OC, Disorderly Conduct and the Fourteenth Amendment

[deepdiver]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Then point out that cops can't just shoot crooks to make them easier to catch, (except under some very specific circumstances, but you can add this later.)

I don't know if it is still on the books but in NC the Governor could declare someone an outlaw which meant they were to be shot on sight. That was an example of shooting crooks to make them easier to catch. I think the term was outlaw, maybe someone from NC can fill us in on it.

That's a handy law to have - maybe we can get him to declare all MS-13 members outlaws and solve a social problem quickly and easily. If nothing else they will all move to Chicago which in a way does further solve the problem

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Venator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Venator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Now I do not agree that someone walking around with a gun would automatically be disorderly. That is just dumb. The police should not be going after people that are armed to charge them if there are no citizens making a complaint. I would need a victim to come forward.

So, if someone (The so called victim)said I was being disorderly while just openly carrying, you would arrest me for DC? I mightfind it disorderly andscary to see someone wearing a fur coat, as fur is murder, are you going to arrest them if I claim they are disordering my sense of well being?

Nope....

Now if you entered a private party that was for anti gun members and your being there with a gun is obviously not welcome. Your there just to stir things up and IF...... big IF..... the state code for disorderly conduct covered this type of act... then ya!! You get a ticket.

But as I said... it is not something that is automatic unless there is a state code that says so.

That's not what you stated. As for your recent example, only if the party was on private property and I was asked to leave. If the gathering of anti's was on public land I have a right to be there. But as you say depending on state and local laws.

Stated where?

The entire thing is open for a debate that is far too broad. The use of the DC violation is probably written very differently in each state so we are exploiting code as a whole without anything to even back it up.

I am not sure why you are so fixated on my speculation anyway. I am not taking you to court for this am I? :lol:

 

[Venator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I am not sure why you are so fixated on my speculation anyway. I am not taking you to court for this am I? :lol:

Not yet! I just like to pick apart some of the things you say. You have some interesting points of view, especially being a former Michigander.

 

[Liko81]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Citizen wrote:

What is the DC statute in your state? Can you post it for us?

1301. Disorderly conduct; unclassified misdemeanor.

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when:
(1) The person intentionally causes public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to any other person, or creates a risk thereof by:

a. Engaging in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
b. Making an unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture ordisplay, or addressing abusive language to any person present; or
c. Disturbing any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful
authority...

That's the only wording I am worried about. The "display" prohibited here likely refers to gang signs, flipping the bird, etc. but it can also be construed as display of a weapon. In order for you to be convicted of disorderly conduct, the prosecution has to prove intent to cause public alarm, but that's a question of fact for the jury, not the arresting officer (who could in making the arrest say that the conscious decision to wear openly was evidence of intent to disturb or alarm, so if you have the misfortune to encounter a real power-tripper wearing a badge and a gun you could easily find yourself wearing the silver bracelets in the back seat of a cruiser.

None of this, however, is justice. If you ever have the serious misfortune to find yourself arrested for OCwhen it is legal to do so, you get the arresting officer's name and badge number, the department head's name, the jurisdiction chief's (or sherriff's) name, and all three of them plus the department itself should appear on the next lawsuit filed in the applicable court, for false arrest and unlawful detention.

 

[sidestreet]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Citizen wrote:

With regard to your earlier tactic, I think it will fail on the listener. It requires the listener to have a pre-existing agreement that police and citizens are equal.

Perhaps if you begin by explaining that the police are bound to laws, just as we are, the conversation might have a better start.

Can officers murder? No.

Can officers embezzle? No.

Can officers assault someone? No.

Can an officer speed? No.

And, with those last two, the person will realize or mention, "Well, if they're on duty, there are exemptions." And surely there are -- the exemptions are built into those laws; however, as proved by the first two examples, exemptions aren't universal across the Criminal Code.

The laws are meant to be equally applied to those whom they affect and are not exempt. Again, I know that we know this, but I'd love for the layperson to understand it.

*sigh*

Sorry to be a nitpicker, but you've hit my pet peeve button...namely, the difference between the actual meanings of the words "can" and "may". Not understanding the difference can get folks in a lot of trouble, by getting or giving a false impression. This is one of the biggest beefsI have with the media, as they are constantly misusing the two, either accidentally, or intentionally.

If you want this taken properly, you'll have to use "may" instead of"can".

Can officers murder? Yes they can, they have, and they will continue to, unfortunately. They have killed, they are killing, and they will continue to kill, either justifiably or unjustifiably.May they murder? I guess we'll have to clarify exactlywhat we mean by "kill" and "murder", and there are a number of definitions and laws covering that.

Canofficers embezzle? Sure they can, some have and some will in the future. May officers embezzle? No, and as before, there are a number of laws covering that too.

Let's skip the assault thing, because it will only berepetitive.

Can officers speed? Well, you've already mention the exceptions part.

Wynder, I know, you know, we know whatpoints we're talking about, and don't think for a second that I'marguing with any of you. Just wanted to warn you about folks (like me) that will catch the incorrect usage of "can" and "may",and willuseit totry and discredit yourstatements.

Ioften have to correct my students when we have classes. They will invariably say that according toVirginia laws, "You can't take a gun to a church, or a bar, or a restaurant, or a school...", only to be told "That isn't exactly correct, and I'll tell you why." Much can be missed, and great harm can be done by not reading, and/or not comprehending, the entire code section.

Anyway, not ranting,we "can" say what we want, but take care that it "may" not be taken the wrong way.

We are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

 

[SQLtables]

imported post

sidestreet wrote:

Anyway, not ranting,we "can" say what we want, but take care that it "may" not be taken the wrong way.

According to your argument, and using context clues to infer that you are using "may" referring to.. well, "having permission to", this sentence is wrong because what we say may be taken the wrong way.

