Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 11-08-2009, 7:31 PM
chuckles48 chuckles48 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 213
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
Some people will never be happy with the job we do or answer(s) provided to them. You just can't make everyone happy (or understanding) all the time.
Having been handcuffed and grounded in my own home because I had the temerity to ask to see a search warrant, vs. a manila envelope, I hope you'll understand why I might be willing to be a little suspicious?

Note, also, that I've run private-event security/etc. for over 20 years, and generally have a _very_ good relationship with local PD (assorted jurisdictions in Santa Clara County). So I understand many of the issues you're dealing with, and why "people will never be happy with the job we do". BTDT.

But I try to be scrupulous with my guys (and gals) about making sure we don't go overboard... and I expect the same from _every_ PD (and FD - we have to handle medical calls as well) that I deal with. 99% of the time, everybody's professional, and it all works out really well. Every once in a while I run into someone with a tinpot dictator streak. If they're one of mine, we clean 'em up, or we turn 'em out. If they're PD, I have no compunctions about reporting 'em. But they've got the uniform, and they _always_ get the benefit of the doubt.

Allow me to illustrate the above, further: what legitimate law-enforcement function is served by a singleton officer in a patrol car using a carpool lane, during carpool hours, to RTB so he can clock out to go home? Esp. when he's going counter-commute, and the trip-time savings is < 1 minute? Because I can't think of one.

Or when an officer runs a "no right on red" light, so he can hustle up to the next light...which is red, where he's stuck behind 5 other cars.

It all leaves the impression that as far as cops are concerned, the law doesn't really matter after all, except when feet are held to the fire. And yet I know most cops are good cops, who abhor this kind of thing.
  #162  
Old 11-08-2009, 10:33 PM
mmartin's Avatar
mmartin mmartin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 951
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
megan,
Once again, absolutely no disrespect intended. I can understand your frustration and while we now sort of know one side of the story there is still the other side. If you were in fact wronged in the incident you have described in your previous post(s) and even though I had nothing to do with it I'll apologize to you. I'll be the first to admit (and have always done so) that there can be jerks in any profession but when a jerk holds the badge they cast a shadow upon all of law enforcement.

Throughout my career I've lived thorough many of the modern day catastrophic law enforcement incidents that have occurred not only in this state but across the nation. I had absolutely no involvement in any of them yet the shadow is cast across all of the LEOs. I simply do not believe it is fair to cast that shadow over everyone who wears the star or shield and IMHO, your above quoted sentence does just that.

People, LEOs or not, have to be judged on a one-on-one basis. I have had contact with plenty of people over the years that have the same or similar opinions that you do. When they take the time to listen that myself or my deputies had nothing to do with their past LEO contacts and my deputies are treating them fairly the seem to change their attitude a little bit. My deputies know what I expect of them and that is simply to treat the decent people good and to take the jackholes of society to the gray bar motel. For people they have never had any contact with to be prejudiced against them is IMHO unwarranted.

Maybe to some my mentality is to old school.
been having a little think about this, so it's taken a while to get back to you on it. I appreciate your offer of an apology, and understand you're taking that step in representing the entirety of LEOs, just as the wrong we've encountered reflects on the entirety of LEOs. and from that stand, it's appreciated. If the folks we had trouble with were your kind of old school, I'd still have my rose colored glasses, and there'd have been no need to have this conversation at all.

however, they're not that sort of old school at all. the real apology called for is from them, or from their supervisors or departments, and it should be accompanied with discipinary action or retraining. it should not be tolerated, or so comonplace that 5 LEOs on the same arrest feel quite comfortable that no one in the group on site is going to call out the prevarications of the others. that speaks to a culture which accepts the prevarication, sees it as justified or normal. so far, no apologies coming from them. you are not the one who wronged us, so, much as it is appreciated and understood, your apology can't set it right.

It's nice to hear that those of you posting are upstanding and honorable, and wouldn't do this or tollerate this sort of thing in those you supervise. if there were some way to know one of you would be there should we have another situation, I'd feel a lot more confident of fair and reasonable treatment than I do. I don't have a way to quantify it outside my own experience, but my odds appear to be much better of fair treatment here than in the field. sadly, that's not where incidents occur. so unless you old school types are taking the not-so-old-school officers out behind the wood shed when they behave badly, I don't know why this would change.

I don't know that there's any more to be gained by hashing this further, I have a pretty clear picture of the subject at hand. I do appreciate the candor several LEOs have shown. and your offer of apology is noted and understood. guess I'd have no need of it had you been there.

megan
__________________
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams
"To maintain the ascendancy of the Constitution over the lawmaking majority is the great and essential point on which the success of the system must depend;" - John C Calhoun
"If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa
  #163  
Old 11-09-2009, 6:27 AM
SoCalDep SoCalDep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 815
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckles48 View Post
Which gets back to the question I asked earlier. The sole point of the original stop was to determine loaded/unloaded. At that time, you have no legal grounds to determine ownership, nor to determine possible criminal violations, without further probably cause.

So I'll ask the question again: How do you get (legally) from "stop to determine loaded/unloaded" to having probable cause to run wants/warrants/ownership, based solely on possession of an otherwise-legal unloaded firearm?
The answer to your question was practically the entirety of my posts...In fact, the quote you used was part of my answer to that question. I'm sorry, but I've gone around in circles numerous times in this thread. It's out of hand now and I'm done.
  #164  
Old 11-09-2009, 6:43 AM
Fire in the Hole's Avatar
Fire in the Hole Fire in the Hole is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Tuolumne County
Posts: 1,563
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
The answer to your question was practically the entirety of my posts...In fact, the quote you used was part of my answer to that question. I'm sorry, but I've gone around in circles numerous times in this thread. It's out of hand now and I'm done.
Yes. At this point I would have to say, "Objection your honor. The question has been asked and answered."
  #165  
Old 11-09-2009, 7:58 AM
Spyder's Avatar
Spyder Spyder is offline
Honorary MLC
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a shack, in the woods
Posts: 16,092
iTrader: 126 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
The answer to your question was practically the entirety of my posts...In fact, the quote you used was part of my answer to that question. I'm sorry, but I've gone around in circles numerous times in this thread. It's out of hand now and I'm done.

Apparently the use of 1st amendment rights to say F Off are enough reason to be detained.
I've never disagreed with you on the legal right to look further IF there is a reason to. I definitely disagree with you on the legality of turning it into a detention because someone walks away from you when you ask them a question or tells you to F Off when you ask them What's In The Case. You said something along the lines of "If they told me to F Off and walked away they'd be looking at the business end of my Sig." Absolutely a detention, based on NO PC.

Hehe, I agree that this thread has kind of petered out though. I wish my last post had been addressed some, but I've got a feeling it wouldn't get anywhere anyway.
  #166  
Old 11-09-2009, 8:32 AM
SoCalDep SoCalDep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 815
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Read my comment again...I said nothing about "walked away" and the F Off was only part of the issue.

Telling a cop to F Off is not, in itself, grounds for detention. That, combined with other actions and the presence of a firearm case (as was explained in the initial post) can provide reasonable suspicion. PC is not needed to detain.

This is why I get frustrated. My words get manipulated by others so that a straw-man argument can be initiated. Let's all be intellectually honest and argue what is actually said as opposed to assumptions of facts not in evidence.

I said I was done and I should probably keep my mouth shut but I'm getting tired of people twisting my words.
  #167  
Old 11-09-2009, 8:40 AM
SoCalDep SoCalDep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 815
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
If the person were to stop (or not move on any faster than he/she was going) and talk to me, without consenting to a search or otherwise creating suspicion, then I wouldn't be comfortable detaining them.
From my post #34 in this thread....I explicitly state that if the person simply walked away I wouldn't feel comfortable detaining them. I stated exactly opposite what you accused me of saying.

If you look a little higher in the post, I stated that I would detain if the person "takes off"....While I may not have made myself perfectly clear in that statement, I feel the statement quoted below makes it very clear that I did not intend the words "takes off" to mean walks away. In fact, I can't figure out how you would interpret that out of my post.
  #168  
Old 11-09-2009, 9:45 AM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunny and hot.
Posts: 5,924
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post

Telling a cop to F Off is not, in itself, grounds for detention. That, combined with other actions and the presence of a firearm case (as was explained in the initial post) can provide reasonable suspicion. PC is not needed to detain.
So, which other actions are you speaking of?
  #169  
Old 11-09-2009, 9:59 AM
SoCalDep SoCalDep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 815
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Read the thread. Already discussed...(Hint...I put the post number in my above reply)
  #170  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:06 AM
chuckles48 chuckles48 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 213
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
The answer to your question was practically the entirety of my posts...In fact, the quote you used was part of my answer to that question. I'm sorry, but I've gone around in circles numerous times in this thread. It's out of hand now and I'm done.
My apologies then. From my perusal of the thread, it looked like it drifted _quickly_ away from the "is it loaded" check, into different territory - which is why I re-asked the original question.

I'll see if I can tease out an understanding from your other posts.
  #171  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:10 AM
SJgunguy24's Avatar
SJgunguy24 SJgunguy24 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Northern Mexico(San Jose) Where illegals have rights and citizens get screwed
Posts: 14,849
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermit315 View Post
So, which other actions are you speaking of?
The action SoCalDep is speaking of is, me riding a bicycle.
I have what is very clearly a rifle case. He stops and says "hey hows it going, hey what do you have in that case?"
I tell him to perform a lewd act on himself, and attempt to ride away.

He suspects I may have a firearm in that case, couple that with a bad attitude
and trying to avoid even talking to him....suspicious to say the least.

In my situation, if a cop asks me what's in the case i'm gona tell him what it is.
Flip on my recorder and see what happens. If I get run in for not breaking any laws believe me you will all hear about it. If i'm sent on my merry way, you'll hear abouit that as well.

I understand that our constitutional rights are what make this country great, unfortunatlly they are being taken away for reasone of "public safety" and thats B.S.
I also understand the job of a police officer/LEO and they want to see WTF your doing riding around with a gun.
They most likely have a family and want to see them at the end of their shift. LEO's are trained to be in charge, control is job 1. They must be in control of all variables so things don't get out of hand. If they do, they maybe killed or have to kill.
Neither of which is will end up well. Thats where the street smarts and experiance counts.
__________________
There are 3 kinds of people in this world.
The wise, learn from the mistakes of others.
The smart, learn from their own mistakes.
The others, well......they just never learn.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death!"
Patrick Henry.
  #172  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:12 AM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunny and hot.
Posts: 5,924
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
To be honest, we're all operating in a grey area here. It could be argued either way and could end up in some state or federal supreme court making new law. Some cops may feel they can articulate that a person riding in public with a rifle case is such an abnormal act that it justifies an investigative detention. I doubt this would be the case in many other states, but here, they might be able to make it fly in court, and that's what the real "gist" of the matter is. Personally, I want something more than someone riding down the street with a rifle in a case. I would probably talk to them, but on the facts presented alone, I wouldn't necessarily detain them.

Now, if I stop my car, not blocking the person's path, and say "hey, what's goin' on?" and the guy says "F-You!" and takes off....We're going to have a big show and he's going to see a view of a Sig P226 he doesn't want to see... I can justify a detention at this point. The unusual situation (rifle-case toting bike riders are just not that common...) combined with his aggressive language and attempt to leave as if to avoid discovery of what he/she may be carrying leads me to believe, based on my training and experience, that the person may be involved in criminal activity. If the person were to stop (or not move on any faster than he/she was going) and talk to me, without consenting to a search or otherwise creating suspicion, then I wouldn't be comfortable detaining them.

I would love to be able to say that in any circumstance (given the facts above) if someone did A, B, and C, they wouldn't be detained, but each officer has different training and experience, and there are so many variables that a detention could legally occur.

This is why people go to school for three years to wade through the pile of steaming cow turd that is the law. I used to have fun in law class because they'd assign us an issue, and also a side to argue. It's amazing what you can argue when morality isn't a part of it. Since we all have different perspectives of morality, much of it comes down to how well we argue and to whom we are arguing. (9th Circuit???)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
Read the thread. Already discussed...(Hint...I put the post number in my above reply)
Oh, so you are basically saying that you would make a knee jerk reaction based on your experience for something thats lawful.

Guess what, some people dont like cops, and dont want to be near them. Some people have been screwed over by cops, and dont want to afford ANY cop that opportunity to do it again, so telling a cop to F off and hauling *** might not be as unreasonable as you would like to paint it as being.

So, what other actions would result in you pulling your Sig?
  #173  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:26 AM
SoCalDep SoCalDep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 815
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Excellent argument...I guess I'm just a knee-jerk reacting rights violator. Thank you for making such an educated argument that I will forget all my legal research and agree with you.
  #174  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:29 AM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunny and hot.
Posts: 5,924
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

no problem.
  #175  
Old 11-09-2009, 11:36 AM
camsoup camsoup is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Red Bluff
Posts: 271
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex00 View Post
Yes, the freeway stop would be legitimate, to perform the 12031(e) check.
In this scenario would you request DL, Insurance and Registration?




What if it was a motorcycle riding on the street with a rifle case, would you still initiate a vehicle stop?
  #176  
Old 11-09-2009, 2:23 PM
inbox485's Avatar
inbox485 inbox485 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 3,677
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camsoup View Post
In this scenario would you request DL, Insurance and Registration?

What if it was a motorcycle riding on the street with a rifle case, would you still initiate a vehicle stop?
DL, insurance and registration are all fair game in any traffic stop. I'd be curious to see if 12031e would be a justifiable stop however. Aside from being blatantly against the constitution which officers are sworn to uphold, there are certain moving violations considered minor enough that a stop for that violation alone isn't justifiable. Since having a gun in of itself isn't a violation at all, I don't see how it is justified if a stop is necessary.
  #177  
Old 11-09-2009, 5:39 PM
retired retired is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,406
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

This thread has served its purpose and has migrated away from the OP's original scenario; it's done.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:21 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy