? Gee, I think I missed out when they were passing those cards out. If anyone has a spare, let me know. Since I live in Nye Co., a blue card is not required, but the LV cops probably don't know that either. - Tim, good luck with this. If it went as you stated, which of course the cops will deny, I would think you should be able to get a 2A lawyer to take your case easily. If a fund is set up, I'm sure a lot of people can help. Keep us updated. Bob Rocco Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 04:46 pm by Tophog |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
geoffw wrote: Im shocked....but thats expected when you are OCing on the strip. I didn't have the blue card, but I refused to give them my ID on principle. Next time I go out (this weekend, maybe tonight) I will not have any ID on me. A holstered firearm and a "rights" card. That's it, no wallet, no CCW, no ID, nothing. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
Agent19 wrote: Wow!!! I had a dream I was wearing an audio recorder. Whether this is legal or not, it was only a dream... Besides, if I were recording, it'd be a pretty tough sell that the officers did not consent to the recording, since their dashboard cameras, with audio, were rolling. My FOIA request has already been submitted to LVMPD though they are indicating not all cruisers are equipped with cameras. I'll know in a few days what they found....If no camera, disregard what I said above about any fictional recording... |
|||||||||
|
TommyJ1912 Regular Member
|
Tim, You did everything right during your encounter. It's perfectly clear that the LVMPD engages in a pattern of harassment and civil rights violations. During my own illegal detention on The Strip (documented here - http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum36/20477.html ), the Sgt. in charge even admitted as such. He states that OC is completely lawful, but then says, "Lawful or not, you're gonna be stopped everytime," and, "This is what we do." I wasn't even armed with a firearm like you and I was still stopped for an empty holster. I hope you file suit against the dept. and win. You have an excellent case against them. They have to learn that people's rights may not be violated at whim under color of law. You're welcome to utilize any of the recordings/supporting evidence from my incident for your case if it comes to that. - Mike S. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
OK, that was quick. Downtown area command confirmed their cruisers ARE NOT equipped with cameras. Anyway, I have this belt: http://rlcompanyusa.stores.yahoo.net/1bube.html It has the extra internal stiffener and it works real good By the way, they also made me a real nice IWB holster for concealed carry. It's a beauty. And the reviews are true. I forget I'm concealing with this thing. It's expensive but more comfortable than any other IWB holster I've ever used. http://rlcompanyusa.stores.yahoo.net/teheiwb.html I was using this holster during the incident: http://www.blackhawk.com/product/SERPA-CQC-wCarbon-Fiber-Finish,1144,1410.htm Yes, this simple design stumped a LVMPD Sergeant. Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 05:09 pm by timf343 |
|||||||||
|
bobernet Founder's Club Member
|
Metro has never been burned on this particular issue. Everyone usually lets it drop. It will likely only take one successful lawsuit before they start to change their tune. I know for a fact that this sort of stuff is not Metro "policy" any more than driving 100mph+ with no lights and sirens in town is "policy." Getting the attention of the local brass on this issue will likely lead to some changes. Good luck, Tim. Let us know what we can do to help. And for everyone else, a minor word of encouragement - there are good Metro cops out there who believe largely as we do, and are working to educate and change perceptions from within. Bob |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
Good luck, Tim, I stand up and applaud you. I wish I were present in LV, I would be willing to be the videographer for a future encounter. Thank you for your bravery in standing up for all of our rights. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
Bob is absolutely right. There are lots of good officers on Metro and this stop is not the norm for OC. It's one of the only negative experiences I've had in more than 2 years OCing here in Las Vegas. Do not let this discourage you from OCing, as it is very unlikely you'll be similarly harassed. Tim |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
NavyLT wrote: Good luck, Tim, I stand up and applaud you. I wish I were present in LV, I would be willing to be the videographer for a future encounter. Thank you for your bravery in standing up for all of our rights. Thanks! I assume from your name you're in the service, so I stand up and applaud you sir. The risks you take far outweigh the minor inconveniences I'm willing to deal with. But I do appreciate the encouragement. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
I just finished transcribing the entire recording. The entire period of the non-consensual stop was 24 minutes, 10 seconds. During this time I counted 39 separate violations of my 6th amendment rights and 12 separate violations of my 4th amendment rights. As I was literally standing in one of the two traffic lanes on Las Vegas Blvd (I was held on Las Vegas Blvd just south of Charleston, where there are only two lanes), every car heading south passed me only a few feet away, so the recording was unfortunately inundated with frequent and loud road noise. I was able to run the audio against a high pass and low pass filter eliminating much of the road noise, but there were several unintelligible portions of the recording I was unable to clean up....so there were probably at least a few more violations of rights I was unable to recollect. For now, the recording and transcript will remain private. Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 09:07 pm by timf343 |
|||||||||
|
k-lo Regular Member
|
tim you got some major balls (and brains) man, thanks for standing up for your rights. your right is our rights too. hats off to you brotha. honestly i would have freaked out by the middle part if it was me.  Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 11:20 pm by k-lo |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
timf343 wrote: NavyLT wrote:Good luck, Tim, I stand up and applaud you. I wish I were present in LV, I would be willing to be the videographer for a future encounter. Thank you for your bravery in standing up for all of our rights. I am active duty. I am getting paid for what I do. You are losing money on yours. |
|||||||||
|
irish Regular Member 
|
I also commend you for keeping your cool and as a 2nd volunteer to video any and all other exercises of your Constitutional rights. I will not convey my wishes and wants to the scum who detained you on a public forum. |
|||||||||
|
wewd Regular Member 
|
Your story floored me. I had no idea the Gestapo is operating in the State of Nevada. Are you sure they didn't make you click your heels and salute before they let you go? Sounds like there needs to be some massive OC get-togethers on the strip in the near future. I wanna see what these jack-boots do with several dozen armed citizens walking down the sidewalk. I would definitely drive out for that one. I'll be the guy with the red triangle armband. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
I think that's a great idea. To those who volunteered to video tape, this would be a much better way to properly "utilize" you. If we could get 5-10 armed citizens walking down the strip, 2 or 3 cameras would be able to capture it. Next week is a bad idea. It's July 4 weekend and the strip is PACKED. The following weekend sounds good though. How about tentatively we say Saturday July 11? I'd like to do it early evening or later to get the heat to die down some. I'd love to get a picture at the Las Vegas sign with the group facing the camera strong side. Tropicana Hotel has ample surface parking along E Reno and it is approximately a 1.1 mile walk to the sign. I'll go drive down there and see what pedestrian access is like, it might be limited now that the sign has its own parking lot. Another choice is parking at the Harley Davidson Cafe or Fashion Show Mall and choosing an alternate route/destination. I'm obviously trying to avoid the casinos (Tropicana excepted due to its surface parking in very close proximity to Las Vegas Blvd). North of Sahara there are lots of residential neighborhoods with on-street parking but far fewer tourist-type destinations. There's always downtown too. Park at the Neonopolis garage on 4th (pay) and stroll down Fremont St. It's pretty safe now as far east at 8th St, where "Fremont East" begins, in front of El Cortez, and then of course west all the way to Main St. Though under the canopy, I would estimate we're more likely to encounter security rather than police (at least at first). Anyone have any preferences? As you probably know, I'm open to any of them. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
Re: Fremont St, anyone have any knowledge on whether this is "private property" or other weird rules might apply? Also, I just remembered July 10-12 is the Campaign for Liberty regional conference here at Bally's....Congressman Ron Paul and others like that... http://www.campaignforliberty.com/event/2009vegas.php The Friday night (8-10pm) "Freedom Celebration" is free to the public at the Bally's Event Center. From their email: Our Friday night Freedom Celebration on July 10 is free and open to the public! Take advantage of this opportunity to bring along family and friends who may have never heard our message of freedom, peace, and prosperity. Friday night's speakers include Mark Skousen, editor of "Forecasts & Strategies" and producer of FreedomFest, Mises Institute Senior Fellow and C4L contributor Tom Woods, and Congressman Paul. It is a casino, but they're hosting this event.....might be a good event to try to get to OCing so we have a story to share with them if we're denied entry, and if we're not denied entry, to show that responsible gun owners know how to behave inside casinos |
|||||||||
|
Vegassteve Regular Member
|
Tim they are crucifying you on the Nevada shooters board. I just do not understand how some folks do not see the violation of rights. It does not matter to me if some one is "looking" for trouble or not. The Bill of Rights still applies. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
Steve, thanks for the heads up. I went over and defended myself. We'll see how it goes. |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
You do know, I said if I was in LV, I would video! I am in Oak Harbor, WA, though! I hope everything works out well for. I am going to check out Nevada Shooters.....probably a bunch of hide our guns away, don't show our rights, concealed carry only panzies. Oh, did I say that out load - that dang outside voice.... OK. I looked briefly. They are just morons. Well, maybe they aren't, maybe they are reasonable, intelligent people just making moronic statements who find it perfectly acceptable for our rights to be slowly whittled away. Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:55 pm by NavyLT |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
It does seem the vast majority are anti-OC. |
|||||||||
|
geoffw Regular Member
|
timf343 wrote: It does seem the vast majority are anti-OC. Thats because many are cops, gun trainers, etc that believe OCing defeats the purpose of having a CCW and eliminates your "tactical advantage". Which makes sense, but.....OCing is more political than anything else We had a get togethor at Chilis last night and about 1/2 of us were OCing. Probably 10-15 people. Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:10 pm by geoffw |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
geoffw wrote: timf343 wrote:It does seem the vast majority are anti-OC. It doesn't make sense to me or a lot of others here. |
|||||||||
|
Erus Regular Member
|
bobernet wrote: Metro has never been burned on this particular issue. Everyone usually lets it drop. It will likely only take one successful lawsuit before they start to change their tune.VERY well said Bob. But I would add that the best way to get the attention of the brass might be that giant lawsuit. |
|||||||||
|
Erus Regular Member
|
timf343 wrote: Re: Fremont St, anyone have any knowledge on whether this is "private property" or other weird rules might apply? If I am not mistaken, Tim.. (sorry no cite ) Jan Laverty had Fremont declared a state park or something so she could use the police to empty the streets right after midnight on NYE when she was mayor a little way back when. With the whole "experience" down there I would guess that there is some sneaky reason/N.R.S. they can use to detain/drive you off for OC'ing there. I could be mistaken.. but my gut tells me this is so. (sad, I remember Helldorado days when I was a kid.. live sixguns on damn near every hip out in front of the Miint and Horseshoe... course I also remember crusing BOTH directions, the "U" turn in the Union Plaza driveway.. on Fremont on saturday nights too.) And for what it's worth.. I am over the hump in NYE these days, and in a wheelchair, or I would surely come and carry with you on the strip ANYTIME to help stop this blatent abuse of opinion... er I mean authority. Stick to your guns, Man. You are in the right. (This incident made me very ashamed of my hometown LEO's. btw.. at least of some of them) Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 11:04 pm by Erus |
|||||||||
