what would you do?
 

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?

shit bricks?

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!

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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?

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.

take the hit?? allow yourself to be railroaded?

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

I wouldnt have a gun.

And Im not saying that to take the piss.

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?

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

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.

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'?

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.

I stand by my first post.



No one had their rights violated.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Continue to vote Libertarian. :)

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Police just don't like when people actually know their rights and the laws.. so when they encounter someone who does, the police will always call it resisting.

it's all part of the machine.. and we feed it daily.

I'm of the belief that if people who talk an awful lot about defending the 2nd amendment spent half as much energy defending the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights, they wouldn't have to spend so much energy talking about defending the 2nd amendment.

And, regardless of the situation, one's attitude when dealing with the police often dictates their response as well.

I'm just posting because seeing JumpinJesus' name as the most recent poster made me think someone had a post called "What Would Jesus Do".

I would agree, particularly the "attitude often dictates response" but would add that dk has been an outspoken and passionate defender of the 1st, 4th, 5th...9th amendments.....although I dont always agree with him.

Heh.

we all know what JJ would do, he would've pulled out the camera and started asking the cops to make man love with each other so he could further his career.

Here we are derailing a perfectly good thread just so we can make man-love jokes.

As I said, many things are technically legal but will judged as suspicious.

I gather its legal to carry a knife in the US, but if you stood outside a grade school with a machete you'd be arrested. I suppose you are just being obtuse for the sake of making an argument. This guy hasnt gone to jail, and the way he behaved he was asking to be nicked.

I fucking hate white people.

Me too.

Well this thread certainly has been derailed. I don't see how the prev. comments were in any way constructive...

...anyway...the facts are clear here. unfortunately somebody's life was ended with a bullet and 150 ft away somebody else was standing in his front yard with a gun on display. IMO most cops are idiot assholes but they still have a job to do, and questioning a 'red-blooded American' who is 'exercising his rights' to display his gun in public sometimes falls in that category.

to the white people comment...just imagine how much attention this story would be garnering if the guy in Michigan was black or Mexican or something...just think:
"LOCAL POLICE ARREST GUN-TOTING MEXICAN IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU: STAY TUNED FOR DETAILS" ..course I'm assuming he's not

Aren't we all assuming this scenario is even true?

And murph, in case you didn't know (just in case) both WK and Crompsin are crackers.

...I've had enough of your racist slurs!

...

This entire story sounds like a DK BDSM fetish wet dream.

Murp,
I'm curious as to how you know the person in Michigan isn't black? It may well be all the cops are black and the home owner is white or vice versa. It should not make a difference.
The problem is we all know it does depending on where you are.
Everything considered, from the places I've been over the years, white southern crackers are about as egalitarian as anyone else when the truth is revealed. A lot seems to change between whether you live in a large city or small town or out in the country.
I used to live in North Carolina and found wide varieties in strange places like Winston-Salem as opposed to Forsythe County a big shift down in cop attitude. Go over into Davie County and it changes even more. Who is the top dog barking? In counties it is generally elected sheriffs and hired police chiefs in cities. That certainly changes who answers to who.
That is the politics of power, who gives the power/who can take it away.

DK knows a secret I know (it shouldn't be a secret) The popularly called 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is the hardware (no pun intended) that keeps the door shut and or open on the federal government.
This is different than the 18th amendment that prohibited alcohol and the one (21st) that said it was ok a few years later. It is different than the slow power grab (17th amenment) that disallowed states from sending senators to Washington as a check against federal power.

Once the hinges and locks are taken off a door there is little left to hold the door up or secure it in it's place. I've seen places that has no secure door. People peer out from the dark room looking to see whats coming. They live in fear and do not know what the night holds.

