FBrinson
Regular Member
Done. Sent through Paypal.
-
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.
The Empire Strikes Back! "Localities" and "getting guns off the street"
- Thread starter user
- Start date
Scouser has been somewhat of a focus, rallying point, cause celebre because he is personally know to so many here AND because the circumstances are so outrageous as to be obscene.
Still this thread is about multiple issues and the effect of targeting otherwise good people under color of law, misapplication of statutes/ordinances, refusal of officials to honor the spirit and intent of the law much less the letter of it.
This doesn't mean that we cannot discuss scouser and his case here - it just is that there are multiple other issues that need a place to be vented.
Still this thread is about multiple issues and the effect of targeting otherwise good people under color of law, misapplication of statutes/ordinances, refusal of officials to honor the spirit and intent of the law much less the letter of it.
This doesn't mean that we cannot discuss scouser and his case here - it just is that there are multiple other issues that need a place to be vented.
Last edited:
user
Accomplished Advocate
Another response to El Policio:
"My lawyer told me not to talk about such things."
And if he says, "Why, are you a criminal, that you feel you have to have a lawyer?", or, "That's ok, the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination doesn't apply because you're not under arrest.", or any of a dozen other canned things they recite, just repeat what you've already said. And always, always, ask whether you're free to leave. Repeat as often as necessary. And when they say they're going to hold you there until they get a search warrant / drug sniffing dogs / the DEA, or whatever, call their bluff. Just remember that, for purposes of a civil suit, "not free to leave" is the same as "false arrest / false imprisonment".
"My lawyer told me not to talk about such things."
And if he says, "Why, are you a criminal, that you feel you have to have a lawyer?", or, "That's ok, the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination doesn't apply because you're not under arrest.", or any of a dozen other canned things they recite, just repeat what you've already said. And always, always, ask whether you're free to leave. Repeat as often as necessary. And when they say they're going to hold you there until they get a search warrant / drug sniffing dogs / the DEA, or whatever, call their bluff. Just remember that, for purposes of a civil suit, "not free to leave" is the same as "false arrest / false imprisonment".
DaveT319
Regular Member
I know this is an old thread, but I've just been reading through it and came upon the part I quoted, which has brought up a few questions: Why should you not say anything? Why be evasive? Why not just say you have a firearm? Unless they have reason to suspect you have committed a crime, you saying you have a gun doesn't give them legal grounds to take any action, right? Sure, they could take action anyway, but in doing so they'd be setting themselves up for legal trouble, would they not? I understand the idea if "don't talk to the cops", but couldn't silence hurt you almost as much if you've got a cop who can't handle being told "no"?
AFCop
Regular Member
My first response is.... Because Dan Hawes said so...
My second response, coming from my experience in Law Enforcement (albeit military type), the police are NOT... I say again ARE NOT your friends. They are not there to "help" you. Anything you say can and will be misquoted, distorted and used against you.
Case in point, I was involved in a situation where I was arrested for Harassment and the report the police wrote does not reflect the incident AT ALL.. Had I not been recording the entire event I would be left with my word against the cops, and given their position are automatically given a credibility credit by most, even if they shouldn't.
The cops in my instance 1. misrepresented our first encounter in its entirety, completely omitting 1. they actually escorted me to my ex's residence and 2. added that they told me to do something that a. they didnt and b. even if they had, would not be a lawful command.
2. Misquoted myself during a subsequent conversation with the Delaware State Police and again, had I not been recording everything... would be my word against theirs... I thank God everyday those recordings exist and it is solely because of them I was successful in a PFA attempt and believe whole heartedly if my ex couldn't prove with a preponderance of the evidence what I did amounted to harassment, no way can it be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (because it didnt happen). Better yet, at the PFA hearing, both her and her dad deliberately purjured themselves and got caught, over and over.
PFA judge questioned her and her dad's credibility and admonished her.
That is why! I was non evasive, I was the initial caller for assistance and yet they still manufactured a reason to arrest me because I challenged their authority, respectfully and didnt take their answers as gospel.