|
Vegassteve Regular Member
|
Quote"Sgt Miller continued his lecture and stated that he will stop everyone with a firearm, as that is "enough" reasonable suspicion for him to detain any citizen he so chooses. He said I have to prove I'm not a felon, since a felon in possession of a firearm is a crime. I replied that since this was not Nazi Germany, citizens need not produce their papers to prove they're "legal"." If they had stopped and asked all the spanish fellas at the Home Depot for papers they would be in a world of @#$% right now. This is no different. |
|||||||||
|
calmp9 Regular Member
|
bobernet wrote: Metro has never been burned on this particular issue. Everyone usually lets it drop. It will likely only take one successful lawsuit before they start to change their tune. Agree 100% on this. There are good cops there. It's not fair to make a blanket assumption. I can understand why they stop someone open carrying. They don't know the person from Adam, but it's the way the stop is conducted that's important. This time, it doesn't look like it was legal. |
|||||||||
|
Vegassteve Regular Member
|
calmp9 wrote:
So then it is ok for them to come and knock on your door and find out who you are and what you are doing and what you have in your house? |
|||||||||
|
VegasGeorge Regular Member
|
I too live in Las Vegas. I read this post a few hours ago, and it's been bothering me ever since. I finally felt I had to respond. 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. Their job is to protect me, and in my mind that responsibility comes first. It appears obvious to me that Tim was making every effort to test the technical legal limits of his right to carry. That's OK, but it obviously and predictably resulted in more trouble than necessary. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
|||||||||
|
Phssthpok Regular Member
|
Back on topic.... This is in no way intended as an impeachment of your actions...you did what you thought best for your own personal circumstances. You didn't want to go to jail that night and did what you felt you must to avoid that happening. HOWEVER...IMHO... One should be fully prepared to stand by their position in their lawful activity, even to the point of being arrested and transported to the klink, else those individuals who are Jabbut-inclined will only be emboldened by those who capitulate to their intimidation tactics. You have apparently come to this same conclusion based upon your stated intent to no longer carry ID when not driving. I applaud you, sir. I have deliberately carried 'sterile' from my very first day. In my pocket I carry only some cash and a BORSE. Also, bear in mind that in HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. where.. Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. SCOTUS held that : Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Think about that for a moment....according to SCOTUS, absent "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (think: Terry v. Ohio) YOU ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOUR NAME. Another SCOTUS quote: Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. If you get them to admit that you have not broken any laws that they are aware of, then Terry is NOT satisfied, and the identify statute cited in Hiible becomes moot. The protections of the Fourth MUST be satisfied by a VALID 'Terry' stop (read: reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed) for the Nevada statute to be lawfully enforceable. Further, their attempt obtain ID to 'determine if you were a felon in possession of a firearm' is a blatant violation of the fifth . Yet another SCOTUS quote from Hiible: Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445. If you were, in fact a felon, their attempts to compel you to disclose your name/ID is a direct violation of the fifth as it would open you up to criminal charges. (See 18 USC, sec 241) Remember.....with the law on your side, the further they take you down the yellow brick road, the more solid your case against them becomes. (All quotes are from HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., and emphasis mine) |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member 
|
VegasGeorge wrote: I too live in Las Vegas. I read this post a few hours ago, and it's been bothering me ever since. I finally felt I had to respond.How did Tim fail to act reasonably? Under the circumstances, there should have been no contact with LE at all. He was conducting lawful activity. Absent illegal acts, he should have been free to move. Instead, he was unlawfully detained. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
VegasGeorge wrote: SNIP 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. I wrote this post in another thread. I've made this next point repeatedly across time. Its all too obvious in the reported encounters. You, as a police officer, have to be almost deliberately overlooking it. Or perhaps you yourself have gotten so used to skirting it that you don't even recognize it when it is right in front of you. It is not the 2nd Amendment that is being violated during illegal detentions over OC'd guns. It is the 4th Amendment that is being violated. The police are already supposed to know the 4th Amendment case law. It is not "change" that is being demanded. It is adherence to the existing state of the law that is being demanded. Now, here is a handy little quote from Terry vs Ohio.1 The US Supreme Court, when writing Terry, thought it worthy to quote it from an earlier court opinion. They must have considered it rather important, eh? Why else would they include it, of all the possible quotes, or even the option of not quoting it and writing their own version diluting this one? No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford. No right. Held more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint or interference. Unless by clear AND unquestionable authority of law. I'd say that is a pretty significant statement, showing up as it does right in the very court opinion that started this era's case law on detentions. When police start recognizing the damned seriousness of a detention, maybe we'll see fewer illegal detentions. Maybe even legal ones that are at the time questionable before a court later decides otherwise, writing a new set of circumstances into the case law. The seriousness of an illegal detention is not measured by how much can be recovered in a civil suit, or how much a police officer can get in trouble in his personnel file. It is measured against the principle embodied in that quote and others like it. Just because the courts cannot control illegal detentions except through the Exclusionary Rule does not mean an illegal detention is not damned serious. It is a bit of a red-herring, a mis-direction to explain away an illegal detention over OC by saying, "the officer didn't know" or "the police just need to learn that OC is legal" or even "we want respect for our 2A rights". Police do not need to know that OC is legal. All the police officer needs to know, in light of that quote and other 4A case law, is that he does not know it is illegal. Remember the part about "clear and unquestionable authority of law." Unless the police officer knows to a dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, he has no business doing anything other than a consensual contact. If he is not sure it is illegal, he has no "clear and unquestionable authority of law." If he cannot say to himself, "I have read the statute that makes OC illegal," he has no business doing anything other than calling his boss or a magistrate to find out, or making a consensual contact. Being unsure, being indignant, being outraged are none "clear and unquestionable authority of law." Also, many of the encounters and/or illegal detentions reported on this forum include commentary from the cop illustrating their antipathy to OC. Antipathy is not "clear and unquestionable authority of law." I have read of too many illegal detentions on this forum. I have been harassed twice myself (includes one 4A violation, one attempted 4A violation, and one 5A violation--an ID document demand.) I have read or seen videos of too many violations of other people that did not involve OC. I have read of illegal detentions in the court opinions where the conviction was overturned. If the conviction was overturned because the detention was illegal from inception, the cop hardly had "clear and unquestionable" authority of law. I have read or heard of too many instances of the Blue Wall of Silence, which would barely need to exist if it were not hiding violations or outright crime. I have a first hand report from people I consider credible of an entire shift of police lying to protect 2-4 members of that shift. I found this astounding. The cops lied not because they were afraid for their own personnel files. They lied soley to protect their pals. An entire shift!! Not one cop told the truth!! Not one. And, the chain of command ignored obvious inconsistencies in the internal affairs report, forwarding those inconsistencies in the department's written public response to the complaint. What is being demanded is not recognition of 2A. What is being demanded is adherence to 4A. Why a demand? Why the strenousness and zealousness? A combination of several factors: An illegal detention is a damned serious matter. Even a legal detention is a serious matter, and deserves an appropriate level of attention to its legal justifications from an LEO. I am convinced that it is not uncommon for LEOs to violate 4A. I have read on this forum of four police departments that did not change their ways with the "nice" approach. I have read on this forum a memo from a group of retired chiefs, etc who were telling the recipient LE departments that OC was legal. In that memo they used language such as "[no matter how indignant you feel]" and "[no matter how much you disagree with it]" OC is legal. Damning choice of words. That they estimated they had to say that in order to get their point received says volumes about what they think is the real state of affairs in LE regarding the 4A. The existence of the Blue Wall of Silence tells me police are more loyal to themselves than the people they are supposed to be serving. And have a lower ethic than is acceptable. Also, I'll just mention the word "testi-lying". And ask how frequent lying on the witness stand must be for a word like that to come into common understanding in police circles. Police have the power of the State behind them. That is a lot of power. Less, shall we say, stringent efforts have not worked to clean up police on the 4A, as observable by the current state of things. Obviously police can't or won't clean themselves up on it. Thus, I am going to advocate the maximum level of feasible and not illegal effort to intimidate 4A-violating police into at least outwardly respecting the 4A. If we only insist on respect for 2A by police, we miss the much broader picture on 4A. No apologies. No Mr. Nice Guy with a cop who misuses his position in violation of the 4A. And based on that Supreme Court quote above, a reprimand in a personnel file is nothing compared to the seriousness of an illegal detention. A little money out of the city's coffers and/or the cop's pocket is nothing compared to repeated violations of the principle in that quote above. Remember, I am talking all illegal detentions here. Not just 4A violations connected to OC. We are not talking about getting 2A accepted by police. Those who do miss the mark. It is adherence to the existing law, 4A law, law that is supposed to be already well understood and recognized by police, that I demand. Whether it involves guns or not. 1. Its the first quote the court indents in Section I. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html The technicalities of which VegasGeorge spoke are actually called rights. And the courts have refined them to the nth degree with regard to police and guns. Meaning the courts have had a long look at the subject over time, giving lots of consideration to the limits of police authority regarding guns. Trust me when I say the court almost always sides with officer safety. There is no need to give away more to the police. The courts have already taken care of it. In that the police have plenty of authority when it comes to guns. I am not going to lose any sleep over demanding they observe what is left of our 4A rights during a police encounter. It is about the 4th Amendment, not the 2nd. The OCer has no special responsibility beyond complying with the law. The police don't need to know that OC is legal in order to stay inbounds of the 4th Amendment. I'm betting, based on the police behavior reported that this was not the first time these cops violated someone's 4A rights. I really doubt they said to themselves, "Oh, here is a guy with a gun. Today, for the first time in my career, I am going to violate someone's 4A rights." Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:43 am by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
DESERT ATILLA Regular Member
|
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
|
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
|
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 
|
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=CsO1KwF64Ow Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:28 am by wayneco |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member 
|
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
|
Hey marshaul, nice to see you over here on the NV board. wayneco |
|||||||||
|
joeschmo Regular Member
|
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