Remember, the next article after the right to bear arms is one to prohibit soldiers from being quartered in homes. If you think that has no relevance, ask someone who lived in Nazi occupied Europe. Folks often think of the 4th as being what protects them from intrusion, it is there for that.
If you look at the intrusions our forbearers were accustomed to and compare it to the current electronic intrusions you are subject to now, the 3rd seems to have new meaning.
Without the right to self protection and means of liberty against oppression, this will become like the also rans.
Besides that, when Britain gets in a pinch like they were in the 30's and 40's, who will GIVE them guns for the folks at home to protect themselves if we get rid of all our privately owned guns.

Urgh. Ugh. Meh. Oh, America.

Yeah, nice metaphor... but I say having a gun doesn't change any of that alarmist poetry. A gun by itself doesn't turn Joe Wimpy into Joe Hero. It's just a tool, an implement. It isn't a magical merit badge of valor, it isn't burglar repellent, it doesn't do anything that the operator can't make it do. Even the pathetic training I experienced in the military said as much when it brainwashed me with, "Your M4 is an instrument, you are the weapon."

Perhaps it is these paranoid gun owners that "live in fear and do not know what the night holds." I'm not a statistical genius nor do I play one on TeeVee, but I'm sure there is a large number amongst the clutch-of-death-on-a-1911 "living in fear" crowd. Gah, I'm sick of the hoopla. Relax, people.

...

I'm all for open carry but this ultra-violent, litigation-happy, guns-will-eat-my-baby Baa!-Baa! society makes it way impractical.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Keep a low profile. It aids in hiding you from the man, ya know. :rolleyes:

Legal or not, common sense would dictate that walking around your front yard with a visible piece is a great way to get unwanted attention.

Plus, the guy was doing vehicle maintenance? I'm not a tactical mechanic, but I'd reckon a sidearm just gets in the way. Whenever I'm working on cars, I ditch the watches, rings, clown shoes, necklaces, MP5K PDW chest rig, whatever. That's just common sense safety. And you might scratch the finish!

...

Huh, you live in NoVA, too? We should go shooting some time.

[QUOTE=Crompsin;2593289]Nice metaphor... but I say having a gun doesn't change any of that alarmist poetry. A gun by itself doesn't turn Joe Wimpy into Joe Hero. It's just a tool, an implement. It isn't a magical merit badge of valor, it isn't burglar repellent, it doesn't do anything that the operator can't make it do. Even the pathetic training I experienced in the military said as much when it brainwashed me with, "Your M4 is an instrument, you are the weapon."

Perhaps it is these paranoid gun owners that "live in fear and do not know what the night holds." I'm not a statistical genius nor do I play one on TeeVee, but I'm sure there is a large number amongst the clutch-of-death-on-a-1911 "living in fear" crowd. Gah, I'm sick of the hoopla. Relax, people.

...

I'm all for open carry but this ultra-violent, litigation-happy, guns-will-eat-my-baby Baa!-Baa! society makes it way impractical.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Keep a low profile. It aids in hiding you from the man, ya know. :rolleyes:

Legal or not, common sense would dictate that walking around your front yard with a visible piece is a great way to get unwanted attention.

QUOTE]

I never wrote it as a metaphor, just an analogy since it is true in practice as well as in principle. I was not thinking of America when I wrote about people peering out a door thats no longer there.
If you had seen Rhodesia and South Africa before their current condition you would know what I mean. When people are stripped of the means to defend themselves it changes everything for everyone. Neither place was perfect before by any means , but destroying everything that was, was not the answer. (of course it was the answer for Mandellas retribution and his wifes blood lust

The American public has been generally induced into giving up small rights to the point there will be no rights. They have been mis-educated, lied to, taught revised histories, made to believe whatever before was wrong and only what we give you is right.

I don't dispute what you say about discretion, it's true. But as long as I can push you further and make you take more of my crap, and have you bow to it, I will continue to do it. If you don't push back I could keep on until you have nothing because I take everything.
No weapons don't make Joe Wimp into Joe Hero. But to quote Harry Callahan, "a man's got to know his limitations"

If you were in that situation it would be a different story wouldn't it.
Not likely SCSD is going to walk up on you in your driveway even if they see you carrying if it's in a holster. I doubt DK is in much different situation in TX.

