OC for ME
Regular Member
I submit that the citizen was deprived of his firearm. There is no time duration listed within the RSMo.
Note the term in bold. but, this is a MO statute. But, officer safety will be claimed and sustained.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OC Video: Have you guys seen this? OMG what a violation of this guy's rights!
- Thread starter Ron_O
- Start date
Note the term in bold. but, this is a MO statute. But, officer safety will be claimed and sustained.
Primus
Regular Member
Unlawful detainment vs. investigation
There are plenty of examples online (youtube) of LEO's approaching OC'ers without any type of fanatical detainment. Simply stated, they were versed of the laws and trained on the proper approach and handling of an OC citizen. They simply approach, explain that they've received a call from a concerned citizen, and in some cases simply move on without even requiring that any questions be answered.
This guy clearly overreacted. If there was any question of 'suspicious circumstances' the LEO could have asked dispatch for more. I doubt that they get so many calls that there's no time for officer inquiry or clarification. I was a firefighter for years and monitored police radio traffic for thousands of hours and even when busy there was always time for update clarification while on the way to the call.
This was an obvious excuse to do all he felt he could justify under 'keeping it safe' because a guy was walking down the sidewalk with an openly displayed gun. He obviously wanted to stay in control.
Regarding drawing back on the LEO, police have an assumption of 'being the good guy' so to draw on them would be considered hostile. They're given the legal upper hand regardless of the threat. I agree that evening the playing field should be an option, but would you trust an LEO's response if you raised or unholstered your weapon in the same way as they?
The guy was clearly under coercion and complying out of common sense, not in agreement. His life has already been threatened and he knows that he has no choice other than comply, especially if he wants to get home anytime soon. Just in listening to his voice you can tell that he feels victimized.
Making a 1st Amendment statement does NOT mean that he was seeking a confrontation; it means that he was demonstrating his legal rights for others to observe. He was likely carrying under the assumption that the police knew and respected the law. It wasn't that he was asking for anything, it's that an unwary or unwilling LEO decided that he'd handle it the way he felt best. And in a situation like that the LEO undoubtedly felt it would be better to be in legal hot water than in a casket. He was making the rules.
I didn't see compliance. I saw a guy that felt he had no choice but to end the matter as quickly as possible with the least negative outcome as possible; he was mitigating circumstances in the most sensible way possible to his own way of thinking. These police were poorly trained, similar to what happened here in Las Vegas not too long ago with an OC'er down on the Strip; an encounter that changed Metro department training and policy for us all.
There are plenty of examples online (youtube) of LEO's approaching OC'ers without any type of fanatical detainment. Simply stated, they were versed of the laws and trained on the proper approach and handling of an OC citizen. They simply approach, explain that they've received a call from a concerned citizen, and in some cases simply move on without even requiring that any questions be answered.
This guy clearly overreacted. If there was any question of 'suspicious circumstances' the LEO could have asked dispatch for more. I doubt that they get so many calls that there's no time for officer inquiry or clarification. I was a firefighter for years and monitored police radio traffic for thousands of hours and even when busy there was always time for update clarification while on the way to the call.
This was an obvious excuse to do all he felt he could justify under 'keeping it safe' because a guy was walking down the sidewalk with an openly displayed gun. He obviously wanted to stay in control.
Regarding drawing back on the LEO, police have an assumption of 'being the good guy' so to draw on them would be considered hostile. They're given the legal upper hand regardless of the threat. I agree that evening the playing field should be an option, but would you trust an LEO's response if you raised or unholstered your weapon in the same way as they?
The guy was clearly under coercion and complying out of common sense, not in agreement. His life has already been threatened and he knows that he has no choice other than comply, especially if he wants to get home anytime soon. Just in listening to his voice you can tell that he feels victimized.
Making a 1st Amendment statement does NOT mean that he was seeking a confrontation; it means that he was demonstrating his legal rights for others to observe. He was likely carrying under the assumption that the police knew and respected the law. It wasn't that he was asking for anything, it's that an unwary or unwilling LEO decided that he'd handle it the way he felt best. And in a situation like that the LEO undoubtedly felt it would be better to be in legal hot water than in a casket. He was making the rules.
I didn't see compliance. I saw a guy that felt he had no choice but to end the matter as quickly as possible with the least negative outcome as possible; he was mitigating circumstances in the most sensible way possible to his own way of thinking. These police were poorly trained, similar to what happened here in Las Vegas not too long ago with an OC'er down on the Strip; an encounter that changed Metro department training and policy for us all.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Lack of training is a sorry azz excuse for that cop's actions. Lack of training should be the last claim a LEA makes cuz it clearly states that you have a bunch of untrained thugs with badges vs. trained professionals. Unfortunately the citizen will likely go for a settlement, without disclosure, and no wrong doing admitted. Though, it would be nice to be proven wrong.
Man sues after OC arrest and wins settlement in Colorado
This guy was falsely arrested in a park over a law that had been repealed ten years earlier, apparently unknown to the entire police department... They settled the case but the amount was made public after an agency used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get the results.
This guy was falsely arrested in a park over a law that had been repealed ten years earlier, apparently unknown to the entire police department... They settled the case but the amount was made public after an agency used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get the results.
[video=youtube;2Oz3cSeYQ90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oz3cSeYQ90[/video]
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I love that the Sgt says ignorance of the law is no excuse. Using his own words he should have been fired.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Another incident that proves that a citizen will not win his/her argument on the street. Save all the talk for the court room. Again bless the video camera.
The bogus arrest will not stick and the irate citizen should have some extra cash in his bank account.
Not sure why the citizen surrendered his ID, hopefully this action will not relay into compliance and the surrender of his rights.
Give them nothing, ask only if you are being detained if they refuse to allow you to be on your way, keep quite and ask for an attorney.
My .02
Regards
CCJ
Last edited:
If you go to the YouTube link you'll see the notes beneath that state he sued them and they settled the case for $23,500. He's a war vet and stated that he knew the law and knew he was in the right when this all went down. Saved by the camera, no doubt, though he should have won on the facts alone, assuming that the police didn't trump up some resisting arrest charges or similar.