|
wayneco wrote:Hey marshaul, nice to see you over here on the NV board. Nice to see you too. I get all over this forum. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
joeschmo wrote: I am new here, but after reading this thread, I have a couple things I want to say. 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
|
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
|
joeschmo wrote:
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 
|
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
|
timf343 wrote: joeschmo wrote:I am new here, but after reading this thread, I have a couple things I want to say. 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
|
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
|
joeschmo wrote:
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
|
joeschmo wrote:
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. |
|||||||||
|
GoldCoaster Regular Member 
|
Of course he's a cop, that was starkly obvious from his first post. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
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
|
Citizen wrote: GoldCoaster wrote:Of course he's a cop, that was starkly obvious from his first post. 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
|
joeschmo wrote:
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. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
joeschmo wrote: Citizen wrote:GoldCoaster wrote:Of course he's a cop, that was starkly obvious from his first post. Not to offend, (well maybe just a little) but your advice might be better received if it was not offered as criticism. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Phssthpok wrote: joeschmo wrote: Qui tacet consentire I don't know how much weight that carries at law anymore. For sure, it didn't work for Thomas More in the 1500's. Convicted of high treason against Henry VIII, he lost his head. Trial transcript wherein Sir Thomas quotes the maxim: http://tinyurl.com/nb7jpy Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:17 am by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
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. I did not resist them physically in any way. I did not resist arrest. I merely demanded to be let go. Demands (already in handcuffs) with no physical resistance whatsoever hardly amount to resisting arrest. I don't need to go to law school to read and understand my basic civil rights. I was being peaceful, until the police, with guns drawn, forced me to stop my peaceful activity and they handcuffed me. As for getting pulled over, as VegasSteve mentioned above, I will hand them my ID. Again, had you actually read the posts than just skimmed them for the juicy stuff, you'd have seen I only carry my ID while driving, as required by law. See, that's the recurring theme. I work within the bounds of the law. The police work outside it. joeschmo wrote: 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. Who are you then? You show up randomly and your first post protests the way I handled myself... Grow a pair and don't hide behind some anonymous pseudonym. When your rights are violated, feel free to handle it however you like. I chose to repeat my demands throughout the encounter. This thread has been about 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights, but repeating my rights, that's my 1st amendment right. I guess your position is probably I don't deserve those rights either. Citizen wrote: I also recommend being polite with police, to a certain degree anyway. I was completely polite throughout most of the stop, "Please stop do not take my gun. I do not consent to having my property seized.", for example. I did not curse once, nor did I do anything else "rude". I merely asserted my rights and protested their continued violation thereof. Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:06 am by timf343 |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
timf343 wrote: Citizen wrote: Good. But, even if you had been rude, I wouldn't have objected. Its a tactical issue, not a legal one, as long as it doesn't get into disorderly conduct. The whole "polite" thing, in my mind is really only for two reasons 1) To not provoke them into planting evidence or making a false arrest which would surely be lied about later. 2) Being polite makes you look good in court, the press, etc. "See. I'm the nice, meek, polite, AGGRIEVED one. Those mean, nasty cops, as you can hear on my recording right here, were the uncivilized thugs. See how far they depart from the image of Officer Friendly. See? Ooooo. I'm the victim. Look how they treat people. They might treat you or your wife that way if you don't send a message to all of them." Etc. Aside from those, if your rights are being violated, and you think you can get away with it, howl like the rudest (but not disorderly) banshee. Why on Gods green earth anybody expects a free man to not object noisily is beyond me.* Understand that I am not really advocating that. The consequences of a false arrest and conviction are too serious. Just the arrest record, even if not convicted. I am more distinguishing between a requirement to be polite, and self-determined tactical decision to be polite in order to obtain the tactical benefits that go along with it. *What? Do they think all people are sheep? For Christ's sake, you'd think the OCd gun would be a clue that the detainee is not a sheep. Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 06:17 am by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
wayneco Regular Member
|
I think it's safe to say that joeschmo is 5-0, he speaks authoritatively about the lack of dash cam equipment he drops BOLO casually, a LEO term of art and also speaks prejudicially of you out of the gate and with an arrogant tone. All the marks of a typical LEO. Oh, and he's made 3 whole posts on this board and is from LV. If he's not with us, why is he here and what's caused him to come here? Until this person joins our community and engages in a more positive tone and manner I'm going to assume he's a cop looking to cause trouble. Problem is, with respect to lawful open carry in LV, cops seem to have a monopoly on the causing trouble part, that's precisely the problem we're trying to solve here, only to be met with more attitude like joeschmo's throwing off? Not productive. Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:06 am by wayneco |
|||||||||
|
Merlin Regular Member 
|
Tim, you are my freakin' hero! I have long been an advocate of OC, but I didn't realize there was such a community of it here in Vegas. I actually found this forum through NevadaShooters. Mostly a good bunch I think, although not all in alignment on this topic. I too have been stopped on numerous occasions, and I have politely protested. After having read your detailed post, I have a better handle on what I could improve on. In fact, I stopped OC years ago, but I think it is time for a comeback! I have been wanting to get some use out of that Serpa holster I picked up. I wonder, do you think dual-wielding my Super Shorty OC would be going to far? (stock photo, you can tell, 'cause that is the WRONG belt!) (and no, I haven't figured out the mechanics of actuating the pump-action while dual-wielding)   Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 01:49 pm by Merlin |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
Tim, Lets sit down and consider action. I think you handled yourself pretty well, and we need to get you a recorder next time. I carry one, and its quite good. Here's a great video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
Citizens Review Board acknowledged receipt of complaint and will be investigating. Attached Image (viewed 468 times): |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
pls send me the copy with the case # etc. |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
timf343, In case you (and others) may have missed it, the NV chapter of the ACLU is willing to do a preliminary investigation of incidents such as yours: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/27923.html (YES, it's true!) |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
Actually Tim knows because his case is the one that got them interested I forwarded it them with his transcript and information last week. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
geoffw wrote: Im shocked....but thats expected when you are OCing on the strip. No, what is expected is to be treated like every other law abiding citizen and allowed to go about your business in peace unless you are in the act of committing a crime. I do hope he had a voice recorder running through all of this. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
VegasGeorge wrote: Their job is to protect me, and in my mind that responsibility comes first. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- Benjamin Franklin edit:spelling Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:03 am by rpyne |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member 
|
joeschmo wrote: Citizen wrote:One--they are not just the OPs rights--they are your rights as well. He and many others here simply choose to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights in a way t hat law enforcement does not like, or agree with and therefore the majority of them want to bully and intimidate in order to get it to stop.GoldCoaster wrote:Of course he's a cop, that was starkly obvious from his first post. Two--we should not have to put up with intimidation, and especially not from a "law enforcement officer" who is supposed to actually know the laws they are supposed to enforce---unique concept I know. Three, the OP did not have to answer any questions other than those necessary to identify himself once a LEO had cause to believe he was, was about to or had already committed a crime, considering that Nevada has a stop and ID statute. Four, it is VERY appropriate to ask the reason for the stop, whether or not we are being detained, whether or not we are free to leave--this does a very important thing--it brings into play the 4th Amendment for purposes of filing a complaint with the Justice Department for violation of our rights, as well as opening the door to possible litigation against the officer and the department involved in order to get them to stop their unlawful and abusive practices. |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
calmp9 wrote: bobernet wrote:I'll stand you two cops up--one "good" one "bad"--you tell me which is which.Metro has never been burned on this particular issue. Everyone usually lets it drop. It will likely only take one successful lawsuit before they start to change their tune. As for how you "understand" them stopping someone OC'ing--you might, but I don't. It does not matter if they don't them from Adam--if the person OC'ing is minding their own business, then the cops should do the same--the world would just be so much better off if people did mind their own business a little more instead of sticking their noses into what everyone else is doing, thinking or saying. |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
It is not metro policy, but it is trained in the police academy and MWAG situations are taught. The police officers need to be trained to understand OC is not a bad thing. The police officers are generally not at fault, because they are taught from the academy and their COs how to act. (Why its time for a new sheriff) Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 05:26 am by Pace |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
VegasGeorge wrote: Their job is to protect me, and in my mind that responsibility comes first.Their job is not to "protect" you--their job is to enforce the laws. They are not private security. Second, they cannot protect you--they are by their very nature reactionary--meaning they show up only after the bullets have started flying, hardly ever do they actually stop something before it starts...and I don't want them any other way. I would absolutely never want to live in a society where the police were actively stopping and searching everyone on the street, or where you had to drive through checkpoints every few miles or show "your papers" every time a LEO thought you needed to simply because he said to do so. Third--I would never depend on a LEO to protect me or to fight for me. I don't put my safety into the hands of anyone who does not have a direct stake in whether or not I go home tonight. That means I trust my God and my family to watch my back, and that is it. The police are FAR too quick to step on the rights of the people and think they can get away with it. I would like to see a great number of those who violate our rights thrown into prison and let them be on the other end for a change. |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
Blah! Police Officers job are to "protect and serve" in my opinion. Law Enforcement, point blank has the job of protecting the public, and that's often in almost every department's oath! Many, many officers understand that, and some don't  |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
Pace wrote: It is not metro policy, but it is trained in the police academy and MWAG situations are taught.It does not matter why they do it--the fact remains-they do it, and they should lose their jobs when they mistreat the people--as well as their certifications--permanently. When a few start losing their jobs over it--the rest will take notice and get the message. Abuse should absolutely never be tolerated, and they should be immediately held accountable--and if they harass a citizen and mistreat that person--they should be chargeable under the law and thrown into jail. Ignorance of the law is no excuse--it isn't for us and it should not be for them. |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