Be careful when you critique others; have it right yourself first. :dude:



But yes, I get somewhat annoyed when people miss the difference between "can" and "may" also, even though I'm sure I do it myself. Then again, this is the internet.

 

[sidestreet]

imported post

Thanks SQLtables,help me out here whenever you can, I want to makeit right also!!!

sidestreet

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Venator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I am not sure why you are so fixated on my speculation anyway. I am not taking you to court for this am I? :lol:

Not yet! I just like to pick apart some of the things you say. You have some interesting points of view, especially being a former Michigander.

Just keeping me on my toes, huh? :lol:

 

[Citizen]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

PT111 wrote:

I don't know if it is still on the books but in NC the Governor could declare someone an outlaw which meant they were to be shot on sight. That was an example of shooting crooks to make them easier to catch. I think the term was outlaw, maybe someone from NC can fill us in on it.

That's a handy law to have - maybe we can get him to declare all MS-13 members outlaws and solve a social problem quickly and easily. If nothing else they will all move to Chicago which in a way does further solve the problem

Eeeeeek! Not good. Not good.

Look up the definition of "bill of attainder."

Then consultArticle I, Section 9 of the US Constitution.

I don't care whether it is only prohibited from the legislative. There is a reason it is prohibited at all.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Pointman wrote:

Mike wrote:

Folks - show me a case holding OC in a holster while going about your business is DC - any state you can, show it to me. Otherwise, this threat of a DC charge is just a red herring.

Danbus recently was detained specifically for OC and later charged repeatedly, Legba was charged with CC even though it wasn't, Vegas was charged with CC even though it was OC (to some extent, and depending on the case), Bladerunner was charged with CC and disorderly for OC, any OC in a car in WI is CC...

The problem isn't that OC gets you charged with DC (and DC carries really stiff penalties by the way), it's that OC may get you charged with something. Yes, you can fight it and the charges will probably be dropped, but you're still charged, and that will probably costyou time and money.

WAIT!!!! Who was just arrested here for OC in a park??? He and his wife are suing the city for violation of their rights! Somebody help me out with this....it was in Virginia, I think. Female officer came up to him and called for backup, he has nerve damage and required a trip to the hospital....

Chet Syzmecki (spelling?).

Good point, Pointman. It may be a red-herring. But, beggin' the Cap'ns pardon, its not "just" a red-herring.

Its one more manuever by the government to be dealt with one way or another. At least they are giving you warning. Now you know what you're up against. Patiently research things out. Maybe get a lawyer to send a letter. Maybe get six or seven of you to chip in for the attorney's fee.

Either way, the purpose of the red-herring is to get you to not exercise your rights and continue the downward spiral against personal defense and firearms. An activist can accept the red-herring and not carry. Or he can pressure back.

 

[SANDCREEK]

imported post

While reflecting on the question of disorderly conduct prosecutionapplicability toOC, the analogy of a person walking a potentially vicious dog on a leash came to mind.I'm not aware of any enabling law anywhere specifically "allowing"the walking of a dog on a leash. Lawsestablishing a criminal offense for allowing the dog OFF the leash are universal in incorporated jurisdictions. What is the difference between a "deadly weapon" secured in a holster, and a domesticated "wild animal" capable of attacking and causing serious bodily injury or death in the event dog's handler fails to control the animal. I can't cite stats, but I am sure there are more people seriously injured or killed by "brandished" dogs than handguns secured in holsters. (Colorado Springs, CO)

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[Parabellum]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Folks - show me a case holding OC in a holster while going about your business is DC - any state you can, show it to me. Otherwise, this threat of a DC charge is just a red herring.

I was just arrested for open carry and nothing else and i will be charged with DC while armed in Milwaukee,Wisconsin

 

[Legba]

imported post

Good luck, mate. I only just got back with my still-weekly visit with my PO.

-ljp

 

[Pointman]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Folks - show me a case holding OC in a holster while going about your business is DC - any state you can, show it to me. Otherwise, this threat of a DC charge is just a red herring.

Pointman wrote:

WAIT!!!! Who was just arrested here for OC in a park??? He and his wife are suing the city for violation of their rights! Somebody help me out with this....it was in Virginia, I think. Female officer came up to him and called for backup, he has nerve damage and required a trip to the hospital....

Found it while linking stuff for Parabellum:

Szymecki v. The City of Norfolk
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/9374-1.html

Funny the Super Moderator didn't find it first...it's in his home state.

 

[apjonas]

imported post

Where is it indicated that thisindividual was charged with DC? It appears that the dismissed charge was carrying at a festival. Similar but really a different animal. Is there a case where OC, per se, is considered DC?

 

[apjonas]

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

Mike wrote:

Folks - show me a case holding OC in a holster while going about your business is DC - any state you can, show it to me. Otherwise, this threat of a DC charge is just a red herring.

I was just arrested for open carry and nothing else and i will be charged with DC while armed in Milwaukee,Wisconsin

True (although I can't find a DCWA statute) but the charge will be dismissed. I think the question is has there ever been a conviction (or even a prosecution). Prosecutors know they will lose but they take the opportunity to try and intimidate the citizen. In Wisconsin, even a guy (illegally) CCing was kicked loose because the circumstances (attempted robbery?) were such that it would have led to another adverse Wisconsin Supreme Court decision for the state. This is one reason that I frequently suggest a declaratory judgment action. The prosecution has the time and money to jerk you around before kicking you loose and nothing is ever decided. This is their plan - to limit OC by making it uncomfortable but avoiding the inevitable loss in court. And we continue to play the game.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[thx997303]

imported post

Wow that story has some horribly blatant anti OC crap. I have only heard a few stories about stuff like that. I believe this is the link to the worst situation I've heard of here in Utah.

At Gun Point