That being said I'll throw in another scene.
A former cop working as a bodyguard walks into a building where his employer works.
He goes to the security desk to check his weapons in before proceeding upstairs.
He tells security rather than leaving the weapons bag in his car he wanted to check them in.
Upon opening the bag, the man gets thrown to the wall, spread eagle while being searched and cuffed. He is immediately taken to jail and charged with possession of an unregistered handgun and other charges. He is thrown in lockup and told his things will be held for trial and destroyed afterwards.
The bodyguards boss calls their boss and immediately demands his release and return of his gear. No can do. Was he deprived of due process? Was he wrong for maintaing a low profile?

As far as being approached by 5 armed men of any ilk makes me cautious. On the other hand I choose not to live in a place like that.

Your treatment of this makes me guess you're a nihilist. No? Partial?

Where are you by the way, UMW, Germanna, NVCC?

Pfft, UMW is for girls (I used to bang one from there). I'm farther north and spend far more money on tuition than those schools. Big league, dude.

...

I'm not a nihilist, I'm just playing the averages. I could go my whole life with a M18 Claymore offensive mine strapped to my chest and the detonator between my narrow buttcheeks... but I'd rather do other things in life. I have a concealed carry permit and I keep a piece in my car "just in case." I have a shotgun for "home defense." I study first aid, martial arts, land nav, and I own all five seasons of the A-Team on DVD. Try it, mofos... I'm ready.

But I don't go to bed at night wearing a bandoleer of 12g buckshot praying that a racial minority in a ski mask breaks in my house to steal my gigundo plasma TeeVee after raping my pleasantly plump wife and taking a dump on the 3'x5' US flag I have above my fireplace.

I like how you use 1% examples or examples of countries that aren't the US. We're NOT Rhodesia or South Africa. This is Spoiled Crackerland where running water, electricity, and Starbucks are a given.

Sure, Americans give up their rights. That's a given. Society, in general, is giving up rights for safety. That's how the pendulum is swinging these days. Eventually things will get too shitty and will swing back to "The Good Ole Days." Life is cyclical and so is everything else, especially politics. Hell, ten years from now I'll vote probably Republican (gasp).

The victors write the high school history books, education is a government-fabricated lie, TeeVee is a placating cancer. We get that. And we also stand idly by and watch as we let The Man rape us and our children. Enough. Dear Freedom Fighters, the world isn't your color of taupe. Deal with it. People generally tolerate what they like and learn to accept it. Look at the peons throughout history.

You can push me pretty far, but I have my limits. And like a lot of normal people, I'm not going to get on an Internet forum and post a tirade about my limits like a psychopath. I wouldn't wanna spoil the surprise and I certainly don't want my own DHS database entry.

Fictional characters are rarely authoritative sources. I am, however, a huge Eastwood fan.

Lawyer.

Get a good one, and go from there.

Cromp,

You should ditch school and go to writing plot for Quentin Tarantino.

BTW, I doubt there will be a Republican Party in 10 years to vote for.

well so far, in this thread, i've only seen two people actually care to discuss the main point I asked about and that was concerning the illegal order to turn over a video recording device, then be arrested for refusal. Everyone seems focused on the individual carrying a gun.....because he was carrying a gun. This should go a long way in to showing everybody how skewed their sheeple thought processes take them. The individual in the OP broke no laws, yet most here question his 'common sense' simply because they, in his position, wouldn't have been carrying that gun. Your 'common sense' isn't the law and unless you talk your representatives in to making it so, it is irrelevant.

Now, if anyone is truly interested in answering the question, i'll repost the same scenario/incident from a point already in to the confrontation.

Now, would anyone actually care to respond concerning the 4th amendment protections ONLY????

ok on the 4th Amendment, dk, here goes.

Was there an unreasonable search and/or seizure? Yes.