my point wasnt otherwise, but the real issue isn't the officers, its the department and training. As long as there is people in charge who are anti-gun, this is how they will respond. The political machine of the strip decides each year who should be sheriff and its always one of the good ole boys, always someone who will bow to the needs of the casinos. Our current sheriff scored a failing grade on the NRA quiz, because he supports more gun restrictions and so on. We need better training period |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
Pace wrote: Blah! Police Officers job are to "protect and serve" in my opinion. Law Enforcement, point blank has the job of protecting the public, and that's often in almost every department's oath!If you believe that, then you are naive. They did a great job "protecting the public" at Virginia Tech didn't they.... How about this recent shooting in D.C at the holocaust museum--they did a wonderful job there too... They cannot protect you--they are not private security. They have absolutely no legal requirement to protect the individual citizen. Their job is to enforce the laws, nothing more. as for it "being in their oath"--they can put anything into an oath--it is meaningless in the long run. They more than proved that with the OPs experience... But the issue here is the OP and what the police did to him and how they mistreated him. If the way they treated him is what it means for them to "protect" me--thank you no, I'll continue to depend on my God, my family and myself--I can at least trust them to not shoot the first person they see with a gun regardless of who he is. Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 05:47 am by suntzu |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
Pace wrote: my point wasnt otherwise, but the real issue isn't the officers, its the department and training. As long as there is people in charge who are anti-gun, this is how they will respond.not just better training--but examples need to be made of the officers who mistreat the people...they should be fired, have their certifications revoked and if they assaulted a person during the course of their mistreatment--should also be arrested and prosecuted very publicly. to me it does not matter why they do it--the fact is that they do it and it needs to stop and major lawsuits is one sure way to get it to stop...bankrupt a city because of the conduct of its police--and the city might get the message. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
suntzu wrote: to me it does not matter why they do it--the fact is that they do it and it needs to stop and major lawsuits is one sure way to get it to stop...bankrupt a city because of the conduct of its police--and the city might get the message. Amen! It is sad to see how far things have deteriorated. Two of my brothers lived in Las Vegas back in the early 1970s and back then, LVPD was one of the best. They didn't have the discrimination or other problems that many other police department had at the time. They even turned the derogatory generalizations to their favor. I remember that many of the LVPD cars had P.I.G. in big letters on their doors (Pride, Integrity, Guts). They lived by that and the took the role of "Peace Officer" seriously. They honestly believed that their purpose was to "serve and protect". |
|||||||||
|
JoeSparky Centurion Member 
|
good on ya timf343. It is a terrible shame that SOME LEO's must be FORCED to recognize our rights! Truth in the phrase about Power.... you all know the one.... "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts, ABSOLUTELY!" Edited to add the last two sentences! Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 07:11 am by JoeSparky |
|||||||||
|
Nevada Bill Regular Member
|
wewd wrote: Your story floored me. I had no idea the Gestapo is operating in the State of Nevada. Are you sure they didn't make you click your heels and salute before they let you go? Sounds like there needs to be some massive OC get-togethers on the strip in the near future. I wanna see what these jack-boots do with several dozen armed citizens walking down the sidewalk. I would definitely drive out for that one. I'll be the guy with the red triangle armband. A OC get together on the strip sounds like a good way to make a statement. These cops need to learn some self control. LOL on the armband. |
|||||||||
|
Jonesy Regular Member
|
Ttimf, Hang in there and keep going sir. Here in Virginia I can open carry all I want and I have never been stopped by the police, thanks to others who OCed before me doing exactly like you are doing. They got stopped and hassled just like you did, lawsuits followed, police were educated and now we mostly enjoy our OC rights with no problems. I can walk by police all day OC and they never say a word, as it should be. Now the Nevada shooters site is filled with uninformed people, especially osiruscyn telling you the stop was legal and had probable cause. That is laughable, the stop if it happened as you described had no probable cause, nor did the subsequent detention and siezure of your property. Plenty of Supreme Court precedent indicates stop and detention were illegal, those people saying you are misinformed made me laugh and get angry at the same time. The moderator on there hassling you is also, badly misinformed about the law, very sad being a mod. I really wanted to sign up to that site to support you and post some, But I decided better of that, I live in Virginia. I almost wish I lived out there, I would go with you on your next strip trip. You really need to get at least a voice recording of any further encounters. Good luck with your efforts, remember to stay safe (although it seems you are handling that well). Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 10:50 pm by Jonesy |
|||||||||
|
jpa Regular Member
|
I seem to remember reading about a guy who regularly OC's in Norfolk, keeps getting stopped and the city keeps settling his lawsuits out of court, paying all his bills. Now we just need to get someone to do the same thing here and Tim seems pretty willing. |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
Yeah, until one rookie officer gets scarred and shoots first... I'd rather see Tim alive and well, educate the officers and the department. We need Tim to help in the fight and frankly right now the LVMPD is nervous and a lot of new officers coming in. Change the department from the TOP DOWN, and then we can stop worrying as much. Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 02:25 pm by Pace |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
Pace wrote: Yeah, until one rookie officer gets scarred and shoots first... I'd rather see Tim alive and well, educate the officers and the department. We need Tim to help in the fight and frankly right now the LVMPD is nervous and a lot of new officers coming in.If they are that afraid--let them find other work....They do not have to work in law enforcement--it is a job they choose to do, and if they are that afraid--they should find another job. And the only way to change the department from the top down--is to fire a few of them and make it plain to those who remain what is and is not allowed and actually MAKE them learn the laws they are supposed to enforce... Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 02:56 pm by suntzu |
|||||||||
|
DON`T TREAD ON ME Regular Member 
|
Pace wrote: Yeah, until one rookie officer gets scarred and shoots first... I'd rather see Tim alive and well, educate the officers and the department. Pace, your posts suggest you are familar with LVMPD training (or lack of ) as it seems. Does it alarm you that a law abiding citizen should fear for his life in this circumstance? what mindset would they have to aquire from LVMPD to kill a law abiding citizen? |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
It alarms me, but doesn't surprise me. Its not just LVMPD; how many stories do you hear about police shootings where the conclusion is, "He had a gun, so we fired." Uh, what? No one ever asks in the media, "So what?" Even if the gun was illegal, what right does a police officer have to shoot you because you are in mere possession of an illegal item. More so, if the item is legal. The fact is that whenever there is a police shooting, you always hear "he went for the gun, it looked like a sudden movement... i thought he had a gun." About a month ago in NYC, a police officer was killed because two other officers saw that he had a gun. Imagine if he wasn't a police officer, would anyone have asked why he was shot? The discussion in NYC right now is if he identified himself as an officer!!! As if that somehow matters, that if he didnt say those words he deserved to be shot and killed. Do a google of Las Vegas Metro Shooting. Here is from last week alone: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/01/metro-officer-shoots-man-northwest-valley/ An unarmed citizen was fighting with the officers and they shot him? They chased him down,when trying to arrest him, they shot him? Suddenly resisting arrest is an automatic death penalty? They will say he was a sexual predator, that he was a danger, that we don't appreciate the police...and so on. The fact is that everyone is INNOCENT until proven guilty... perhaps he was a mentally ill person without his meds. Perhaps he was the person who committed those crimes and so on. I've taught police defensive tactics, I've never heard of this method of shooting while someone resists arrest. Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 03:26 pm by Pace |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
I would class the police shootings as a strawman. These are not particularly relevant to tim's circumstances. The "he had a gun" or "thought he had a gun" shootings are already adversarial encounters, and are not "man on street with holstered firearm. |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
Oh, nevermind. Feel free to disagree with everything I say, I'm sure your always going to be right Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 05:17 pm by Pace |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
Pace wrote: Oh, nevermind. Feel free to disagree with everything I say, I'm sure your always going to be right It is not that I have some need to disagree with everything you say. I disagree specifically with the argument you presented in this case. There was nothing in tim's narrative that indicated some chance of an accidental police shooting as you present. Do you see where such would be relevant in tim's case? If so, how? In other words, WHY do you feel that accidental police shootings have relevancy to this topic? |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
I was originally making a point that Tim is too important to be shot accidently by a police officer. And frankly, you seem to be right most of the time According to Tim, the police officers actually pointed their weapons at him, if I remember right from the transcript. Not a chance of some new officer, first time seeing someone else with a gun perhaps pulling the trigger? Where there are officers who are shooting themselves in the foot because of poor training, there are more officers who shoot before asking. Then again, I spent years working in NYC where police drew on me more than once. Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 06:20 pm by Pace |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
Pace wrote: I was originally making a point that Tim is too important to be shot accidently by a police officer. And frankly, you seem to be right most of the timeAnd all of this is exactly why police officers need to start losing their jobs when they harass and unlawfully detain a citizen--one unlawful detention, or one harassment stop should be enough to get them fired from their jobs----when the police start getting fired, the rest might stand up and go "hmmmm, harassing and illegally detaining people isn't the best course of action after all..." AND cities need to start losing lots of money in lawsuits to the point that the worst offending cities and towns literally go bankrupt because of it....once that happens, the people might actually stand up and tell the police NO MORE.... |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member 
|
There is SCOTUS case law stating that pointing a firearm at a "suspect" is a "use of force" which needs to be justified (otherwise it is excessive). I don't know the case name. Anyone know what it is called? artwork by oleg volk: Attached Image (viewed 358 times): |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
I like that ad. I've been on both sides of the fence, and I like the point that POLICE are CIVILIAN ENFORCERS. They are not the military, and they are required to follow CIVILIAN LAW. Thanks for that! |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
cato wrote: There is SCOTUS case law stating that pointing a firearm at a "suspect" is a "use of force" which needs to be justified (otherwise it is excessive). I don't know the case name. Anyone know what it is called?There are several cases mentioned here http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1664029-Use-of-force-law-and-its-impact-on-muzzle-position/ including :Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Tallman v. Elizabethtown Police Department 167 Fed.Appx. 459 (6th Cir. 2006) Robinson v. Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007 (2002) (en banc) McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292 (1992), Holland ex rel. Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1056 (2002) and several other cases....some of them are absolutely outrageous as to the conduct of the "officers involved"...BUT I think the one you are talking about is Holland ex rel. Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1056 (2002) Maybe I am wrong. I have not had time to read them yet, but skimming over Holland ex rel....it seems to be the one you are referring to--but I am not quite sure. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
suntzu wrote: http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1664029-Use-of-force-law-and-its-impact-on-muzzle-position/ Funny how in reading that whole article, I saw liability mentioned as something to be avoided, the main concern being a negligent discharge, and rights as something to be balanced. Nothing about negligently shooting another human being, the suffering of the victim or his loved ones. Nothing about how an innocent person is likely to feel with a gun pointed at him. Last edited on Tue Jul 7th, 2009 03:42 am by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
calmp9 Regular Member
|
Pace wrote: Blah! Police Officers job are to "protect and serve" in my opinion. Law Enforcement, point blank has the job of protecting the public, and that's often in almost every department's oath! That's the way it should be, but it just isn't the case. I hope you know that the judicial system has already set the precedent that the police have no duty to protect individuals. Check these links: http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html There's more, but you get the idea. |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
You are misreading the case. Gonzales sued in FEDERAL COURT, saying that police had a federal and constitutional requirement to protect citizens. There are problems with this on several fronts: - The Police (minus feds) are state and local authorities. - There is no federal law or anything in the constitution that requires the protection. That being said, if the federal law does not require the police to protect you, what law allows for protection? There is no law, but there is 2A! That being said, there are laws in many jurisdictions requiring police to take action. They vary, some require if seeing a felony, some require in the case of life and death, and so on. I dont know if Nevada has this requirement. |
|||||||||
|
crazynova Regular Member
|
Pace wrote: You are misreading the case. Gonzales sued in FEDERAL COURT, saying that police had a federal and constitutional requirement to protect citizens. There are problems with this on several fronts: Even if there isn't MOST officers do the job because they want to help protect the community. With that said, MOST officers also encourage people to excersize thier 2nd amendment rights and learn to protect themselves because well, when you do call the police in a life and death situation, they can't always be there in 30 seconds. (even 30 seconds is a long time in a life and death situation) |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
Pace wrote: You are misreading the case. Gonzales sued in FEDERAL COURT, saying that police had a federal and constitutional requirement to protect citizens. There are problems with this on several fronts:It is a well understood fact that the police have absolutely NO duty or requirement to protect the individual. Last edited on Tue Jul 7th, 2009 11:44 pm by suntzu |
|||||||||
|
candrade Regular Member
|
I just moved to Las vegas and have learned a lot about the local authorities around here. Is there anyone who could tell me how to get a rights card? I don't feel like getting arrested because I want to carry |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
Use a printer and print this link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html Sorry, I don't mean to be a smartass, I am just teasing. Pace, how goes the printing efforts? Last edited on Wed Jul 8th, 2009 12:36 am by timf343 |
|||||||||
|
DON`T TREAD ON ME Regular Member
|
candrade wrote: I just moved to Las vegas and have learned a lot about the local authorities around here. Is there anyone who could tell me how to get a rights card? I don't feel like getting arrested because I want to carry I think he might have ment this, or similar. You just print it out I keep one in each vehicle and one in my wallet. so far I havnt had the genitalia to pull it out but after my last run in I think, that I am there now. this came out funky but I have it in WORD if you want it pm me with an email and I will get it to you [size=ATTENTIONPOLICE] My attorney has advised me never to speak to law enforcement personnel under any circumstances. [size=I hereby assert my right to remain silent.] I DO NOT consent to answering any questions. Do not ask me any questions without my attorney present. Probable cause or consent is required to conduct a search. [size=I DO NOT][size= consent to a search of my person] [size=I DO NOT][size= consent to a search of my property] [size=I DO NOT][size= consent to a search of my vehicle] Further detention requires probable cause or consent. [size=I DO NOT][size= consent to being detained] If you conduct any unlawful search, detention, or other violation of my Rights (all of which I reserve), I intend to see that criminal charges are filed, and civil action instituted against you, to the greatest extent permitted by law. I WANT TO LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. PLEASE ADVISE ME AS SOON AS I AM FREE TO LEAVE. If I am not driving: I am not required to carry or produce identification. Please do not ask. I will not provide you with ID. Nevada law (NRS 171.123) says you may only detain me if you have reasonable articulable suspicion that I have committed, I am presently committing, or I am about to commit a crime. As I am a law abiding citizen, none of those circumstances exist. If you say you do have such authority, please tell me what that suspicion is that authorizes you to detain me. If you do in fact have such reasonable and articulable suspicion, I will identify myself by name only, as required by law. However, I will not answer any other questions. |
|||||||||
|
codename_47 Regular Member
|
so where's the lawsuit???? |
|||||||||
|
crazynova Regular Member
|
candrade wrote: I just moved to Las vegas and have learned a lot about the local authorities around here. Is there anyone who could tell me how to get a rights card? I don't feel like getting arrested because I want to carry It seems you have only read the bad posts on here. Reading the long OC thread on here, there seem to be a LOT more positive experiences carrying in this state than negative. So far I have only read about two seperate stops in Clark County over the hundreds of times the members go out open carrying. |
|||||||||
|
candrade Regular Member
|
That's what i was looking for, Thanks a lot. I lived in Wyoming most of my life and never worried about getting stopped before I moved here. I'm not looking for trouble, but refuse to be victimized by criminals or have my constitutional rights violated by the government either. This country is in a bad enough way as it is. We may need our guns some day |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
Welcome to OCDO candrade wrote: That's what i was looking for, Thanks a lot. I lived in Wyoming most of my life and never worried about getting stopped before I moved here. I'm not looking for trouble, but refuse to be victimized by criminals or have my constitutional rights violated by the government either. This country is in a bad enough way as it is. I don't think any of us are looking for trouble either, but like you, most of us refuse to be victims of either criminals or government (oops, I repeat myself). We are learning to stand up for our rights and encouraging others to do the same while there is still some hope. We may need our guns some day Let me fix that for you: "We need our guns more every day." |
|||||||||
|
candrade Regular Member
|
I stand corrected, you are 100% correct |
|||||||||
|
Vegassteve Regular Member
|
This may be a big help to us and Tim. http://www.lvrj.com/news/50460127.html If a group of 2 can get news and help rom the ACLU. Then we should do even better. We should really look at a organized carry on the strip. |
|||||||||
|
Jonesy Regular Member
|
jpa wrote: I seem to remember reading about a guy who regularly OC's in Norfolk, keeps getting stopped and the city keeps settling his lawsuits out of court, paying all his bills. Now we just need to get someone to do the same thing here and Tim seems pretty willing. Yes, Norfolk is one of the last places where the police seem to still be untrained, they will and are learning the hard way. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
I'd love to get in on some of this. Not a Nevada Resident, but will be moving to Kingman, AZ (finally!). A short jaunt to Vegas by my standards. I have a decent digital camera that does high-resolution video, and enough memory cards to record for days... I have a 1911 and a holster, too. |
|||||||||
|
calmp9 Regular Member
|
ixtow wrote: I'd love to get in on some of this. Not a Nevada Resident, but will be moving to Kingman, AZ (finally!). A short jaunt to Vegas by my standards. I have a decent digital camera that does high-resolution video, and enough memory cards to record for days...Looks like you're good to go! I would like to go to Nevada too but money's too tight right now. |
|||||||||
|
Ydobon Regular Member
|
Son, you've got some balls. And if you're willing to proceed, I've got USD$1,000 that I'll invest in your defense. Screw 501-c-3, if you want to help us re-establish a FIRM case for our Constitutional Rights, I've got the time, the energy, and the inclination to assist you. This is my first time on your board, but I'm Nobody@Ubermutant.com. Be advised, this goes for any of you who obey the law completely. If you're going to set this up, I've got USD$1,000 toward your defense. Bring along a recorder of some kind... Go in wired or with someone videotaping you. If you can get those fellows to arrest you in violation of the law, I'll help you ram the case down their throats until my beloved home State of Nevada is recognized as the freest of them all. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
Ydobon wrote: Son, you've got some balls. I like you in a way that people who have never met probably shouldn't...  |
|||||||||
|
Ydobon Regular Member
|
You'll like me even more when I help the pendulum swing back to our side and keep it held there. Hell, if no one every knows who I am, but I can keep this State free, it's worth my time and money. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
Finally a response from internal affairs. Now they're officially looking into it. That makes the FBI, ACLU, LVMPD Internal Affairs, and the Citizens Review Board. Attached Image (viewed 339 times): |
|||||||||
|
Copper1225 Regular Member 
|
Any word?? |
|||||||||
|
nomidlname Regular Member
|
How's this case going Tim? |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
I have interviewed a couple of attorneys, but it's hard to find good civil rights guys here in town. So far, I haven't been impressed. Might have to go outside the state. But then again, since no actual physical injury occurred, no attorney will take a contingency here, so an out-of-state firm gets expensive. Non-lawsuit related, there is an open complaint with internal affairs and I've talked to two different detectives there who are looking into the matter. Not sure what to expect from them. NRA and ACLUNV are aware of what's going on and there are some things brewing on that front. But I think most importantly, the LVMPD is doing OC training. Whether it was a result of my stop I don't know, but at least they're doing it. I always said I wasn't doing what I was doing to get paid and I stand by that. My whole intent with a lawsuit was to get them to stop their unconstitutional behavior. Since they have, I'm scratching my head about whether I should even continue with a lawsuit. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
timf343 wrote: I have interviewed a couple of attorneys, but it's hard to find good civil rights guys here in town. So far, I haven't been impressed. Might have to go outside the state. But then again, since no actual physical injury occurred, no attorney will take a contingency here, so an out-of-state firm gets expensive. I would at least make sure the option is on the table. If you don't follow through, you're just another paper tiger... And their 'OC training' will no doubt be poor or cease to exist. Don't forget the kind of people you're dealing with. |
|||||||||
|
threadedcac9 Regular Member
|
Hey Tim I am ready to open carry with you on the strip just let me know....... |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
any word on your complaint to the FBI? |
|||||||||
|
threadedcac9 Regular Member
|
hey check out this one fellas http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
ixtow wrote: I would at least make sure the option is on the table. If you don't follow through, you're just another paper tiger... And their 'OC training' will no doubt be poor or cease to exist. Don't forget the kind of people you're dealing with. I found an attorney with a good track record who has agreed to take the case on contingency. For obvious reasons I can't discuss the specifics at this point. I will provide more information as we progress. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
timf343 wrote: I found an attorney with a good track record who has agreed to take the case on contingency. For obvious reasons I can't discuss the specifics at this point. I will provide more information as we progress. That is great news. Maybe, just maybe, if enough cops get judgements against them or get sent to jail the rest will start to get the message that their opinoin doesn't matter, carrying a firearm is a protected right. |
|||||||||
|
jhow1nm2 Regular Member
|
Directly applicable and needing to be immediately discussed with your attorney is the U.S. District Court in NM's decision this past week about a similar case in Alamogordo NM (65 miles from my house). http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns enjoy using this well stated (and restated) legal precedent with your case!!! |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
rpyne wrote: timf343 wrote:I found an attorney with a good track record who has agreed to take the case on contingency. For obvious reasons I can't discuss the specifics at this point. I will provide more information as we progress. When has a cop ever gone to jail for crimes against a gun owner? Unless they do something as horrible as rape a child, cops get away with anything they want with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
I have a meeting with the Internal Affairs guys next Monday morning. I had to prod them a little, but they said they'd like to interview me. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
timf343 wrote: I have a meeting with the Internal Affairs guys next Monday morning. I had to prod them a little, but they said they'd like to interview me. Don't talk to them without your attorney! If your case goes to trial they WILL use anything you say against you. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
Interesting thought. I thought IAD was the good guys. You know, I'm the victim, they're investigating the criminal? |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
timf343 wrote: Interesting thought. I thought IAD was the good guys. You know, I'm the victim, they're investigating the criminal? There are no good guys in government. The interview will be used against you. Just the same as the "Hey I just wanna talk" line from cops... They are not your friend. They are paid to find any excuse to put people in jail. Paid with YOUR money. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
timf343 wrote: Interesting thought. I thought IAD was the good guys. You know, I'm the victim, they're investigating the criminal? As far as they are concerned, the officers are the victims and you are the criminal. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
I suppose I really left nothing unsaid in the complaint I filed with them. The interview was just to make me feel better that their investigation was going somewhere... I guess I will cancel it though, it makes a lot of sense. It's too bad too, a part of me still felt like justice could prevail without suing their asses. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
If you don't wear their uniform, you are the enemy in their eyes. You are holding the position that they have done wrong, and that makes you someone they would kill if they could get away with it. Don't think for one second they wouldn't settle for whatever they can get. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
Well, I'll get you all more details on the lawsuit as we get closer to filing. |
|||||||||
|
joeschmo Regular Member
|
ixtow wrote: If you don't wear their uniform, you are the enemy in their eyes. You are holding the position that they have done wrong, and that makes you someone they would kill if they could get away with it. Don't think for one second they wouldn't settle for whatever they can get. Tim wasn't arrested or cited on anything, so they can't use anything he says against him, because he was never charged with a crime. It's not some corrupt department that only cares about their own like many back east. And just an FYI, most police officers care more about this country than you ever will. Yeah it's a brotherhood and they watch out for each other, but get off your high horse thinking you are the only ones who care about this country and your rights. Just like some people generalize that all gun owners are criminals, you are there generalizing that all police officers are criminals just because they work for the government and wear a uniform. Last edited on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 05:15 am by joeschmo |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
joeschmo wrote: And just an FYI, most police officers care more about this country than you ever will. Yeah it's a brotherhood and they watch out for each other, but get off your high horse thinking you are the only ones who care about this country and your rights. Just like some people generalize that all gun owners are criminals, you are there generalizing that all police officers are criminals just because they work for the government and wear a uniform. I've enough experience with their kind to justify presuming the worst until I have reason to believe otherwise. And, no, I wouldn't like to see them go around using that as their own basis. I'm not throwing people in jail with mine, so it is perfectly acceptable. I'm on no high horse. I just know better than to trust them with anything, ever. You don't need to be charged with a crime for your words to be used against you. Miranda is simply a statement due upon arrest, that doesn't mean the same facts are not true without one. Talking too much is what gets most people arrested to begin with. Duh. The FACT is that he is dealing with people who have already crossed WAY over the line. Clearly, they aren't afraid to do it and are likely to repeat the matter any way they see fit. No generalization is needed. He is specifically dealing with scum who have demonstrated themselves to be such. This isn't theory. |
|||||||||
|
joeschmo Regular Member
|
ixtow wrote: joeschmo wrote:And just an FYI, most police officers care more about this country than you ever will. Yeah it's a brotherhood and they watch out for each other, but get off your high horse thinking you are the only ones who care about this country and your rights. Just like some people generalize that all gun owners are criminals, you are there generalizing that all police officers are criminals just because they work for the government and wear a uniform. I like how you think your opinion is fact and that one officer is representative of an entire department. I suppose a police officer should generalize that since the last gun owner he dealt with was a felon and drug dealer, every gun owner he deals with is a felon and drug dealer. Same logic, or lack thereof. |
|||||||||
|
N6ATF Regular Member 
|
joeschmo wrote: ixtow wrote:joeschmo wrote:And just an FYI, most police officers care more about this country than you ever will. Yeah it's a brotherhood and they watch out for each other, but get off your high horse thinking you are the only ones who care about this country and your rights. Just like some people generalize that all gun owners are criminals, you are there generalizing that all police officers are criminals just because they work for the government and wear a uniform. I thought drug dealing felons cannot own guns. Illegally possess likely stolen property, perhaps. Even if ixtow's opinion were based on one officer, there's a big difference. Gun owners (law-abiding) as a whole would rather never have contact with the police. Because either we've needed to justifiably deprive someone of their life or liberty, or by doing nothing except going peaceably about our lives, we are about to be deprived of either. On the other hand, an unacceptably large number of police have good reason to believe they have carte blanche to deprive gun owners (law-abiding) of their liberty and persecute us into disarmed victim submission. Up to and including SHOOTING US and trying to cover up their premeditated attempted murder. This, in spite of their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution, and their moral, legal, and ethical obligation not to be violent felons with tarnished badges. Last edited on Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 07:22 pm by N6ATF |
|||||||||
|
Gordie Regular Member 
|
N6ATF wrote: joeschmo wrote:ixtow wrote:joeschmo wrote:And just an FYI, most police officers care more about this country than you ever will. Yeah it's a brotherhood and they watch out for each other, but get off your high horse thinking you are the only ones who care about this country and your rights. Just like some people generalize that all gun owners are criminals, you are there generalizing that all police officers are criminals just because they work for the government and wear a uniform. And corrupt cops with the JBT mentality cannot legally harass LACs, that is why the example works and is valid. Go after the guilty when you find them, but don't paint them all with the same brush. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
I openly admit to prejudice taught to me violently and repeatedly by those whom I 'paint with the same brush.' Yes, to me, they are all guilty until proven innocent. And, yes, I hate the hell out of them for what the not-so-few have taught me. I recognize the limitation of my not-a-right to impose my personal prejudice upon others. And therein lies the crux of the matter. I know the difference between my personal prejudice, and any kind of right to impose it. They don't. Would I shed a tear if every last one of them were killed? No, no I wouldn't. Would I partake in making it so? No, no I wouldn't. I hate them, but I will never allow myself to become them. Given a chance to absolutely destroy one (or more) of them in a legal and justified manner, I would show no mercy. I know the difference, implying otherwise is a deliberate falsification, and slanderous, to boot. I restrain myself because I know my prejudice in not justified, but give me one excuse to turn it loose in a justified manner... These people deserve so much worse. I cannot even describe it. I only wish that the America and it's Legal System, as I see it portrayed on these pages, existed where I live. |
|||||||||
|
N6ATF Regular Member
|
Gordie wrote: N6ATF wrote:joeschmo wrote:ixtow wrote:joeschmo wrote:And just an FYI, most police officers care more about this country than you ever will. Yeah it's a brotherhood and they watch out for each other, but get off your high horse thinking you are the only ones who care about this country and your rights. Just like some people generalize that all gun owners are criminals, you are there generalizing that all police officers are criminals just because they work for the government and wear a uniform. Enough with the painting metaphor. When you paint something, you do not cover every part of the surface area down to the atomic, millimeter, or even the centimeter, level, at exactly the same consistency, even with the same brush. But if you insist on this metaphor, the fact that gun owners have had our rights ground into the dust in most of our LE contacts should be enough to satisfy hurling a gallon of tar at a 8'x15' wall. Enough of it will be blackened that it fairly represents the institutional corruption that protects scores of mini-tyrants hiding behind their badges. Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 02:55 am by N6ATF |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
N6ATF wrote: Gordie wrote:No, we normally only hear of the encounters that go bad. That does not support any statement such as you have made.Go after the guilty when you find them, but don't paint them all with the same brush. Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 03:08 am by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
N6ATF Regular Member
|
wrightme wrote: N6ATF wrote:Gordie wrote:No, we normally only hear of the encounters that go bad. That does not support any statement such as you have made.Go after the guilty when you find them, but don't paint them all with the same brush. Really? Guess you need to read more then. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
N6ATF wrote: wrightme wrote:No, you need to go to all persons who have positive LE encounters and get them to post their stories.N6ATF wrote:Gordie wrote:No, we normally only hear of the encounters that go bad. That does not support any statement such as you have made.Go after the guilty when you find them, but don't paint them all with the same brush. You used that broad brush. You have no backing for your statement as fact. You cannot know that "gun owners have had our rights ground into the dust in most of our LE contacts" without knowing all LE contacts. You have no way of knowing the ratio of Good LE contacts vs "rights ground into the dust" LE contacts. You only know of the LE contacts of which you have read. That isn't all (or even a measurable majority) LE contacts. Fail. Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 04:14 am by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
The real point is that to an OCer, the only good firearms related contact with LE is no contact or when they tell you they are glad to see you carry. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
rpyne wrote: The real point is that to an OCer, the only good firearms related contact with LE is no contact or when they tell you they are glad to see you carry.That is a good point, but it was not his point. |
|||||||||
|
N6ATF Regular Member
|
wrightme wrote: rpyne wrote:The real point is that to an OCer, the only good firearms related contact with LE is no contact or when they tell you they are glad to see you carry.That is a good point, but it was not his point. Actually it was. And I've seen enough good stories to know that while they might not be so statistically insignificant as to lead to the statement: "we normally only hear of the encounters that go bad", they still do not number enough to put away the brush and say the majority of LE-to-law-abiding-gun-owner contacts are absolutely Constitutionally kosher as rpyne described. If you want a full accounting of every single contact in history, or even the last decade, don't hold your breath. The best we have is an informal sample here, and if you don't believe the representation is fair, then you should follow your own advice about getting your good LE-contactees to write stories and prove us all wrong. I'd love to see some proof that oaths to uphold the Constitution are the overriding, unbroken principle that most LE abide by, and they will fight those who violate this sacred trust. Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 05:30 am by N6ATF |
|||||||||
|
Gordie Regular Member
|
Most LEO encounters here are such non-events that they don't even bear remembering, much less reporting on. I know more than one LEO who could care less about a person being armed, if you don't go for yours, they won't go for theirs. I love rural Nv. Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 05:38 am by Gordie |
|||||||||
|
N6ATF Regular Member
|
Gordie wrote: Most LEO encounters here are such non-events that they don't even bear remembering, much less reporting on. I know more than one LEO who could care less about a person being armed, if you don't go for yours, they won't go for theirs. I love rural Nv. I've seen more than a few of us that have the mentality to add in the story if they carried and passed a cop, and the cop didn't bat an eye. Even sometimes going so far as to stand and take pictures next to to their cars. For those who have had bad encounters, it's all the more sweet to have a non-contact, for whatever reason (fear of lawsuit, not weak/straggling prey), or the rare oath keeper nodding, giving an atta-boy. Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 05:49 am by N6ATF |
|||||||||
|
Soilent Green Regular Member
|
Thought I'd just jump in on this one, even though it did make me tighten up. I've had L.E. pull up behind me twice while O.C. on my motorcycle and both times were uneventful. I'm sure once was Washoe County Sheriff and too dark for other one but think it was N.H.P. .Both times this summer within a month. So far so good for Reno area. I don't want to be apprehensive but I'm almost thinking it's just a matter of time......and I don't like thinking like that. Sorry, but what makes me feel that way......I'm not sure....these were both at traffic lights,heavy traffic. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
N6ATF wrote: wrightme wrote:What you do not understand is that the informal sample presented here is only an informal sample of those who desire to post their contact at all. Those who choose to become members here are likewise only an informal sample of the subject pool to begin with. There is no way possible to glean useful data analysis by judging any count of LE contacts from reading the threads therein.rpyne wrote:The real point is that to an OCer, the only good firearms related contact with LE is no contact or when they tell you they are glad to see you carry.That is a good point, but it was not his point. You have no data to make your claim. You have data that you interpret as you desire, but you have no factual basis for the claim you made based upon the limited sample you reviewed. Statistically, it is faulty. It matters not whether I believe the sampling to be fair or not. It does matter to the claim you present. It might be possible for you to make some claim that of the reports on OCDO, the majority of LE encounters are something, but that is not what you attempted to claim. |
|||||||||
|
joeschmo Regular Member
|
ixtow wrote: I openly admit to prejudice taught to me violently and repeatedly by those whom I 'paint with the same brush.' It's sad to see how ignorant some people really are. You want to know something funny though? For LEOs, this is a non-issue. They could really care less about your so called "fight." They aren't out to get you or to make your life difficult, they are out to do a job. While there are a few corrupt ones, 99% are better people that care more about this country than you ever will. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
joeschmo wrote: ixtow wrote:I openly admit to prejudice taught to me violently and repeatedly by those whom I 'paint with the same brush.' You have no idea what dirty LEOs have done to me and mine. Finding a decent one around here, well, it just doesn't happen. They're all on the take from the meth biz. If you had to deal with half of what I have, you wouldn't be alive to bitch about what crap you think I am. When the thug wears a badge, they get away with anything, and there isn't anyone noble and infallible for you to call and come save you. All you can do is try to survive and make sure the outcome looks like something they want to keep quiet. Yes, I hate cops. I have damn good reasons for it, and I still know how to keep my hate separate from my actions. Piss off. |
|||||||||
|
joeschmo Regular Member
|
Have a nice hate filled life  Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 11:55 am by joeschmo |
|||||||||
|
pedrop357 Regular Member
|
joeschmo wrote:It's sad to see how ignorant some people really are. You want to know something funny though? For LEOs, this is a non-issue. They could really care less about your so called "fight." They aren't out to get you or to make your life difficult, they are out to do a job. While there are a few corrupt ones, 99% are better people that care more about this country than you ever will. If they cared about this country as much as I do, they wouldn't allow the bad cops among them to erode the rights of its citizens, their overall morale, or their respect for the law, concepts of law and order, and those who are employed to enforce the law. Whenever a bad cop is doing bad cop things, how come there never seems to be a good cop nearby? In videos of police misconduct with more then one officer all of the police seem to be acting in an amazingly similar manner (almost a pack mentality). Not once have I seen a video of or read a report of a good cop stopping a bad cop from breaking the law or department policy. Given that only a small fraction of cops are bad, it seems mathematically improbably that nearly all of the bad cops in a department would get dispatched or find their way to the same call before all the good ones can come in and witness them doing bad cop things. Maybe the bad 1% all manage to form a tight network, yet simultaneously manage to stay under the radar of the good 99%. This isn't very reassuring, given that this is the same 99% we're supposed to trust to help us when the bad ones victimize us. If they can't flush them out after working closely with them, what chance do we have convincing one of the good ones that the guy next to them is the bad one? Assuming the OP was truthful, how many good cops came to his encounter? How many were respectful? How many DIDN'T threaten to arrest him for non-crimes? How many didn't take the stance that the law means what they say it means? The story is entirely believable in that the behavior is consistent with behavior documented hundreds, possibly thousands, of times in video and audio over the last 20+ years. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
I thought I'd share with you my analysis and breakdown of the crimes against me during that stop (please forgive the formatting, this site sucks at formatting!) Crime #1: 18 USC Sec 242 Per the FBI web site (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242) 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. During the stop, I was deprived of: 1) 2nd amendment right to be armed 2) 4th amendment right to be secure from search and seizure a) To be seized (detained) by law enforcement, they must have reasonable and articulable suspicion that the detainee has "committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime" (NRS 171.123). As I was merely walking on a public sidewalk, and police were unable to articulate a reasonable suspicion for detaining me, I was seized in violation of the law: i) Police can be heard admitting they have no lawful authority for detaining me when they admit at 07:10 in the recording that I do not match the description of any suspect (has committed). ii) Since walking down the street is not illegal, and carrying a firearm openly is not illegal, there was no crime in progress warranting the stop (is committing). iii) Again, since I was walking down the street and was not observed acting suspiciously, there was no reason to believe I was preparing to commit a crime (about to commit a crime). b) Though the stop was not lawful, if it had been, law enforcement must have then formed reasonable and articulable suspicion that the detainee was both armed and dangerous in order to frisk and/or seize any weapons (NRS 171.1232) i) Law allows an exterior pat-down frisk to determine the presence of weapons if the police have RAS. My shirt was lifted in violation of this provision of law despite my verbal and written refusal to consent to any searches. ii) Law allows confiscation of a weapon only if police have RAS that a suspect is dangerous. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled that since possession of a firearm is lawful behavior, it is not, by itself, considered dangerous. Police confiscated my weapon without RAS that I was a dangerous person. c) My wallet was taken from me and searched. Under duress (discussed later as coercion) I allowed police to take my ID only. Instead, they took my entire wallet and removed all the contents from it without permission or authority. d) At the conclusion of the stop, an officer disassembles my weapon and returns the ammunition to my left pocket. Though he simply could have dropped the bullet in my large pocket, he instead takes approximately 9 seconds to return the bullets, which in actuality was 1 second to drop them and 8 seconds to feel inside my pocket as he touched my keys, voice recorder, phone, cash, etc (since I carry my holster on the right side, everything I carry other than my wallet is in my left pocket). 3) 5th amendment right to remain silent a) I asserted my right immediately, both verbally and in writing, and yet I was asked directly-incriminatory questions a total of 9 times, each a separate violation of my rights: i) Recording index 00:49: "Do you have a blue card to carry that weapon?" (1) A Clark County resident in possession of an unregistered pistol has committed a misdemeanor. ii) Recording index 01:39: "First of all, are you an ex-felon?" (1) It is a violation of both federal (felony) and state (felony) law to an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. iii) Recording index 03:48: "I want to see a blue card." iv) Recording index 04:12: "Do you have a blue card for this gun?" v) Recording index 07:43: "...how do we know you're not a felon?" vi) Recording index 09:15: "...where's the blue card..." vii) Recording index 10:04: "How do we know you're not lying?" (1) Making a false statement to a police officer is a crime. viii) Recording index 14:04: "How do we know you're not giving us your buddy's name?" ix) Recording index 15:52: "How do I know this is not you?" 4) 6th amendment right to attorney a) In addition to the 9 questions asked in violation of my 5th amendment right to remain silent and not make potentially self-incriminating statements, I was questioned an additional 39 times without my attorney present, which I demanded both verbally and in writing at the inception of the detainment. Total count: 48 violations of 18 USC Sec 242 Crime #2: Nevada Law NRS 200.471 (Assault) "Assault means intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm." I had at least two guns pointed at me, and possibly others I could not see. I didn't know if there were rookies or nervous officers who were potentially drawing their service weapons for the first time. I absolutely felt fearful that my life was on the line and that an accidental discharge wasn't going to end well for me. Crime #3: Nevada Law NRS 200.481 (Battery) "Battery means any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another." Since the stop occurred absent reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime, it was not lawful, and drawing weapons and placing me in handcuffs were absolute uses of force without lawful authority. Crime #4: Nevada Law NRS 200.460 (False Imprisonment) "False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority." Again, since the officers did not have sufficient legal authority to detain me, I was confined by handcuffs and detained in the middle of a busy street illegally. Crime #5: Nevada Law NRS 200.380 (Robbery) "Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of anyone in his company at the time of the robbery." I was stopped by armed individuals and robbed of my personal property (firearm & wallet). Though the property was given back to me when they were done, the robbery still occurred and is not undone merely by the giving back of my property. Crime #6: Nevada Law NRS 207.190 (Coercion) "It is unlawful for a person, with the intent to compel another to do or abstain from doing an act which the other person has a right to do or abstain from doing, to: (a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of his family, or upon his property, or threaten such violence or injury; (b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder him in the use thereof; or (c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force." There are several counts of criminal coercion engaged in by officers: 1) At recording index 03:43, I repeated that I do not consent to be detained and would like to be released immediately with my property. Police responded by stating "I want to see a blue card" (03:48). This is coercion because their response suggests that I give them my blue card I can be released and sent on my way with my property. I have the right to carry a firearm without also carrying the blue card. 2) At recording index 06:00, I was asked for my date of birth. State law requires I identify myself by name (NRS 171.123) but specifically states "Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer." As I am not required by law to give this information, threatening me to do so is coercion. The threat is implied when the officer continues after asking for my date of birth with "Look look look, you're in a lot of @#$%." 3) At 09:15, an officer says "Help me out here, where's the blue card or we're just going to take the gun." Here I was threatened that if I do not give him my blue card or explain where it is, they would confiscate my weapon. I have the right to remain silent and not explain the whereabouts of my blue card, and the officer attempted to compel me to do otherwise under threat of loss of my property. 4) At 11:55, I ask the officer if I'm free to go. He responds "We can't find you in the computer." implying that no, I'm not free to go, and since I'm not in his system and that he will continue to make me stand here in handcuffs. I am tricked by his intimidation and give up the location of my birth, but realize his trick and refuse to give up my social security number. He goes back to the implied threat when he says "I can't run you, I don't know your name" at 14:00. 5) At 15:05, the officer threatens me with hindering his investigation. He says "If you want to keep hindering my investigation, I'm just going to put your gun in evidence, then you're going to have to explain to a judge why you're hindering an investigation, and why you wouldn't give me your information so I could give you your gun back". This is a clear threat that my refusal to give information the law does not require me to give and exercising my constitutional right to remain silent will require me to hire a lawyer and ask a judge for my property back, a very expensive proposition. 6) At 15:30, the officer asks me if I want to go to jail. I obviously respond that I do not. He responds immediately by saying "I need your social security number, I need to see your ID, and I need the blue card". Again, the threat is quite clear. If I don't give him my social security number, show him my ID, and explain the whereabouts of my blue card, I'm going to jail! A minute later, I give in to the threat, because I don't want to go to jail. He takes my wallet and I authorized him only to retrieve my ID. He instead empties all the contents without authority. 7) At 16:40, after illegally searching my wallet, he says "...you have to have that gun concealed." referring to the fact that I have a concealed weapon permit. Again, the threat is that they will continue to harass and detain me each and every time they see me and I am not concealing my weapon. I know the gun laws well and know that this is ludicrous and only once I laugh and call him out does he give up trying to coerce me into complying. 8) At 22:20, the officer rewards me with the return of my property. Except he intends to do it on his terms in a manner which I did not agree with. He separates my gun into three separate pieces. If I do anything other than the way he says to do it, I'll be arrested. He places my magazine out of my control and out of their control, on public property with lots of pedestrians nearby. I easily could have been the victim of theft. Every time I disagreed with his proposed return of my gun he threatened me, and at one point even told me to "Shut up...I'm trying to explain something to you politely." He can talk to me however he likes, but telling me he'll arrest me if I reload the magazine while he's still there is clearly criminal coercion. |
|||||||||
|
Vegassteve Regular Member
|
pedrop357 wrote:
Tim and his story are 100% true. I have heard the audio of the stop. It is sad that they did step all over his rights. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
joeschmo wrote: Have a nice hate filled life Aw, how cute. He thinks this is my whole life... I don't even have to rebut you anymore, anyone with a room temperature (or above) IQ can smell this rat. |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
joeschmo wrote:And you know this how?They aren't out to get you or to make your life difficult, they are out to do a job. While there are a few corrupt ones, 99% are better people that care more about this country than you ever will. my take on this is simple : there are enough corrupt cops to make it impossible to trust any of them. There are just far far too many civil rights violations going on at the hands of law enforcement to justify saying that 99% of them are "better people, or care more". If they violate a SINGLE--a SINGLE Constitutional right then most certainly they are not a "good cop". If they try to intimidate one of us, or buffalo any of us--then they are not "good". If they try to make up things as they go along, then they are not "good" or "better people". they should repeat 42 USC 1983 and 18 USC 241 and 242 a few times before they try to walk up to us and try to threaten, intimidate, harass or assault any of us. A single violation of any right guaranteed under the Constitution should be enough to cause them to lose their job at the very least, but what I would really and ideally like to see is federal civil rights prosecutions taking place and the message sent that "You shall not violate the Constitutional rights of any citizen" and think you can hide behind your badge. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
suntzu wrote: there are enough corrupt cops to make it impossible to trust any of them. There are just far far too many civil rights violations going on at the hands of law enforcement to justify saying that 99% of them are "better people, or care more". If they violate a SINGLE--a SINGLE Constitutional right then most certainly they are not a "good cop". If they try to intimidate one of us, or buffalo any of us--then they are not "good". If they try to make up things as they go along, then they are not "good" or "better people". This. + in a locale where the LEOs own and operate the Methamphetamine Business, even the 'good ones' have to play ball, or else. My ability to defend myself from them is field-proven. Don't question it. It's a @#$%ing war here. Only the oblivious and the collaborative are spared the experience. |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
timf343, have you been back in touch with the FBI about your complaint? What about the local department that you filed with? The local good ol' boy network requires them to sweep it under the rug if they think they can get away with it--at least that is how it works here in the southern part of the country. I would never let it rest until I had pushed it to the point of no return. Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 08:53 pm by suntzu |
|||||||||
|
suntzu Regular Member
|
ixtow wrote: suntzu wrote:collaborators can never be trusted either, and the oblivious really are not oblivious--they simply turn a blind eye because they don't want to see.there are enough corrupt cops to make it impossible to trust any of them. There are just far far too many civil rights violations going on at the hands of law enforcement to justify saying that 99% of them are "better people, or care more". If they violate a SINGLE--a SINGLE Constitutional right then most certainly they are not a "good cop". If they try to intimidate one of us, or buffalo any of us--then they are not "good". If they try to make up things as they go along, then they are not "good" or "better people". |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
I spoke with my attorney and he agreed I could speak with the IA folks. So I met with them this morning at 7am at their West Charleston office. I entered the office open carrying and when I met with the Detective assigned to my case I saw him notice the weapon. His Sgt came out and the three of us went into an interview room. They mentioned they were aware I was armed and that they were OK with that. I was mentally prepared for them to tell me I couldn't carry it, but they were cool. With their permission, I audio recorded the interview. At the conclusion of the investigation, I may release a copy of the tape, or at least portions of it, but agreed to withhold public release while their investigation was ongoing. It took an hour and a half, but at my attorney's direction, I didn't answer any questions that were not already in my typed complaint. They were professional and when asked whether I wanted criminal charges filed against the officers they were investigating, I hemmed and hawed a bit as I debated it with myself, but ultimately said that yes, I felt criminal charges were appropriate and I gave them a copy of the research I posted a few posts above citing the specific crimes I thought were broken. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
Vegassteve wrote: pedrop357 wrote:Assuming the OP was truthful, how many good cops came to his encounter? How many were respectful? How many DIDN'T threaten to arrest him for non-crimes? How many didn't take the stance that the law means what they say it means? How many good Officers were there? OK, lets count. How many Officers recognized and rejected the behavior of the bad ones? How many Officers arrested the Officers who were committing FELONIES against Tim? How many of these Officers were fired, suspended, or even talked mean to by an Officer who recognized and rejected the criminal behavior they wer committing? Zero. Zero is how many "good apples" were present. |
|||||||||
|
riverrat10k Regular Member 
|
I have missed this thread until today. Tim, it looks like you have a helluva case. Best of luck to you and repost any legal funds info if you would. Sic Semper Tyrannus Last edited on Sat Oct 31st, 2009 03:00 am by riverrat10k |
|||||||||
|
joeschmo Regular Member
|
ixtow wrote: Vegassteve wrote:pedrop357 wrote:Assuming the OP was truthful, how many good cops came to his encounter? How many were respectful? How many DIDN'T threaten to arrest him for non-crimes? How many didn't take the stance that the law means what they say it means? There is a thing called a chain of command. Tim's stop was initiated by a Sergeant, or a supervisor. All other officers are below a Sergeant in seniority and rank, and just like the military, you don't question your superiors without being in serious trouble for insubordination, especially when it's in public. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
At the stop, I was interrogated by 3 officers. The other officers were standing around and said nothing. I imagine their job was just to keep me in line. There was one officer for example who just stood behind me. As joeschmo said, and I tend to agree, the other officers were subordinate to Sgt Miller who initiated the stop. The Sgt needn't explain his reasons for the stop (to them). It was probably just like any other call in which he needed backup. So I would expect there were at least a few who were ordered to the scene who did not have any background whatsoever, and therefore did not necessarily know the stop was unlawful. My protests probably sounded a lot like any other suspect who didn't want to be in handcuffs. |
|||||||||
|
N6ATF Regular Member
|
There is a difference between "deferring to those who were there from the beginning" and "just following orders". I was taught by a retired peace officer that every LEO in CA (except for the reserves and perhaps probationers) has exactly the same POST certification and authority by law. So even if the chief of police/sheriff makes an unlawful "order" (really just a suggestion), the line officers have exactly the same authority and can decline the suggestion. Internal affairs is not the singular division in every agency that has more authority to actually enforce the law against its fellow officers - they are merely formally organized to deal with bad cops that any officer can and should investigate on his own, if he abides by his oath. Last edited on Sat Oct 31st, 2009 07:55 am by N6ATF |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
joeschmo wrote: ixtow wrote:Vegassteve wrote:pedrop357 wrote:Assuming the OP was truthful, how many good cops came to his encounter? How many were respectful? How many DIDN'T threaten to arrest him for non-crimes? How many didn't take the stance that the law means what they say it means? And just like in the Military, you don't have to, and have a duty NOT to, follow orders of a criminal nature. |
|||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran
|
I understand, my only point was that some of the officers may not have known the stop to be absent RAS if they were called in as backup. Sgt Miller knew he had no RAS. Two plain clothes officers knew they had no RAS. But the others may have had no knowledge that the stop was unlawful. And for this reason, my allegations are that only three officers were involved in misconduct in this stop. |
|||||||||