dksuddeth

You're in your driveway, under the hood of your car. 3 police officers and 2 state troopers approach you and ask you if you have any weapons. You do happen to be carrying a pistol in a holster on your hip. You point to it, making sure that they see you are not reaching for it. They slam you up against your car, forcibly remove the pistol, then handcuff you. They explain to you that several houses down someone has shot themselves in the head in their vehicle and they are just securing the area. 15 minutes later, the 2 troopers and a single officer come back, uncuff you, and ask you to stay here as they have some questions to ask later. You ask about having your weapon returned to you and why they felt it necessary to violate your rights on your own private property. He doesn't answer, so you pull out the small video recorder to record his actions and non answers, they demand you turn it over. Knowing it is not illegal to videotape in public, you refuse, then they threaten you with a taser. Arrest you, charge you with felony obstruction and resisting arrest.

what would you do?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

telekinetic

shit bricks?

__________________
twisted no more

Plan9

Lawsuit?

"Securing the area," sounds like some bullshit to me. Last time I checked, suicide isn't contagious. (Granted... I wish it was... we'd have a lot less Emo kids.)

...

Wait... DK... were you wearing your "DEATH TO PIGS" shirt, again? Ya know, the one with the cartoon cops being decapitated?

You're such a kidder!

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

Sue the police department. I'll bet with the case this hypothetical person has, they could get decent legal representation for free. And if your lawyer gives you the okay, upload that video to youtube and put it on reddit and digg. The more attention and public outrage the case gets, the less likely it is to happen again.

They can't arrest you for felony obstruction for videotaping them and because of that they can't get you on resisting arrest.

blktour

whoa, sounds like a new movie coming out. that is intense. I would try to be calm the whole time, but also try to keep on recording it to show their actions or try to stay in front of their trooper car the whole time since they have video there. other than that, I dont know what to tell ya. But I would press charges.

telekinetic

From what I understand, through circular logic the likes of which time traveler paradox's don't even compare with, they can attempt an arrest for a bad/stupid/illegal reason, and then if you resist, legally arrest you for resisting arrest.

__________________
twisted no more

dksuddeth

the only video now available is dash cam footage from one police car....wait for it......with NO audio. the digital recorder has turned up 'missing'. so what would you continue to do?
-----Added 4/2/2009 at 01 : 12 : 16-----
it actually said 'not without a warrant' on it..


just kidding. no special t-shirt involved.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Lasereth

They weren't acting unethically or unlawfully until they took the video camera. Them taking the camera is worth bringing up but them cuffing you because you had a gun is just police work. Someone is dead a few houses down, you're sitting there with a gun. It's their job to investigate what happened and you do look suspicious.

If they charged you with resisting arrest then I highly doubt you simply got out a camera and were arrested. If you made a big fuss then they probably hit you with the right charge anyway.

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

dksuddeth

supreme court precedent would dictate otherwise. Police need reasonable and articulate suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed and the simple act of carrying a gun does not fit that criteria, despite the fact that someone committed suicide 4 houses down.

since supreme court precedent also states that it is not illegal to videotape police in public and to interfere with that by taking the recorder violates the 4th amendment of the constitution, one can refuse to turn over the video recorder. does refusing to follow an unlawful order constitute cause for arrest?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

blktour

I would take the hit, and get handcuffed with what came with it, but then I will come back on that guy later on in life. not violence or anything, but something that makes me feel good that he got.

dksuddeth

take the hit?? allow yourself to be railroaded?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Plan9

Of course. Catering to the system's flaws helps perpetuate them, silly.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Glory's Sun

this is what lawyers are for.

doesn't matter if there isn't any audio on the video or not. get a criminal lawyer to get the charges dropped and then a civil lawyer to sue the shit out of the city.

might take a couple of years.. but hey.. it's better than doing nothing.

blktour

take whatever they feel they need to do or whatever, then get through that issue and then pull myself together to payback. hehe

Lasereth

Give me a break man. A guy a few houses down with a gun who is outside and available IS reasonable suspicion. The police wouldn't be doing their jobs if they let a nearby neighbor with a gun go ignored after a possible murder has occurred. Now if the suicide has already been called, a suicide note found, or a witness who saw him kill himself identified, then so be it. Was this the case?

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Jinn

I would seek legislative relief, and demand a review and/or suspension of the officers by their internal affairs division.

Failing that, I would kill them.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

dksuddeth

a gun was found in dead persons lap in the car. on first contact, after being disarmed and handcuffed, the officers did say it was a suicide.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

World's King

Well, first and foremost...


I wouldn't assume I was above the law.



No one violated your rights. You're being paranoid. There was a right way to ask about your weapon. You didn't do it. And there is absolutely no reason to ask a cop "why he felt it necessary to violate your rights on your own private property. You are part of the reason the rest of the country thinks people in Texas are fucking nuts.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

Strange Famous

I wouldnt have a gun.

And Im not saying that to take the piss.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

dksuddeth

just so that you know, you make yourself look like an idiot when you assume things.

This incident happened in Michigan and not to me.

Now, maybe you can stop making stupid ass judgement calls and answer the questions applying the rules of law instead of applying your fucked up common sense values?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Strange Famous

Whoever it is, why would they have a metal on them while they were working on their car in their driveway?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Jinn

This really only applies to countries that don't have draconian gun laws. It makes perfect sense to me to have a concealed when working on your car in your driveway.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

dksuddeth

irrelevant. you're asking a why when it doesn't matter. In that state, it's not against the law to wear openly on your own property.

I posed this to see how people would deal with law enforcement violating the rights of people, mainly about the camera, and not about the guns. Everything in the incident has the citizen completely within the laws of the country and the state.

can we get on with dealing with the legal issues instead of asking' why would'?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Strange Famous

I think to understand why this person ended up in trouble, you'd probably understand why they feel like they need a gun to mend their car on their own driveway - because the answer's will probably be the same?

Legally you can say what you want about it. Common sense would say that to antagonise a load of police for no personal gain and for no logical reason is only going to cause you grief and hassle.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

World's King

I stand by my first post.



No one had their rights violated.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

dksuddeth

once again, this is about law, not your common sense. how does a society move along at a peaceful pace if there is no law, only common sense? (and we all know peoples definition of common sense are always different)

so whether this is greenwich village or downtown detroit is irrelevant.
-----Added 4/2/2009 at 03 : 11 : 35-----
so being ordered to surrender private property (video camera) with no legal justification is not a violation of a persons right? being arrested for refusing an illegal order is not a violation?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

The felony obstruction charge was bullshit. You can't legally be arrested for filming in public in the US.

ring

dk..just so you know, you really frighten me and I worry about you.
It seems like you lay awake at night thinking up all kinds of scenarios
to get yourself all worked up on an adrenaline rush.

People can become truly physically addicted to this sort of thing,
their brains become so used to all the diferent chemicals that
are dumped into their system in a 'fight or flight' situation,
be it real or imaginary.

You need help.

roachboy

actually, you can. cops do it all the time--it's just a lovely dimension of that brave new world of freedom republican-style. it's typically something on the order of a slap suit--there's nothing to it, but you have to hire a lawyer to get out of it.

as for the op---i was wondering who this happened to, and then it turned out to be a second-hand retelling of a story.
from what's here, things took a turn at the point where the hypothetical hero of individual rights asked the cop "why was it necessary to violate my rights" by taking the gun after that hero was told at the outset the rationale for the action.
the video taping just confirmed the obtuseness of the hypothetical hero of individual rights.

but i have the feeling that stuff's been left out somehow.
you have a more complete account, dk?
i'm just curious.
something feels wrong about your version.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

lets see if we can leave the partisan politics out of this. I put it in general for a reason, so that it wouldn't turn political.

to set the story even straighter, it's not illegal to ask questions, nor is it illegal to question officers of the law, so if the direction of the 'conflict' took a turn, it rests squarely on the shoulders of law enforcement not liking being 'questioned' by a mere civilian. Ok, enough of my coloring. the other part is that video hadn't even gotten started yet. all that happened was that the cop saw it pulled out of a pocket and immediately demanded the device. The rationale, being there was a suicide down the street, provides absolutely zero probably cause to apprehend someone working on a vehicle on their own property because he legally was carrying a gun.

Let us hear this again, the property owner was LEGALLY carrying a gun. he committed no crime, was not suspected of committing a crime, nor was there any assertion by the police that he was going to commit a crime. Those three substantiations MUST BE MADE in order for a police officer to detain someone. This is United States Supreme Court precedent people. It is not that hard to follow. your ideas of common sense do not play in to this. If you want them to, write your state representatives and get them to rewrite the constitution and the laws.

the only things I have left out of it were the police officers initial reasons of why they contacted and disarmed the individual. The officers reason was that they were clearing the scene of an investigation, however, the yellow police tape was ONLY wrapped around the trees and fence of the dead persons front yard 150 feet away from the individual who had his rights violated.
-----Added 4/2/2009 at 03 : 59 : 20-----
thank you for your concern. is this your way of telling me that I should quiet down on the whole freedom and rights thing and just do what i'm told from now on?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

geez, dk. sounds like you're defending the cops actions regarding the camera. or maybe you misread the statement i made. who knows?

as for cops acting imperious when questioned---this is news how exactly? seriously, dk. this happens all the time. i'm about the last person to defend it---it's obviously an ugly side of wearing a uniform, this impression that comes along with it that your Authority exempts you from questions---but this sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. i have a dozen stories i can think of about this kind of nonsense off the top of my head.

but if that's true, that what's at issue here is an entirely routine abuse of power, then it cannot be the case that you abstracted this story from any number of alternative possible stories with the same plot line for that reason--so this is about the gun.

i don't think it is about the gun. i think it's about the above--and as annoying as it is, it also seems to be the sort of thing folk are willing to put up with, conditioned as they are by endless television shows about heroic police who never stamp on basic rights, who never act like assholes etc etc etc.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

why do we allow it to happen then? why don't more of us make a change?

It started with the gun, however, what ripped me more about this was AFTER he was uncuffed and allowed to sit down so they could come back and ask questions later, he was no longer any kind of 'suspect' as much as he would be a witness. So with that change in who he was to them, why would the police get all bent out of shape about being recorded, so much to the extent that they illegally demanded the recorder, then threatened to tase him for not surrendering it to them?

and as long as we let this condition continue???? what do we do, as a society, to prevent these things from becoming, as you say, routine?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

BigBob234

Continue to vote Libertarian.

Strange Famous

Can anyone yet explain why the guy was carrying a metal while working on his car on his own driveway?

Since such a thing is obviously bizzare and threatening - the police's reaction has to be judged in relation to this strangeness.

So yes, it does matter.

Its legal to walk around wearing all black and a balaclava and a sports bag at 3 am round a residential street... but if you did youre behaviour would be judged as suspicious and youd expect to be stopped and searched.

The same thing goes to any guy who is armed in his own front yard. The police are gonna obviously think "why has this guy got a metal on him?" and arrest him, because its incredibly suspicious and threatening behaviour.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Plan9

Actually, wearing a mask in public places is often illegal due to local ordinances.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

If I may, this might be a good explanation for some one that's not from the US:
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Analysis: America's gun culture
For pro-gun people, you're not going to like the article, but that's how most Europeans see it.

Strange Famous

This isnt about gun ownership in general.

If a guy is tooled up in the middle of the woods, wearing an orange jacket and taking pot shots at wild animals - in America at least this is reasonable.

Its about the context of a guy who is tooled up, in a residential area, with kids and women around, who is aggressive when the police approach him. Im the last person to defend police, but they were correct to treat this guy with caution. And the resisting arrest charge suggests the guy was more aggressive than the poster wants to communicate.

Whatever articles you can quote, I cant see any reasonable reason for a sane person who does not wish to do anyone harm to be carrying a metal in the middle of the day in his own front garden!

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

dksuddeth

While that behavior will certainly get you noticed in the UK, here in many states of the US, it is quite legal, though we still have issues with local police about it. We're having to take care of the issue through federal lawsuits against the police for it.

so, for this particular issue, the gun is irrelevant.
-----Added 4/2/2009 at 06 : 12 : 47-----
if you want to read actions in to the person involved with the issue, fine. it negates any of your responses. As I said above, in many states it is not only legal, the states laws make very specific exceptions for people on their own property that handgun carrying laws do not apply. the resisting arrest charge resulted not from the gun or asking about the gun, but about resisting the surrender of the video camera.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

It's a combination of things, by my understanding.

First, it's upbringing. Most people that are gun-friendly here had guns as a religion in their household. The teaching was simple: you could be in danger, so why risk it? Have a gun.

In addition, there's the power. I don't know if you've ever handled a firearm, but they're fucking cool. Cold, precision steel, the connection with virtually every hero in American mythos; even the power of god, the ability to take a life and to make the determination as to whether someone deserves to live or die. Guns are fucking cool.

Finally, there's the government. The Second Amendment was originally about protecting one's self from tyranny. That ideal, the patriotic insurrection principle, runs surprisingly strong in the US, especially the South.

I don't list these to excuse the behavior, just to explain it.

Plan9

Funny, I didn't grow up with guns in the house, don't feel all that powerful with one (as a civvie I'd only ever use one when I'm a situation where I have no choice), and I'm not worried about The Man (TM) all that much.

It's a hobby. It can be abused just like anything else.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."