My second response, coming from my experience in Law Enforcement (albeit military type), the police are NOT... I say again ARE NOT your friends. They are not there to "help" you. Anything you say can and will be misquoted, distorted and used against you.
Case in point, I was involved in a situation where I was arrested for Harassment and the report the police wrote does not reflect the incident AT ALL.. Had I not been recording the entire event I would be left with my word against the cops, and given their position are automatically given a credibility credit by most, even if they shouldn't.
The cops in my instance 1. misrepresented our first encounter in its entirety, completely omitting 1. they actually escorted me to my ex's residence and 2. added that they told me to do something that a. they didnt and b. even if they had, would not be a lawful command.
2. Misquoted myself during a subsequent conversation with the Delaware State Police and again, had I not been recording everything... would be my word against theirs... I thank God everyday those recordings exist and it is solely because of them I was successful in a PFA attempt and believe whole heartedly if my ex couldn't prove with a preponderance of the evidence what I did amounted to harassment, no way can it be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (because it didnt happen). Better yet, at the PFA hearing, both her and her dad deliberately purjured themselves and got caught, over and over.
PFA judge questioned her and her dad's credibility and admonished her.
That is why! I was non evasive, I was the initial caller for assistance and yet they still manufactured a reason to arrest me because I challenged their authority, respectfully and didnt take their answers as gospel.
Last edited:
+1
The primary role of police in our society is to find something 'you' have done wrong, and arrest or cite you for it. Thats it. Why make it easy for them?
It is your right to remain silent - exercise that right!
Dan Hawes is a highly respected member of the legal profession who freely shares his thinking and experience here. It is his card that many of us carry in our wallets.
Dan Hawes is a highly respected member of the legal profession who freely shares his thinking and experience here. It is his card that many of us carry in our wallets.
optiksguy
Regular Member
Another motivation for remaining silent: How do you know what they might suspect you of? You can't read their minds and they can lie to you. Do you know every jot and tittle of state and local law and are 100% sure you haven't unknowingly done something illegal? Don't take the risk of accidentally admitting guilt to a crime, keep your mouth shut.
DaveT319
Regular Member
I understand all that. Talk as little as possible. But I'm asking about the gun question: if he asks if you have a gun - which is not illegal - why not just answer "yes"? If they then yank you out of the car, search you, and search the car, while it's annoying they would also be setting themselves up for charges and a suit, would they not?
Really, I do get the concept of not giving them anything, but wouldn't it be better to be truthful about something that is LEGAL than to be evasive?
Really, I do get the concept of not giving them anything, but wouldn't it be better to be truthful about something that is LEGAL than to be evasive?
JamesCanby
Activist Member
"Do you have a gun in the car?"
What you cannot do is lie, but there is nothing wrong with deflecting the question:
I have nothing illegal in my car or in my possession and I do not consent to any search or seizure of my person, papers or property.
Am I being detained?
Am I being detained?
"Yes."
I will not answer any questions without the presence of my attorney."
Am I free to go?
The above statements made as often as necessary based on the officer's continued questioning.
Am I free to go?
The above statements made as often as necessary based on the officer's continued questioning.
Basic principle: KYBMS = Keep Your Big Mouth Shut. Do not think that you can argue the finer points of the law with the officer and thereby convince him that you are a saint who has never committed, is not committing and never will commit a crime. The LEO is trained to keep asking questions to get you to talk so that he/she may form RAS or PC in order to effect an arrest.
Oh, and keep the recorder running.
[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]
Ill answer this from persoanl experience. I was legally carrying a gun in a secured container in my vehicle. I do not have a chp. 6 am on the way to work and get pulled over,
Officer; do you have a gun?
Me; yes
Do you want to guess how much fun it is to be in court to face a concealed weapon charge 1 week before you close on a house? That would be 15k in earnest money, couple thousand in legal fees and loosing my job on the line if i had gotten convicted. I would definently call that "annoying"
DaveT319
Regular Member
So where did he come up with the charge if you were carrying legally?
