Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
I dont see what the guys colour has to do with it.
Many people seem to gloss over the part of this which strikes me as incredible.... the guy was carrying a metal IN HIS OWN FRONT YARD WHILE WORKING ON HIS CAR.
I am sorry to stress this overly, but HE WAS ARMED, IN HIS OWN FRONT YARD, WHILE WORKING ON HIS CAR.
|
If you were referring to my point about race, you are right, race should have nothing to do with it. The problem is many times it does, even for those, (and at times, particularly those) that deny they treat someone differently because of their race.
He may not have even had the weapon on until they showed up. He may have been baiting them for a confrontation. But if they are able to do this with impunity including the local government, then he only has privileges they deign to extend to him and not rights that were once held. If thats what he has, it's what you've got too. It is for certain that point is proved day after day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
I dont expect its illegal to go up to a police and say "youre a god damned coward and you dont have the guts to take out your truncheon and hit we with the balls with it, I guarantee it" - but it wouldnt be very sensible would it? And if he did hit you in the nuts it would be a crime, but you damn well know there's no point complaining about it.
There's such a thing as common sense in this world, and if you go out of your way to antagonise police (ie - start filming them, demand that they give your metal back and acting aggressively) you can expect them to make things miserable for you. The guy went out of his way to wind up the coppers and acted in an aggressive and obnoxious way - so he had a hard time. Thats the facts of life, isnt it?
|
I may have missed this about English law but what you said about not expecting it's illegal say that to police is not true in most places in this country. "Curse and Abuse" is a common charge here for police to file when someone mouths off to them in public.
I don't recall him coming up to them but that they came on his property where he was.
There is still some disconnect between Britain and America on what is the expectation to rights. Many people here expect to be left alone as long as they are
"IN HIS OWN FRONT YARD" as you put it. (there is an odd legal presumption about carrying in general compared to carrying just when you expect trouble. If you carry all the time and happen to shoot someone in self defense it has often been labeled self-defense, whereas someone carrying on a specific occassion because they were thinking something might happen because they had been having troubles were tried for premeditated felony. That's lawyer thinking for you)
No it doesn't make sense (to me anyway) to be carrying while working on my car or truck while in my own driveway. But where I live, if I chose to do that the local leo's aren't going to ask me if I'm carrying a gun they can clearly see in a holster. If I'm own my on property and they have no interest in me other than gathering information, they'll likely glance at it and never mention it unless they are asking out of curiosity of why I'm carrying it at the moment.
Here (in this area) you can carry holstered legally as long as it is in the open.
On the other hand if I happen to be over in Washington on the street carrying open while working on my vehicle, I might as well lie down on the street and wait for the DC Metro Police to pick me up since I'm not there dealing drugs. If I were carrying a gun in DC it had better be concealed. It might be breaking the law but it would be discreet and as Bush 41 would say "prudent".
As far as the original point about the phone being taken and him arrested for obstruction; if you don't have a right to personal defense, you basically have no rights.
The Miranda "warning" has been turned into Miranda "rights". Centered around the 5th Article against self incrimination, it was decided many years ago police should be required to recite a laundry list of rights (rights you already had) if they arrest you. I don't disagree with the concept, but it has been stretched too much by both pro-law enforcement and pro-"civil" liberties that it has lost meaning for common people.
The police are able to detain him, take what was evidently a lawfully owned weapon and that had not been observed being brandished, prevent him from recording them skating on thin ice doing all this while not being connected to what they were on call for, all under color of law. As long as they are just "detaining" him and not "arresting" him they don't have to read him Miranda, ergo he has no rights really, while having them all (at this point its as if they can do pretty much as they please, he can't stop them)
If you are arrested, you are what? Stopped? If you are being detained by police, put in handcuffs and placed behind the cage in the backseat is that not being "stopped"?
You may say, "but to arrest you they have to charge you". That is the case, but it is also the case that many are charged only to have the police drop the charges after they get what they want. No harm, no foul? They know most folks are like dogs caught in a coyote trap, they're just happy to get out and be done. Most aren't going to come back because the police will deny everything and never willingly give evidence they did anything wrong.
Every-once-in-awhile they tag someone prickly, only to learn the hard way they should have left well enough alone.
I'm no anarchist by any stretch and I do live keeping a low profile. But there have been times I've had to put my foot down when push comes to shove and tell people to slow down and ask themselves if they really want to step across my line.
Again, I don't live in Michigan and though it would be more convenient, I don't live in DC for the same reason, the powers that be in those places do not respect individual rights, only "civil" rights. (the ones they say are ok)