Rat: The general rule is that law enforcement must have a warrant, to enter onto private property to search, seize, arrest, etc. There are exceptions (consent given by owner, observance of crime in progress, or other exigent circumstances), but none are applicable here. The "arrest" occurred when the guy was cuffed. It was done without probable cause. That would be false arrest, with battery. This analysis applies to what happened when the officers returned 15 minutes later. No warrant, where there's no justification for its absence, and no crime in progress = illegal law enforcement action.

Most states grant qualified immunity to law enforcement, for action taken, in good faith, in the performance of their duties. To me, this qualifies under the "reckless disregard" exclusion of these immunity laws.

Bottom Line: The guy did nothing wrong, and there is civil exposure to law enforcement (the actions warrant an internal investigation also).

Yes, the guy could have said or done something differently, behaved more respectfully, yadda yadda. The point is that he shouldn't have been put in that position in the first place. Private property is just that, whether you're inside your house or not, and the 4th Amendment protections equally apply. To those who put some of the blame on the guy, take the same facts, only put him inside his home, answering law enforcement's knock on the door. The legal result should be the same either way.

Caveat to the victim: this doesn't constitute legal advice; you need to retain an attorney and guided by his advice.

If it were CSI... since the guy in the driveway knows how to use guns, he stole the neighbors gun, drugged him, put him in the car, shot him, planted the gun, wrote a fake suicide note, and went to work on his car so he would have an alibi.
The cops were taking precautions because they didn't know if the guy in the driveway would start shooting if they accused him of murder.

:)

I'm just guessing here, but maybe the police worry about you selectively editing the video tape, or adding in something that didn't happen. But the securing the area thing doesn't sound right.

Anything is possible. Hence the reason for the word "probable" in probable cause. Is it more likely true than not that the neighbor did what you suggest as a possibility? If the answer is "no", which clearly seems to be the case on the facts presented in the OP, then that suspicion by law enforcement, assuming it was their explanation for the action taken against the neighbor, wouldn't withstand 4th Amendment scrutiny.

I would comply and document as much as possible,then get a lawyer.

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.

When the police came along he obviously says to them "yes, Ive got a metal on me" and shows them the piece... it isnt unreasonable for them to restrain him. Then he starts filming them etc, I mean, either the guy is very naive, as in childish, or he is willfully trying to provoke them.

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?

SF, yet again, even though you 'stress it', it is irrelevant. Here in the USA, we have a RIGHT to bear arms, especially on ones own property. I realize that the culture of rights and firearms between our countries is nearly opposite, but you have to get over your preconceived notions of what is and isn't acceptable to appreciate what authority police have and have not available to them.

Everything you spoke about here, again, is irrelevant. If society is to function correctly and there is to be an authorized police force to take action against individuals who break laws, there can be no such thing as 'common sense' to guide law enforcement. If you do utilize such a measure, than there is no way to determine just when or how laws are to be abided by or conduct to be measured. There is a very solid and inviolable line between citizen rights and law enforcement authority and not only do we have the right to bear arms (especially on our own property) but police have no authority to interfere with that right in any way, shape, or form unless a law has clearly been violated. We have very clear cut supreme court precedent that says carrying a firearm is a completely legal act and is in no way to be used as suspicion of a crime. Now, we do have what is called a 'terry search', in which a police officer may pat down a suspect for any weapons (for officer safety) only during the detainment period. This terry stop would only apply in so far as them detaining this individual on suspicion of a crime or for the duration of police interaction, which MIGHT apply in the first part of the confrontation.

We also have supreme court precedent that clearly states that videotaping the police in public service incidents is completely legal because there is absolutely no expectation of privacy for public servants operating in the course of their assigned duties, so ordering to stop recording or turn over video recording devices is completely outside of the authority of law enforcement.

Now, with that in mind, is it possible for you to have any other objective opinion about the violations of the 4th amendment or are you still stuck on your own personal opinion about what should and should not be done according to your own personal ideals?

Yeah well - thinking there is no "common sense" in the situation is probably why this guy got to spend the night in the cells. If he goes into court and starts babbling on about his rights etc I expect he will get a community service order for his troubles too, so for his sake lets hope he learns a bit of common sense instead.

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.


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)

if that is the way things are now in the UK, I feel badly for you because I have no idea how anyone can function in society over there without knowing what boundaries are where. good luck.

Interesting scenario. It would be an interesting creative writing exercise.

Regarding the gun. I suspect it could be a murder. The gun in the victim's lap isn't the one they used to kill themself, but was instead planted by the murderer, after which he walked away with the murder weapon, perhaps down the block, to work on his car.

To wear said gun while working on car isn't the most intelligent decision - and given the switcheroo plan, such a decision wouldn't be consistent with his intelligence - but I suspect it's possible. Perhaps he was cocky and wanted to toy with the officers, as serial killers have been known to do; making it a sort of game.

thank you CSI Jimellow. now, perhaps you didn't read enough of the original post where the police already acknowledged that it was a suicide and nothing else????

I read it, but I am not sure their initial reaction/conclusion is enough to rule out something else. The murderer could have taken two identical guns to the scene, the murder weapon and the decoy he left with the victim.

Actually, that's a pretty interesting scenario within itself.

I enjoy this aspect of the thread more than the legal and lawyer aspects.

If the person used two identical guns, and fired the decoy into the air (or somewhere else that wouldn't leave a trace), left the shell and gun, and walked away with the murder weapon, is there any way they could catch him?

I suspect the police would be suspicious about the questioned man having a gun identical to the one used in the suspected suicide, and perhaps that could initiate a thought process that would make them suspicious of shenanigans.

Whenever someone says "two identical guns" it makes me think, "It was the one-armed man!"

And then it makes me ignore the conversation.

Guns are like wedding rings. Nobody buys more than they need.

Interesting comment, but I admittedly don't understand it.

I am not a big proponent of guns and don't own any myself, but I'm curious about the context of "need" in the way you used it.

Hypothetically, if someone were planning a murder in the complex situation created above, wouldn't they "need" two similar guns to succeed?

I'm not intentionally being dense, but am trying to understand the statement. I understand the wedding ring in the example, but not the guns.

Threadjacking Action:

Couple of hot educational tidbits:

- People "need" guns the way that people "need" cigarettes, booze, football, and lingerie. It's a hobby.

- Legal guns are expensive ($500+ for anything worthwhile) and require a rather annoying and thorough registration process and background check unless you consider person to person sales, which are considered a "huge loophole" by jihading anti-gun clerics. I'll leave out illegal activities such as theft and the black market because those engaging in illegal activities are already more dangerous than any normal person with a firearm. Reality: Guns are inanimate objects. People operate them.

- If someone intelligent was planning a murder, they probably wouldn't use a gun unless absolutely necessary. You can kill somebody with $2 steak knife just as easily and for a heckuva lot cheaper if you're motivated and inclined to do such.

Good points.

Need is an interesting concept when you think about it. I agree.

Sure, guns are inaminate objects.

They are tools, designed and built spefically to kill.
-----Added 16/2/2009 at 02 : 26 : 32-----

Its the same as anywhere. If you go out of your way to antagonise police you can expect hassle over it, and if you really insist on pushing it too far you can expect some grey days.

I visit another forum and this popped up from a guys experience. and boy were they so MISSING what he was saying. they were just giving him crap that it was a female cop that pushed him.
Here it is:

"I almost went to jail last night.

APD was dispatched to Platinum Jaxx last night.

I was trying to hail a cab when I was told to leave the area. I told the officer I was trying to hail a cab and I was again told to leave. When I questioned her demands I was threatened with being arressted. When questioning what could I possibly be arrested for I was pushed. This was not a crowd control packed deal. It was just me and she used both hands and pushed me.

At that point I walked across the street because I thought I should definitely leave before I was tackled and a story fabricated.

Is this the defacto standard we can come to accept from APD?

I feel like if an officer has to put their hands on you, you should go to jail.... PERIOD. They should not be touching you unless it is to arrest you."

Huh, I'm amazed at your one-for-one... so do explain why I don't have a 50+ body count to go along with my hobby.

I mean, I've had a whole boatload guns for many, many years and nothing bad has ever happened. That's so weird.

I would attempt to sue for excessive force, go to trial because I have a legitimate reason to claim that my rights were violated, and lose because regardless of what my rights are, a jury will rule based on emotion.

Then I'd be harassed by police at all possible opportunities until I moved to a different state.

back to the original topic, I'd sue for prior restraint and violation of my 1st amendment rights. I would probably also sue for false arrest, as i was doing nothing wrong when they detained me (they can call it detaining me all they want, but if I'm not free to leave, then I'm under arrest, and they can't arrest me unless they have a specific charge in mind when they do). Then I'd seek compensatory damages for the emotional suffering and hardship the traumatic experience caused me, including sleepless nights, fear of leaving my house, and an involuntary flash of terror every time I saw a cop car.

I'd also call every media outlet in town and let 'em know that the cops don't allow people to video tape them anymore. Photojournalists /love/ it when the cops decide our job is now an arrestable offense ;)

Yeah... go contact the local media and start telling the story.

"I was just fixing my car in my own front yard, and I had a metal on me..."

I dont think you'd need to tell anymore for them to make up their minds.

so, you're saying right here that it wouldn't matter to you that the guy didn't break a single law, was falsely arrested, had excessive force used upon him, and had his first and fourth amendment constitutional rights violated by law enforcement, you'd dismiss his case out of hand because he carried a gun when you felt he didn't need to?

I'm sure glad that some of the media over here doesn't agree with you.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/39722082.html

Maybe in the UK where blaming the victim seems to be the way they do things, but here all you need to do is tell them that you were thrown against a cop car and arrested for videotaping them, all while doing nothing illegal" and they'll be all over it.

And when did "metal" come into use as a slang term for a gun? Must be a British thing, I've never heard it.

He was NOT falsely detained, he was detained because someone had been shot and he had a piece on him and was a few hundred yards away. In that case the police acted reasonably until they were sure of the situation.

The charges he faces arent even do with carrying a metal, they are do with threatening and aggressive behaviour he showed towards the police.

Personally, and impartially, I hope a 50 hour community service order that has him picking up garbage every weekend for the next 6 weeks will teach this guy a little common sense.

I bet he feels like a real constitutional hero right now.

what common sense would that be? to grovel to cops instead of demanding your rights?

They were sure of the situation -- they told him that someone down the street shot himself. He was assertive and arguably aggressive toward the police for needlessly roughing him up and acting unprofessionally, then arrested him for obstruction and resisting arrest despite the fact that he had done nothing illegal, had complied with their orders except when they told him to do something that they had no right to make him do, and they had previously let him go and not attempted to arrest him. Then they "lost" the evidence.

If this story as we've been told it is accurate, then the police are acting like thugs when they should be holding themselves to a standard of professional conduct.

To reiterate MSD's point, here's the quote from dk's initial post:

If they tell me that they know I didn't shoot the guy, and detain me anyway, then that is false arrest. They have no legal right to detain me because, by their own admission, I have done nothing wrong. We do, by the way, have evidence that they know that they have no right to detain this guy, because they confiscated his camera. Why would they care if they were being videotaped if they weren't doing anything wrong. (Yes I'm aware that the previous sentence is exactly what the government tells us when we complain about spy cameras being installed everywhere to monitor the citizens. Turnabout is fair play).

Bravo to you and MSD,

Shakran, what you wrote above is the norm it seems in London and Washington and a host of other places lots of people don't think of. What bothers me more than those who do the surveilling and those who use it are those that see it as normal.
By defending it as normal, this normalizes it, which legitimizes it. Those who feel they have little stake begin to get anesthestized to others rights being trampled. They may have passing thoughts that it's wrong, but too, begin try to justify it as something that society must put up with to be safe. By the time they realize it may be too much, it's too late.

I had mentioned in another place about the 3rd article of the Bill of Rights. No you don't hear much about it because it doesn't seem relevant anymore. We should not forget the reason it was written. (also part of the reason behind the 2nd Article)
The Quartering Act was passed and enforced in colonial America with the proposition of merely having a place for soldiers to billet.

The fact is while few soldiers were in single family dwellings, they were often quartered with families that ran taverns and public houses. The same ones that were places where Colonial opposition met and families that owned and ran them lived. These weren't alone, a lot of immigrants to this country from Europe had had the same problem before moving here.
The idea is clear, chill opposition. There is little difference in that and these intrusions today.
If you can't be secure in your own front yard from arbitrary intrusion and provocation then you're either a prisoner in your own home or you're going to be tagged as "belligerent" and a trouble maker if you speak out.
Strange,
Her Majesty's Goverment may do as it pleases. If Great grandpa George the III, had kept his wits about him and restrained his pride the provocation might never have lead to a revolution. But he did and it did. Now your being overrun and have no way to stop it.
In the mix of all that Britain not only capitulated to the French and Americans but lost a lot more than North America. It seems to me you don't realize what it is your predecessors gave in to in 'reasonable compromises", leaving you little of what was a great country.

As for Americans who don't think it's worth the effort, a little more reading and digging might give you fresh perspective before things get more out of hand.

There is a move on by those who would control this country to turn this into a plantation and the masses into serfs if not slaves.

To quote that icon of law enforcement, Barney Fife, "We've got to nip it in the bud".

Its not a case of grovelling, more keeping your head down, when it comes to dealing with police.

so you're just saying that no matter what.. just do what you're told when the police are involved?

yeah..because we all know how law abiding police can be..

You know what the difference between a thug and a cop is?

a badge.

Sure there are some good cops, but most of them get on this little power trip when they get a badge because they know most of the time a court will never go against them and they can do whatever they feel like doing, no matter who's rights they step on.

there's some good cops and some bad ones and most are inbetween I expect.

I'm not saying anyone should grovel - Im saying that sensible people dont pick fights with those in power for no purpose.

If the guy would have acted cool he wouldnt have caught a case. He acted like a jerk and he did. Like I said - semi-sarcastically - maybe he feels like some kind of hero championing his right to carry a metal while he fixes his car... but if I was in his position I wouldnt be facing 50 hours community service or whatever the sentence will be for the restisting arrest charge. Even if he gets off its a whole load of hassle that could have been avoiding by simply keeping his head down and not making a fuss and filming the two coppers.

so you're still saying that it's ok for cops to abuse the power because the hassle just isn't worth it..

that solves absolutely nothing.

thats what i'm hearing. the 'just do what you're told' crap.

So you're saying it doesn't matter who's right or wrong as long as the result is peace and quiet?

Im saying I'd rather be wronged and be left alone than do 50 hours picking crap up off the floor for the sake of feeling self righteous.

Its simply the logical extension of the famous truism - it's better to live on your knee's than to die on your feet (although a few people get confused and get it the wrong way round)

Yeah, the gun-owning U.S. is confused... we all have it "the wrong way round."

You might get 50 hours Community service, but this man will get nothing because if he has even a half-assed lawyer, did nothing wrong.

It's not being self-righteous, it's simply not letting someone who thinks they can do anything roll all over you. It's about making sure truth is enforced.. not thuggery.

And two police will testify that he did, against him - a guy who openly confesses to carrying a gun the whole time and who reacted in an aggressive way in the middle of a suspicious death investigation. I wonder who the court would believe to have done nothing wrong?

it won't even reach the court stage.. because of mishandled evidence.

Even still, even if he did get community service.. so what? At least he didn't pussy out just because someone in a uniform told him to do something. Just bowing down and letting things happen..yeah..that's really a great thing to do... I mean things have always been better that way.. history books lie.