TFred
Regular Member
I suspect that is the point. As is ALWAYS the case, a police officer can charge you with anything at any time they want. No matter how ridiculous the charges may be, there is rarely any repercussion for the officer, but you could lose your house defending yourself.
This is the definition of "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!"
Such is the unfortunate situation when you encounter a corrupt LEO.
TFred
DaveT319
Regular Member
I see what you mean.
Personally, every interaction I have ever had has been good, even the times where I was stopped for traffic violations. BUT, none of those have been when I've had a weapon other than a knife. I realize that they treat guns and drugs as the worst of the worst, but I'm dismayed that they would take you legally carrying or transporting a firearm and turn it into an ordeal. And even more upsetting that they could trump up completely false charges - knowingly false - and not have any repercussions.
Personally, every interaction I have ever had has been good, even the times where I was stopped for traffic violations. BUT, none of those have been when I've had a weapon other than a knife. I realize that they treat guns and drugs as the worst of the worst, but I'm dismayed that they would take you legally carrying or transporting a firearm and turn it into an ordeal. And even more upsetting that they could trump up completely false charges - knowingly false - and not have any repercussions.
Last edited:
JoeSparky
Centurion
To be fair to certain LEO's this action MAY be done in ignorance and by not understanding the delicate intricacies of firearms possession / transports laws. Unfortunately, their ARE others who I refer to as Opinion Enforcement Officers (OEO) who just take delight in making ones life difficult and miserable JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN in spite of the actual Law and Constitution!
And when you are just answering the question without exercising YOUR Constitutional Rights and protections, you have NO WAY to tell whether you are dealing with a LEO or an OEO!
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
Even worse, some of those false/'mistaken' charges actually result in convictions. So picture that.... you are tooling along doing nothing illegal, get charged with a crime that you didn't commit, invest a small fortune to defend yourself thinking that its just a mistake that will get cleared up in court.... and get convicted anyway. Then comes the criminal record, loss of job/career, monetary fines, and perhaps even time in jail.
It happens. It has happened recently. In Virginia (and all over).
Our Justice system is not always 'Just'.
mobeewan
Regular Member
The Court of Appeals of Virginia has already ruled in a case last year in Feb 2013 that the secured container does not have to be locked. They cited the text of the bill including "locked container" when passed by the legislature along with the governor amending the bill to read "secured container" which the legislature allowed to pass as law. They reversed the appellants conviction of a concealed handgun.
Doesn't this reversal have any bearing on others charged or convicted for a concealed handgun in an unlocked, but secured container?
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0458122.pdf
"....That being said, our inquiry becomes one of defining “secure” as contemplated by the
General Assembly within the meaning of the statute. “Secured” is defined as “in safekeeping or
custody,” Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 1641 (2d ed. 1983), or
“well-fastened,” The American Heritage Dictionary 1173 (New College Ed. 1982).
The evidence here shows that appellant’s handgun was in a closed, latched and
“well-fastened” glove compartment. Pursuant to the statute, appellant’s gun was “secured in a . . .
compartment” in his vehicle, thus reducing his access to the weapon. Because appellant’s handgun
was in compliance with the exception to the concealed weapon prohibition, his possession of the
gun did not violate Code § 18.2-308.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and dismiss appellant’s conviction.
Reversed and dismissed. "
Doesn't this reversal have any bearing on others charged or convicted for a concealed handgun in an unlocked, but secured container?
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0458122.pdf
"....That being said, our inquiry becomes one of defining “secure” as contemplated by the
General Assembly within the meaning of the statute. “Secured” is defined as “in safekeeping or
custody,” Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 1641 (2d ed. 1983), or
“well-fastened,” The American Heritage Dictionary 1173 (New College Ed. 1982).
The evidence here shows that appellant’s handgun was in a closed, latched and
“well-fastened” glove compartment. Pursuant to the statute, appellant’s gun was “secured in a . . .
compartment” in his vehicle, thus reducing his access to the weapon. Because appellant’s handgun
was in compliance with the exception to the concealed weapon prohibition, his possession of the
gun did not violate Code § 18.2-308.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and dismiss appellant’s conviction.
Reversed and dismissed. "
Last edited: