Man arrested for OC in Colorado Springs park.

[PikesPeakMtnMan]

http://www.krdo.com/news/Gun-charge...ake/-/417220/16059590/-/12mb2f5z/-/index.html

Good news! Here's to hoping that this is only the first step, you need to make sure that they are still held accountable for violating your rights.

 

[Wolfstanus]

Quick question. Did they ever read his Miranda rights to him? As memory serves they are supposed to read him his rights as they are arresting him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jthe88mike]

Quick question. Did they ever read his Miranda rights to him? As memory serves they are supposed to read him his rights as they are arresting him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

well I DID NOT get them read and I asked y not at the station and the oficer that was with me stated I was not under aresset so the did not have to. but on the video i was arested. so I think that they should have been because i was taken away from the seen and my partner had to geusse where they took mer

 

[Wolfstanus]

I have no words...

 

[M-Taliesin]

Still searching for some " balance" here.
<Snip>
Are his officers nothing more than " enforcers " employed to keep the citizenry in order - until we figure out on Monday morning what THE LAW actually is ???

We probably witnessed a glimpse of what was to come when this Chief of Police promptly defended the Aurora PD's unlawful assault upon law-abiding citizens after the Wells Fargo incident a month ago.

<Snip>

An "American Pride" celebration would seem to be in order at Acacia Park to celebrate - among other things -our constitutional right to bear arms in defense of our persons- despite the reluctance of some in our midst to respect that right.

Howdy Pard!
I'd like to address something that hasn't been said here, but should have been. The average cop carries a copy of the entire Colorado Revised Statutes in his car. He'll reference that manual when he needs to write out a complaint or other infraction that needs to be stipulated on the paperwork. They have a working knowledge of the laws, but still need to rely heavily on reference material.

Meanwhile, Sargeants are supposed to be much better informed as to the laws of both their municipality and the state. They are supposed to know the laws without much reliance on manuals. They are supposed to *know* the law. I saw this happen first hand when I rode with an Adams County deputy who wanted to bust somebody for having an illegal weapon, found in his car, but his supervisor nixed that idea because the vehicle is considered an extension of his home. He can have it in his home, he can have it in his car. That was the jist of it, and that particular charge had to be dumped from the complaint. Obstructing a police officer, however, stuck.

Point being, the street deputy was corrected by his supervisor. That's the role a sargeant is supposed to play. The role of supervisor, who has much more experience and training than the average street cop, and knows the law much better. So why would a supervisor rely on a cheat sheet?????????? It totally boggles the mind, unsettles the conscience, and disturbs good order. Along the way, the law got trampled on along with a citizen's rights.

We saw it happen in Aurora on June 2nd when they did a mass detention of innocent citizens, removing them from their cars at gun point, and soliciting permission to search their vehicles under profound duress. We saw it happen in a theater in Thornton. We see it happening in Colorado Springs. It appears, based on even casual observation, that the police have little regard for the people of their jurisdiction, having sworn an oath to serve them, instead now see themselves as overseers and masters of the people. Do we relish the idea that they can now render us subjects rather than citizens? Do we sit idly by and allow police agencies to run roughshod over the rights of the people who pay them with tax dollars? Who hath created emnity here?

There has not been raised any question that the job is dangerous. Nor has it been hinted that these people lack courage. But they cannot do the job of a law enforcement officer while simulataneously being illiterate as to the very law they are sworn to uphold. Abuses flower in the fertilized ground of ignorance. And it cannot be let slide. Regardless of their dedication, noble service, stripes on their sleeves, they cannot simultaneously enforce the law while breaking it!

I love the idea of an AMERICAN PRIDE day, when we can put aside the differences we quarrel, and work together to ensure liberty. So long as government can enjoy a certain impunity when the citizens quarrel amonst themselves, the attention of the people being divided - each against his neighbor, they get away with egregious abuse. Oppression, regardless of the fascade of benevolence, still remains oppressive!

This is not the liberty envisioned by our founders. It is a tainted vessel filled to the brim with the very sort of thing our patriots rebelled against when imposed by a foreign king. Now we need no such intervention, because we knight those who wear the badge, giving a false sovereignty, and dare not hold them accountable for any wrongdoing. Why? Because the job is dangerous? There is extreme peril when we sacrifice liberty for safety, and end up with neither.

What we see emerging is the natural evolution in jurisprudance. There is one set of law for them, and another entirely for you and I.
We hear much about 'take back America'. We'd better be getting after it, before there is no longer an America to take back!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[MKEgal]

Did they ever read his Miranda rights to him? As memory serves they are supposed to read him his rights as they are arresting him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's Hollywood.
According to both my lawyers, rights must be read before a custodial interrogation.
So they can arrest you (and once you think you're under arrest, you are, whether or not they've said the word), drag you in handcuffs to their station, search you, hold you for 12 hours (unknown indefinite period - ask a lawyer), all without reading you your rights.
DAMHIK.
Even though they don't tell you, you have the right to remain silent.
USE IT.
Tell them in no uncertain terms, "I want my lawyer, her/his name is ______, & until s/he is here I will exercise my right to remain silent."

I add the "her name is" part because of a quirk of law here in WI (may not apply in your state, but can't hurt) that says if you simply ask for "a lawyer", they don't have to provide one until your arraignment. If you ask for a lawyer by name the time they can prevent contact is much shorter.

 

[JoeSparky]

Senior officers need a cheat sheet? So.....who exactly is providing OJT for the nubs? I guess this explains why the nubs get it wrong right out of the gate.

You folks in CO must have some very cryptic firearms laws if the PoPo can't figure them out.

I like to think that I am fairly current with respect to most of the UTAH based Firearms carry laws... but I don't have the legal cite numbers actually memorized. Add the need for the officers, even "senior" one to actually be able to cite the exact code when issuing one a summons ect I don't see the use of a "cheat sheet" as a negative.

 

[M-Taliesin]

Add the need for the officers, even "senior" one to actually be able to cite the exact code when issuing one a summons ect I don't see the use of a "cheat sheet" as a negative.

Howdy Pard!
I think your opinion would be a whole lot different if you were hauled off to jail in handcuffs, your firearm confiscated, and your rights abridged, because of their reliance on a cheat sheet. Their cheat sheet should be the actual law, not some Reader's Digest version thereof! That does double when it contains bad information used to slam you into a jail cell!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[Bellum_Intus]

I like to think that I am fairly current with respect to most of the UTAH based Firearms carry laws... but I don't have the legal cite numbers actually memorized. Add the need for the officers, even "senior" one to actually be able to cite the exact code when issuing one a summons ect I don't see the use of a "cheat sheet" as a negative.

I can understand a 'cheat sheet' HOWEVER.. the muni code they were citing was REPEALED in 2003 .. I'm sorry, it's common knowledge even in the LE community that most firearm related muni codes were nullified in 2003..

So... while I am likely one of the 2 most supportive of LE here on the CO forums, I am NOT happy about what I saw from SENIOR officers here in Colorado Springs..

--Rob

 

[LoneEchoWolf]

I emailed the Chief, and Mayor a while ago and am still awaiting there replies, i assume they will not even reply as they assume it will be a case and do not want to "comment on it" but hopefully they will get back to me, i really hope others will also email them and start asking questions, so this does not just "go away." the first day i called CSPD and asked of there policy on OC in there parks and the uncertainty from even the operator who could and did easily look up the information once i called her on the BS statutes she was trying to say. it all smells iffy and they already have there "shields up" protecting these officers who should already be in the unemployment line. We have got to keep on them as this concerns ever single OC'er in or traveling through springs!

 

[PikesPeakMtnMan]

I want to write the mayor and the chief as well, but I'm not so good with writing effective letters. I know that it doesn't really matter but being able to use big words appropriately almost always has a greater impact than what I could say which would be something along the lines of "you suck!".

I know the things that I want to say but I'm unable to write it as effectively as I see it in my head...

 

[LoneEchoWolf]

I want to write the mayor and the chief as well, but I'm not so good with writing effective letters. I know that it doesn't really matter but being able to use big words appropriately almost always has a greater impact than what I could say which would be something along the lines of "you suck!".

I know the things that I want to say but I'm unable to write it as effectively as I see it in my head...

I'm not the greatest writer either, but when it comes down to it I'm not half bad. If you are thinking of having someone craft a well worded letter that you can use i would PM M-Taliesin hes great at word crafting and i could see him helping you a great deal! he has a whole lot on his plate at the moment but he can maybe help with some advice. id do it for you but i am not sure how it would come out. if i get around to getting back in my email i can pm you the email i sent to them also.

Idoesn'tnhave toto be great just get the basic points out, That they in respectfulul way of saying it "suck" and violated every single OC'er trust in there judgmentnt as well as putting us all at risk, its good to cite so try to cite the Springs statute that they tried to use and the Real statute which is Colorado Preemption. Also add that you hold them accountable for there actions and there officers actions. thats a round about way, of course throw in some huge words and cites try to keep your emotions out of it, which is extremely hard. its more the point of someone saying something, than How its said. thats my opinion though!

 

[PikesPeakMtnMan]

I'm not the greatest writer either, but when it comes down to it I'm not half bad. If you are thinking of having someone craft a well worded letter that you can use i would PM M-Taliesin hes great at word crafting and i could see him helping you a great deal! he has a whole lot on his plate at the moment but he can maybe help with some advice. id do it for you but i am not sure how it would come out. if i get around to getting back in my email i can pm you the email i sent to them also.

Idoesn'tnhave toto be great just get the basic points out, That they in respectfulul way of saying it "suck" and violated every single OC'er trust in there judgmentnt as well as putting us all at risk, its good to cite so try to cite the Springs statute that they tried to use and the Real statute which is Colorado Preemption. Also add that you hold them accountable for there actions and there officers actions. thats a round about way, of course throw in some huge words and cites try to keep your emotions out of it, which is extremely hard. its more the point of someone saying something, than How its said. thats my opinion though!

If I get some time to sit down and think it out I may be able to come up with something intelligible, but I won't turn down any offers of advice/help either!

 

[LoneEchoWolf]

If I get some time to sit down and think it out I may be able to come up with something intelligible, but I won't turn down any offers of advice/help either!

sent ya a copy of mine to your inbox

 

[JoeSparky]

I can understand a 'cheat sheet' HOWEVER.. the muni code they were citing was REPEALED in 2003 .. I'm sorry, it's common knowledge even in the LE community that most firearm related muni codes were nullified in 2003..

So... while I am likely one of the 2 most supportive of LE here on the CO forums, I am NOT happy about what I saw from SENIOR officers here in Colorado Springs..

--Rob

Understood, and the OPINION ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS would do well (and their employing agencies) to at least annually update and revise ALL such cheat sheets if for no other reason to but help the Officers actually be LEO's instead of OEO's!

 

[Bellum_Intus]

Understood, and the OPINION ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS would do well (and their employing agencies) to at least annually update and revise ALL such cheat sheets if for no other reason to but help the Officers actually be LEO's instead of OEO's!

haha!! Good one =) I like that.. OEO's..

--Rob

 

[PikesPeakMtnMan]

My letter to Mayor Bach and Police Chief Carey

Here is the letter that I plan on sending to Mayor Bach and Police Chief Carey. Before I send it I'm posting it here for feedback. Please know that it's not actually ready for sending out and I'm probably already aware of the major issues (such as not having a quoted threat, still need to watch the video again). Be gentle on me...

Dear Mayor Bach, Chief Carey

It has come to my attention that recently a gentleman was improperly arrested for carrying a visible holstered handgun in a city park. You can read a KRDO article regarding the arrest at the following link: http://www.krdo.com/news/Gun-charge...ake/-/417220/16059590/-/12mb2f5z/-/index.html and view a video taken of the arrest here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5TzoDTH_zM&feature=share

My concern is that a number of police officers and supervisors were not only unaware of the laws that they were supposed to be enforcing, threats of violence were made to the gentleman by the officers (“threat”).

This gentleman, Mr. Sorensen, was well within his rights and the law to openly carry his firearm such as he was. Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 29-11.7-103 and 29-11.7-101 clearly state that many local ordinances regarding firearms are preempted by state law and 29-11.7-104 sets forth the limited actions a city may take to regulate open carry or firearms. This preemption includes Colorado Springs Code 9.9.409(B) listed on the CSPD “cheat sheet” under which Mr. Sorensen was arrested. While the current city code is correct under state law, the “cheat sheet” was clearly not updated in nearly a decade. This alarming oversight resulted in an illegal arrest of a citizen of Colorado Springs.

The applicable parts of the referenced laws are below:

C.R.S. § 29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm - prohibited.
A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.

C.R.S. § 29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:
…
(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution protects the fundamental right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of article II of the state constitution;
…
(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to firearms regulations;

(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;

(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis for denial of equal treatment under the law;
…
(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:

(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;

(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.

C.R.S. § 29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying – posting.
A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

Colorado Springs City Code 9.9.409: FIREARMS; DISCHARGE:
B.It is unlawful for any person to fire or discharge any firearm within any park. The discharge of firearms using only blank ammunition by members of any military company when on parade, or when engaged in an official ceremony, and under the command of the commanding officer, or as authorized by the Director through a temporary park permit, or the lawful discharge of any firearms by a peace officer, shall not be deemed a violation of this section.
​

As a resident of Colorado Springs (and a lifelong resident of Colorado) and a gun owner I frequently carry a holstered handgun for personal protection and the protection of my loved ones. While I do possess a Concealed Handgun Permit, I also will “open carry” my handgun in the same manner that Mr. Sorensen was when he was arrested. I am appalled by the actions and statements of the officers and supervisors in the video and up until now I have not been concerned for my own safety or freedoms at the hands of CSPD. I am worried that I or another open carrier may also be improperly arrested for completely lawful activity unless immediate actions (including training) take place within the Police Department. Violations of the rights of citizens not only reflect poorly on this fine city, its police department and its leadership but also open up those individuals and agencies involved to lawsuit for those violations.

I look forward to your reply regarding what actions you will take and what changes in training will happen because of this situation.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and provide me with a prompt reply.
Sincerely,

So....? Opinion, advice, critiques....?

 

[rushcreek2]

Excellent letter PikesPeakMan. Your expressed concerns are shared by all of us.

The cynical side of my brain keeps wondering whether this "mistake" might have possibly been the product of "intelligent design", since it has had the convenient consequence of affording officers much greater latitude in "keeping the peace" in City Parks. This "mistake" also created plausible deniability in regards to at least one example of extra-legal interference by CSPD with the free exercise of the Article 2, Section 13 right under COLORADO LAW.

Perhaps there are other "mistakes" on such cheat-sheets yet to be revealed. One possibility that comes to mind is enforcement practices regarding the application of CRS 18-12-108 (Possession of weapons by previous offenders) . I am sure that CRS 18-12-108 is represented on the CSPD cheat-sheet - at least in an abreviated form. Afterall, it's "common knowledge" that convicted felons may not possess firearms - isn't that right ?

This "common knowledge" perception of the provisions of CRS 18-12-108 unfortunately fails to take into account annotations citing U.S., and Colorado case law regarding the Article 7, Section 10 provision of the Colorado Constitution RESTORING the Article 2, Section 13 right to keep & bear arms for the purpose of defending home, person, & property upon completion of the offender's sentence. It would be a worthwhile endeavor for the Colorado ACLU to look further into this issue as well.

Perhaps it's about time for some serious "Housekeeping 101" at CSPD - as well as every other law enforcement agency in Colorado.

 

[Deepdiver36]

Miranda Rights

It is a common misnomer that you have to have your Miranda Rights read to you at the time of arrest.

Miranda rights apply when LEO's are asking you questions. People are often arrested and processed without being questioned and not provided their Miranda Rights. On the flip side, people can be provided their Miranda Rights and never arrested.

I was told once that officers get in the habit of reading you your Miranda Rights during an arrest just in case they ask you a question and you decided to waive your right to remain silent.

Glad to see this was quickly dropped.

 

[PikesPeakMtnMan]

I sent my letter to the police chief and the mayor, so I'll see what kind of response I get.