youtube

[solus]

the truth, i shan't repost your response but in turn wish to ask if dario, docwalker, et al., would, since i am being criticized for my comments the young man shouldn't have engaged in conversation with APD officers, please answer an encompassing question to clarify something.

i will acknowledge you have specific information about the CO statute covering obstruction as you're walking down the street in beautiful residential aurora carrying your shotgun across your back, as you have 12+ time, and two nice APD LEs show up and ask for id...

your actions and response(s) to the nice APD officers would be?

thanks

ipse

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Where is the articulable facts to back up the cops suspicion?

 

[solus]

who's embarrassed?

yes i read the silly cases cited which are not applicable to my point...

since apparently my previous question proved to difficult, please answer this one:

was the young man cited? yes or no!

do not elobrate on the merits, nothing more nothing less...yes or no?

if you answer yes, which you must, .then the young man has to either pay the ticket or go to court as no other alternatives exist.

end of story.

as i stated, you can jump up and down about the moral, ethical, etc., aspects about this situation all you want...bottom line, they gave him and he accepted a ticket citing him for obstruction.

my contentions i expressed on this subject are, as yours are, opinions.

i expressed my perspective on how i personally interact whenever i have a "chance" encounter with le and i have stated numerous times, much to the dismay of several members, the idea of citizens going out of their way pushing the envelope by contstantly and blantly carrying long arms under the guise of 2A just to prove a point is flat out stupid and does more damage to firearm carry then is realized.

that said, tag your it the truth, et al., care to provide a response to my previous question?

ipse

 

[solus]

the truth, sorry your last post is, in my opinion, an example of jumping up and down. stay on point please.

query, do you exhibit the same tenacity when you get a traffic ticket and immediately run to the court system spouting legalese and court cases why the mean officer couldn't have issued the citation?

you again asked if i read the out of context case law cites which someone posted on an internet forum from a thread long ago, in my opinion, did not apply. (citizen having his wallet taken out by police is applicable how?) additionally, there were no cites available to verify the out of context statements were in fact correct in their posting. did you even take the time to validate those or just snatch them from the olde thread and cuz they were on OC forum presume they are valid? you failed by not even taken the time to point out to anybody why, in your OPINION, you believe the case laws you cited could even apply in this case as you do not even know what would be presented to the court to make the case law you so adamantly believe in, applicable in this situation.

you seem to be arguing in front of the justices of the highest court in the land trying to save a young man who got a class two misdemeanor at this point in time nothing more, nothing less.

what part did you misread in my statement concerning the young man has two options: pay the fine or go to court? there truly is no further alternatives!

before Aug 26 2014 he can pay the fine, if he doesn't pay by that date, he has to present himself in front of the aurora municipal court, probably with magistrate presiding, who will listen to the discussion and AT that time make a ruling of guilt or innocence. that by the way is FACT not hyperbole!

the throwing around the constitution was a nice touch, but a little grandiose wasn't it, since again you just lob the term in throttling me as someone who doesn't believe in the constitution without any explanation of why in your OPINION you feel this way.

and i notice you or any others have failed to respond to how you would handle such an encounter?

ipse

 

[solus]

'the truth, interpret something for me: CRS 16-3-103 and provide your OPINION of how it applies to the young man being cited for obstruction as i have reached my own conclusion.

quoted w/cite in it's entirety to absolve me of being accused of quoting out of context.:

CRS 16-3-103. Stopping of suspect

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics...nfo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.R.S.+16-3-103

ipse

 

[solus]

The emboldened phrasing is the section of code which seems to be in question. (1) There is no articulable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed in the video that I can see, (2) as was pointed out by another poster earlier in this thread - nor do the police provide any such reason for their query. This is the entire basis for my argument. I will also proceed a step further to say that the age of the young man did not come into question until some time had passed. The young man was not approached to ascertain his age alone, which seems to be the basis of the argument by the State in regards to 'obstruction.' The police make the claim that the young man 'looks 15,' which as the young man stated in the video, is not grounds to engage in detainment. The young man gives ample reason as to why he is open carrying a long gun, and it is quite logical and sufficient to me.

Here's an opinion for you, since you seem intent on urging me to divulge my personal positions:

It is the duty of police to ascertain whether or not a crime is being committed by observance first and foremost, (3) and by adhering to the rights of the people. If the police thought this young man could be a threat, and if they were intelligent beings capable of deeper thought and analyzation, they likely would have performed a bit of recon first in the form of observing the young man and his mannerisms/behavior. The only 'fact' that the police had to go on was that the young boy frightened some ignorant citizen. This 'fact' holds little bearing on The Truth, or the actual laws in Colorado, of which none were broken. I would also like to note that I disagree that the police were jovial in their encounter. They were condescending, patronizing, and disrespectful in my opinion, and they were also passive aggressive and antagonizing. The young man was respectful, yet assertive in his rights, as he should be. He did not need to entertain any further questions after the cops laughed at him when he asked if he was being detained for a crime. That laugh by the cops at that moment shows me that they were frustrated and had no retort whatsoever. It was at that time that they were trying to come up with some way to detain the young man. I would go so far as to say that the officer(s) are bullies in this case, (4) and should be reprimanded for their actions against this law abiding citizen.

The Truth..
1). and i get lambasted for engaging for citing context yet you highlight the area that 'suits' your OPINION.
2) that i can see, again your conjecture based on your warped sense of OPINION.
3) do you have a cite which states it is a duty of the police to ascertain a crime is being committed by observance or is this hyperbole your OPINION?
4) now you are disparaging the officers and calling them names without provocation!

hindsight is the Monday quarterback's greatest attribute and you truly have it honed down to a science.

why is it you fail to explain how you would have handled this encounter with the officer's you call 'bullies'?

and btw as mentioned earlier, since CO is a show and tell state, your wallet case studies, as i mentioned do not apply!

ipse

 

[solus]

didn't you whine in another thread for your perception of being called names, yet, here, you are doing exactly the same thing. also didn't you get called out by a member for posting a temper tantrum in that same thread?

the wallet is a key point and paramount in the case studies you supplied if you had read them.

remember, you have specifically stated you are not an attorney, as such your interpretation is the same as any idiot savant, an OPINION.

...observed the eminent lawyer, "I hestitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client. (The flowers of wit, or a choice collection of bon mots, by Henry Kett, 1814

this not my opinion as it seems there is merit as applied to you.

ipse

 

[Dario]

didn't you whine in another thread for your perception of being called names, yet, here, you are doing exactly the same thing. also didn't you get called out by a member for posting a temper tantrum in that same thread?

the wallet is a key point and paramount in the case studies you supplied if you had read them.

remember, you have specifically stated you are not an attorney, as such your interpretation is the same as any idiot savant, an OPINION.

...observed the eminent lawyer, "I hestitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client. (The flowers of wit, or a choice collection of bon mots, by Henry Kett, 1814

this not my opinion as it seems there is merit as applied to you.

ipse

Talk about going off topic... I thought this thread is about whether Mr. Lohner's rights were violated for open carrying a shotgun! Can we just agree that there is precedent here that can be used as a defense, or at least that he is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law?

 

[solus]

Talk about going off topic... I thought this thread is about whether Mr. Lohner's rights were violated for open carrying a shotgun! Can we just agree that there is precedent here that can be used as a defense, or at least that he is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law?

there isn't precedent for use as a defense. as stated numerous times the young man has two options ~ period.

ipse

 

[solus]

Ad Hominem...and you even cite a post by Primus, a known cop apologist. Congratulations on being my easiest victory yet. Way to set an example! You didn't even put up a fight!

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

sorry got to go there...it is truly tough to fight on your level and lowering myself to it, as i still could't win as you have way too much practice.

and you truly believe this was a fight? over what? your're saying the posts you spew are for you to 'win'? your comment(s) now shows you post for the sake of posting to bolster your own ego, as you win what? another notch to click on your own legend in your mind?

however, i was impressed how you were humbled by skid...did you classify that as a 'win' to your ego also?

I have neither the scholar's melancholy, which is emulation, nor the musician's, which is fantastical, nor the courtier's, which is proud, nor the soldier's, which is ambitious, nor the lawyer's, which is politic. (as you like it 4.1.97)

you have just destroyed your credibility by your own comments.

ipse

 

[Dario]

there isn't precedent for use as a defense. as stated numerous times the young man has two options ~ period.

ipse

Oh that's right "silly case law" is not precedent and cops don't need RAS to demand ID in Colorado according to solus.

 

[1245A Defender]

Wowwie!!!

Ad Hominem...and you even cite a post by Primus, a known cop apologist. Congratulations on being my easiest victory yet. Way to set an example! You didn't even put up a fight!

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

Yes,, you have Claimed Victory! Wow! Im so happy for you..

As was said before,,, Play stupid games, Win stupid prizes!
Tell us, Tell me, what did you get???

Pitty...

 

[stealthyeliminator]

The only thing destroyed here is any argument you've racked your brain to come up with. I think that's plain to see for any educated individual to come to the same conclusion I have. Your attempts at slander are truly pathetic. I can't believe no moderator has stepped in yet. You are way out of line, sir, and if you're the type of person that frequents this forum then I'm not sure this is a place I want to be.

Hours of case law and statutory law research so as to formulate the best possible argument is reached with attempted character assassination and slander, with endless ad hominem argument. Utterly sad. The weakest form of argument. I'm left shaking my head in disgust.

What you describe may be the norm for solus but not the forum in general. It's usually a pretty good place for discourse.

 

[Primus]

sorry got to go there...it is truly tough to fight on your level and lowering myself to it, as i still could't win as you have way too much practice.

and you truly believe this was a fight? over what? your're saying the posts you spew are for you to 'win'? your comment(s) now shows you post for the sake of posting to bolster your own ego, as you win what? another notch to click on your own legend in your mind?

however, i was impressed how you were humbled by skid...did you classify that as a 'win' to your ego also?

I have neither the scholar's melancholy, which is emulation, nor the musician's, which is fantastical, nor the courtier's, which is proud, nor the soldier's, which is ambitious, nor the lawyer's, which is politic. (as you like it 4.1.97)

you have just destroyed your credibility by your own comments.

ipse

Leave him be... This kid is cute with his "victory"....

You did your best and tried showing him.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[solus]

Oh that's right "silly case law" is not precedent and cops don't need RAS to demand ID in Colorado according to solus.

as i have asked previously dario, have you read the cases listed or only the synopses of what someone dredged up from another thread on this forum and presented as viable in this thread?
have you provided your own interpertation of the case law cited and how it applied or just taking someone else's word for it?

jump off the band wagon dario and do your own critical thinking instead of pointing at me.

not according to me, but rather CRS and i notice with interest you do not refute the CRS cite provided about CO is a must show and tell id state?

and i know i missed how you would react to the same situation and the police dario.

ipse

 

[solus]

The only thing destroyed here is any argument you've racked your brain to come up with. I think that's plain to see for any educated individual to come to the same conclusion I have. Your attempts at slander are truly pathetic. I can't believe no moderator has stepped in yet. You are way out of line, sir, and if you're the type of person that frequents this forum then I'm not sure this is a place I want to be.

Hours of case law and statutory law research so as to formulate the best possible argument is reached with attempted character assassination and slander, with endless ad hominem argument. Utterly sad. The weakest form of argument. I'm left shaking my head in disgust.

then you failed miserably!!

you failed to even begin to articulate your interpretation on the research of the case law cited, btw, thrown into this thread from another thread not even originally researched, and how it applies in the slightest to this young man. you were even chastised on another thread for the same antics by another member so take a breath from your victory dance and your glee in attempting to moderate me away.

young man you have continuously and consistently failed to support your conclusions, resorting to jumping up and down while pushing out the same unenlightened drivel with words you didn't start on this site using, while prefaced with name calling and condescending remarks to other members throughout the forum, and yet you have the audacity to call me out of line and you would moderate me off the forum.

find some maturity young man and then, if and when you wish to discuss merits of case law based on critical thinking skills instead of emotional biased drivel wrapped in buzz word rhetoric, then the membership might have someone worthy of having a discussion with.

right now you have a long way to go
ipse

 

[The Truth]

The 'mob' has spoken, so I'll delete my posts, redact my statements, and ignore. That seems to be what needs to happen. Most of them are quoted anyway, or screen-shotted I'm sure, so it's not like it matters. I just simply have no desire to continue if I'm going to be personally attacked instead of actually debated or to have things explained to me. Wish this had gone another way.

 

[Primus]

The 'mob' has spoken, so I'll delete my posts, redact my statements, and ignore. That seems to be what needs to happen. Most of them are quoted anyway, or screen-shotted I'm sure, so it's not like it matters. I just simply have no desire to continue if I'm going to be personally attacked instead of actually debated or to have things explained to me. Wish this had gone another way.

Can we at least get a severance.... Since your breaking up with us?



In all seriousness its the internet and it can be rough. Especially when your emotions get in the way. I do it all the time and get slapped down for it. You'll either grow thick skin and learn or you won't. Good luck either way

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I think I get my head around IPSE's point a bit. He is not arguing the right or wrong of the situation. It appears more that the kid surrendered and asked for a ticket and got it.

This can and will be used against him in court and be made to look like an admission the kid is guilty of the crime. A great example of why not to engage in dialogue with cops in a detention which this clearly was.

I believe with a competent representation (hopefully this is the path the young man takes) he will beat the charges. Then if he so chooses can and may win (more than likely the city will settle) a lawsuit against the detainment that had no RAS, and the video shows the cop agreeing he had non RAS when the cop admits the kid was "legal".

To me there was no RAS, just a hunch or suspicion on the officer. This of course is assuming he had no idea who the young man was. Something I find unlikely if he has already had copfrontations.

I find the law that spells out it is obstruction even if the cop is doing something illegally atrocious to liberty, and to human rights, I would hope a court would strike that law down, yet have no faith in the statist courts.

 

[solus]

Can we at least get a severance.... Since your breaking up with us?



In all seriousness its the internet and it can be rough. Especially when your emotions get in the way. I do it all the time and get slapped down for it. You'll either grow thick skin and learn or you won't. Good luck either way

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

forum membership slapping you down...nawlll never occur!!!

all thoughts are welcome which is how we learn...unless you happen to be burr/hamilton...say what?

ipse