Some Police Interactions in NEPA

[Tomahawk]

imported post

"aren't the droids you're looking for"

F'ing awesome. Wish I had the guts you do.

 

[JoeSparky]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

JoeSparky wrote:

jahwarrior72 wrote:

no, i'm not suing. i couldn't really, even if i wanted to. lawyers around here wouldn't touch my case with a 10' long, irradiated pole. if it were a 1A or 4A issue, they would, but not a 2A issue. even if i could find one, i couldn't afford the retainer. i'll have to settle for being a pain in the Scranton PDs ass for awhile. since the incident, i've been making weekly visits to the station, to get updates, and to let them know i'm not going away.

What you have described is A 4A issue... one of Unwarranted seizure of your property and person!

Now, now. Terry and all the detentions ever done under its cover were unwarranted.

OK word games afoot here...

As to my comment above about this being an "Unwarranted" seizure, I meant "Unwarrented" in the context of no RAS and no basis for getting a WARRANT, and in fact not having a Warrent!

Terry stops are UNWARRANTED in the context of NO WARRANT but there IS RAS and as such are therefore LEGAL as presently interpreted by the courts.:lol::lol::what::what:

Citizen... touche!

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

JoeSparky wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Now, now. Terry and all the detentions ever done under its cover were unwarranted.

OK word games afoot here...

As to my comment above about this being an "Unwarranted" seizure, I meant "Unwarrented" in the context of no RAS and no basis for getting a WARRANT, and in fact not having a Warrent!

Terry stops are UNWARRANTED in the context of NO WARRANT but there IS RAS and as such are therefore LEGAL as presently interpreted by the courts.:lol::lol::what::what:

Citizen... touche!

Citizen doesn't mince words but he does half a few that aren't entirely a whole.

Yata hey

 

[Statkowski]

imported post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnjaUoR15dU

 

[jahwarrior]

imported post

i've recently received an update from Lt. Thomas, the daytime shift commander for the Scranton PD during the day. the main officer in question was given a formal reprimand, and the entire shift received the updated MPOETC training memo on open carry, again. he made copies of the one i printed out for him, and they are now posted on the wall. he made sure to specify, though, that officers on his shift were made aware of the legality of open carry. so, i guess that's something.

 

[Venator]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

jahwarrior72 wrote:

SNIP if it were a 1A or 4A issue, they would, but not a 2A issue.

Jedi mind tricks? ROFL!!!!!!!



Separately, this stop was almost entirely a 4A and 5A issue. I know this isn't going to change any attorney or ACLU opinions in Jahwarriors neighborhood. I'm highlighting for readers that when you are illegally detained, etc., it is not particularly a 2A issue.

The non-consensual nature of the encounter throws it into the category of a Terry Stop.[suP]1[/suP] Terry and related court opinions are most definitely 4A case law.

The ID document demand throws it into the category of Hiibel.[suP]2[/suP] Hiibelis most definitely 5th Amendment case law.

I mention this because I would like to see formal complaints that focus on the 4A and 5A violations. I am convinced from reports on this forum and wider reading that it is not all that uncommon for police to violate 4A and 5A rights this way.

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html



2. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

Below is a Slide show for Michigan LEOs on Open carry. While biased for the police, it does have several court case citations. It may benefit some.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Venator wrote:

Below is a Slide show for Michigan LEOs on Open carry. While biased for the police, it does have several court case citations. It may benefit some.

Excellent!

Yata hey

 

[Mike]

imported post

Very good - one negative - they forgot the finding of likely to be "armed and presently dangerous" requirement in Terry before the frinsk - this can be important if an officer thinks they can frisk all those armed, e.g., open carriers.

 

[brboyer]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Very good - one negative - they forgot the finding of likely to be "armed and presently dangerous" requirement in Terry before the frinsk - this can be important if an officer thinks they can frisk all those armed, e.g., open carriers.

Convenient, huh? They did not forget, it is very intentional. Pretty typical. Most officers that I have encountered here in Florida think they can perform a search (frisk) just because of the presence of the firearm. (ETA: Extremely limited Open Carry in Florida)

Even the Florida codification of Terry says:

Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon.

Unconstitutional, but there it is...

 

[PT111]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Very good - one negative - they forgot the finding of likely to be "armed and presently dangerous" requirement in Terry before the frinsk - this can be important if an officer thinks they can frisk all those armed, e.g., open carriers.

LOL - I constantly read on this board that to get correct advice you need to consult an attorney. Yet it seemswhen one attorney says something there is always another waiting to correct him. So just who are we supposed to believe. At a recent gun show I was talking with the fellows that had written a book on thestate gun laws. While talking to them I pointed out some things that even they did not realize and supposedly they had "written the bookn on it". It just gose to show that no matter how careful you are someone is going to find something wrong with what you did.

On the point of "presently dangerous" requirement are you saying that the LEO must feel that his life is in danger before performing the "Frisk"? From the presentation it only said that he must have reason to suspect that there is a weapon involved.

“Reasonable Suspicion to Frisk” When an officer, in light of experience and training, is aware of articulable facts or circumstances, which could lead a reasonably-prudent person to believe that the person may be armed with a weapon.

 

[brboyer]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Mike wrote:

Very good - one negative - they forgot the finding of likely to be "armed and presently dangerous" requirement in Terry before the frinsk - this can be important if an officer thinks they can frisk all those armed, e.g., open carriers.

LOL - I constantly read on this board that to get correct advice you need to consult an attorney. Yet it seemswhen one attorney says something there is always another waiting to correct him. So just who are we supposed to believe. At a recent gun show I was talking with the fellows that had written a book on thestate gun laws. While talking to them I pointed out some things that even they did not realize and supposedly they had "written the bookn on it". It just gose to show that no matter how careful you are someone is going to find something wrong with what you did.

On the point of "presently dangerous" requirement are you saying that the LEO must feel that his life is in danger before performing the "Frisk"? From the presentation it only said that he must have reason to suspect that there is a weapon involved.

“Reasonable Suspicion to Frisk” When an officer, in light of experience and training, is aware of articulable facts or circumstances, which could lead a reasonably-prudent person to believe that the person may be armed with a weapon.

"So just who are we supposed to believe' - The one you are paying for his/her opinion.

"are you saying that the LEO must feel that his life is in danger before performing the "Frisk"? " No, we are saying that the LEO must have PC (or RS) to believe that the person is armed and dangerous.

 

[PT111]

imported post

brboyer wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Mike wrote:

Very good - one negative - they forgot the finding of likely to be "armed and presently dangerous" requirement in Terry before the frinsk - this can be important if an officer thinks they can frisk all those armed, e.g., open carriers.

LOL - I constantly read on this board that to get correct advice you need to consult an attorney. Yet it seemswhen one attorney says something there is always another waiting to correct him. So just who are we supposed to believe. At a recent gun show I was talking with the fellows that had written a book on thestate gun laws. While talking to them I pointed out some things that even they did not realize and supposedly they had "written the bookn on it". It just gose to show that no matter how careful you are someone is going to find something wrong with what you did.

On the point of "presently dangerous" requirement are you saying that the LEO must feel that his life is in danger before performing the "Frisk"? From the presentation it only said that he must have reason to suspect that there is a weapon involved.

“Reasonable Suspicion to Frisk” When an officer, in light of experience and training, is aware of articulable facts or circumstances, which could lead a reasonably-prudent person to believe that the person may be armed with a weapon.

"So just who are we supposed to believe' - The one you are paying for his/her opinion.

"are you saying that the LEO must feel that his life is in danger before performing the "Frisk"? " No, we are saying that the LEO must have PC (or RS) to believe that the person is armed and dangerous.

Yep it's great that you pay a lawyer $1,500 to handle the closing on your house and when you get though signing all the papers he looks at you and says I need a check for $80,000 from you when you are supposed to be getting a check for $40,000. After 10 minutesof explaining to the lawyer how he drew up the entire salebackwards you finally convince him ofwhat you had been telling him the entire time.

Or after paying a lawyer $4,000 to handle the sale of a business you take a lawsuit filed against you to him and he says looks like I scewed up. I don't handle those types of cases but will be glad to recommend someone to you. The fact is that I put about as much faith in an attorney's opinion on most dealings as the opinion's onthis board. At least here I don't have to pay for bad advice with no recourse.


Remember that even an Attorney General's published opinion or a published State Document such as a Drivers Handbook is not a legal defense for a violation of the law. They can also be wrong.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Yep it's great that you pay a lawyer $1,500 to handle the closing on your house and when you get though signing all the papers he looks at you and says I need a check for $80,000 from you when you are supposed to be getting a check for $40,000. After 10 minutesof explaining to the lawyer how he drew up the entire salebackwards you finally convince him ofwhat you had been telling him the entire time.

Or after paying a lawyer $4,000 to handle the sale of a business you take a lawsuit filed against you to him and he says looks like I scewed up. I don't handle those types of cases but will be glad to recommend someone to you. The fact is that I put about as much faith in an attorney's opinion on most dealings as the opinion's onthis board. At least here I don't have to pay for bad advice with no recourse.


Remember that even an Attorney General's published opinion or a published State Document such as a Drivers Handbook is not a legal defense for a violation of the law. They can also be wrong.

Why would a prudent person sign closing papers on a real estate transaction without reading them? Yes, I know they are long and involved.

Every attorney has opinions. Every judge renders opinions - up to and including SCOTUS. Before we tear down this system and throw it in the trash heap, we had better have a better one waiting.

Here you do indeed have to pay for bad advice - if you take it & follow through with it - and I might add, without recourse.

Yata hey

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

SNIP...you do indeed have to pay for bad advice...

That's why we all like you so much, Grapeshot--because we don't have to pay for your bad advice.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

SNIP...you do indeed have to pay for bad advice...

That's why we all like you so much, Grapeshot--because we don't have to pay for your bad advice.

Then again you get the good for the same price.

BTW - Slow down, I'm tired o' running. Note to self - wait for him around the bend.

Yata hey

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Then again you get the good for the same price.

Oh? When is that on sale?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

BTW - Slow down, I'm tired o' running.

'sOK. You're still ahead about 300 to 1 in witty comebacks. (sigh)

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

BTW - Slow down, I'm tired o' running.

'sOK. You're still ahead about 300 to 1 in witty comebacks. (sigh)

You do forgive me my paltry jabs, do you not?

Only yes or no answer permitted.

Yata hey

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

SNIP You do forgive me my paltry jabs, do you not?

Why are you jabbing chickens?

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

SNIP You do forgive me my paltry jabs, do you not?

Why are you jabbing chickens?

Because it amuses me, thinking of you with their feet in your pockets.

Tell us, Citizen, what does a rooster say when the sun comes up?

DNFWAOM :lol:

Yata hey