The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 24, 2004, 08:16 PM   #126
gyp_c2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2000
Location: Colorado...Louisiana
Posts: 387
yup...

...
Quote:
"... a more perfect Union."
You are absolutely, right of course...I wasn't thinking...
__________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>g2<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
AVERT
gyp_c2 is offline  
Old August 24, 2004, 08:55 PM   #127
TheeBadOne
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 1,191
Quote:
Let me ask a question . Could this have happened to an FBI agent ? The cop would then have assaulted a Federal Agent .
I really doubt that an FBI agent in this situation would complain at all (especially publicly). I suspect he'd be red faced and embarrased by his "brain fart".

All the best
TheeBadOne is offline  
Old August 25, 2004, 01:05 AM   #128
Fred Hansen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2001
Location: The middle of WWIII
Posts: 3,335
Quote:
You are absolutely, right of course...I wasn't thinking...
Hey! At least you caught it. Given the number of people who don't get it, you are doing quite well as far as I'm concerned.
__________________
"This started out as a documentary on gun violence in America, but the largest mass murder in our history was just committed -- without the use of a single gun! Not a single bullet fired! No bomb was set off, no missile was fired, no weapon (i.e., a device that was solely and specifically manufactured to kill humans) was used. A boxcutter! -- I can't stop thinking about this. A thousand gun control laws would not have prevented this massacre. What am I doing?"

Michael Moore
Fred Hansen is offline  
Old August 25, 2004, 04:06 PM   #129
mvpel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2000
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 1,847
The latest news is that I'm waiting on an opportunity in my busy work schedule to head up to the Manchester PD and review and copy the Policy & Procedure guide. I was thinking about going today, but I had a boatload of cases to catch up with, as I'm on call this week. The fact that they close around 4-ish doesn't help. Maybe I'll get up early tomorrow.

I've been participating in a discussion of off-duty LEO carrying in NYC under the provisions of HR-218. It'll be interesting to see whether off-duty cops in anti-gun meccas such as DC, NYC, or Chicago get the same kind of treatment I did if someone notices them carrying and calls 911.
mvpel is offline  
Old September 14, 2004, 12:31 AM   #130
CGofMP
Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2002
Posts: 43
news?
__________________
Charles of MemorablePlaces Consulting
http://www.memorableplaces.com

Webmaster for: Valtro USA http://www.valtrousa.com
Nor-Cal Precision Jerry Rice Riflesmith http://www.norcalprecision.com
Tactical Intervention Specialists http://www.tacticalintervention.com
CMP (some content not webmaster) http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com
CGofMP is offline  
Old September 27, 2004, 08:09 PM   #131
mvpel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2000
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 1,847
Finally got a look at the Policy & Procedure Guide...

Wasn't very hard to find information indicitive that the officers who grabbed me violated policy.

In the "Search & Seizure" chapter, we have the following:

Reasonable Suspicion

In order for a police officer to undertake an investigatory stop, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion — based on specific, articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts – that the particular person stopped has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. State v. Vadnais, 141 N.H. 68, 70 (1996)

The suspect’s conduct must lead somewhere specific, not just to a general sense that this is probably a bad person who may have committed some kind of a crime. Id.

---

To review, the span of time between when they were still looking for me and when they grabbed me (based on the 911 recording) was a few tens of seconds. In light of this fact, it doesn't seem likely that they had any time to develop any specific articulable facts that I had been, or was about to be engaged in criminal activity.

The section on "Terry Stops" comes shortly thereafter:

Exceptions to the Search Warrant Requirement:
B. Stop and Frisk


These searches are commonly referred to as “Terry pat downs.”

Requirements:
  1. There must be reasonable suspicion for the police officer to stop a person; and
  2. The police officer must have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is presently armed.
---

Note here that "presently armed" is not enough, there must also be "reasonable suspicion" that goes back to the previous section discussing specific, articulable facts.

Since my firearm was exposed, we come to the next section:

C. Plain View

Requirements:
A police officer may seize evidence without a search warrant under the plain view exception if:
  1. he/she is lawfully present where the evidence is located;
  2. inadvertently sees the evidence; and
  3. has probable cause to believe it is evidence of criminal activity.

---

In this case, the standard of evidence is the highest - "probable cause" instead of "reasonable suspicion," and given the facts it's doubtful that even mere suspicion would hold water. The same "probable cause" standard applies to the next section, "exigent circumstances." There are references to state court cases.

What I find interesting is that I didn't come across any reference to the legality of - and in some cases, the requirement for - open carry in any of the materials I was able to review. The department policy is that off-duty officers must discreetly conceal their firearms.
mvpel is offline  
Old September 27, 2004, 08:23 PM   #132
Shamaya
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2001
Location: Asheville, North Carolina area
Posts: 8
It's obvious these pukes had no legal justification for assaulting you, Michael.

If you go after them, count me in for some bucks to help make it happen.

--AS
Shamaya is offline  
Old September 27, 2004, 08:43 PM   #133
Hawgleg44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2004
Location: People's Republic of Massachusetts
Posts: 440
Quoted:
I've been participating in a discussion of off-duty LEO carrying in NYC under the provisions of HR-218. It'll be interesting to see whether off-duty cops in anti-gun meccas such as DC, NYC, or Chicago get the same kind of treatment I did if someone notices them carrying and calls 911.

If you are searching for how an off-duty, out-of-state, LE would be treated in NYC, look at this link. You will find you got off VERY easily compared to this:

http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=76&t=262316

If I'm in NYC and this happens to me, I'm not going to sue. Cops have a job to do. If you see someone armed and need to investigate it, it's MUCH safer to do so if they are NO LONGER ARMED. You never know who you are dealing with, and officers have to take steps to have the upper hand and to keep themselves, and all civilians around them safe while doing their job. If you would consider officer safety for one second, you would agree. I know I'm totally in the minority here, but I don't mind that.
Say you were unarmed in the store and someone else was the armed one. Say someone called the police, and they didn't respond because open carry is legal (sounds like the response most here would prefer). Then, someone held up the place, started shooting, or both. Then, you would be here complaining because the police didn't do their job then, either. Then, everyone would probably jump on that bandwagon and sue then, too.
The first thing you have to understand when you are a cop is that you will never make everyone happy. In fact, most people are going to hate you, until they need you. They don't want to see you at all, until they need you, then you can't be there fast enough.

Just had to voice my opinion, yet again.
__________________
Results of the 1998 Massachusetts gun laws:

It is important to keep in mind the ISP reports show that firearm related homicides decreased 56% from 1994 to 1998.

From 1998 to 2002, firearm related homicides increased 48%. During the same time, firearm related accidental deaths have increased 200%.

Will work for ammo.
Hawgleg44 is offline  
Old September 27, 2004, 09:26 PM   #134
Shamaya
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2001
Location: Asheville, North Carolina area
Posts: 8
Just Following Orders

"...officers have to take steps to have the upper hand and to keep themselves, and all civilians around them safe while doing their job. If you would consider officer safety for one second, you would agree."

Yeah. Who cares what the law says.

BTW, my job is keeping myself and my family safe. Would you support me disarming cops, to make sure I can conduct my job safely? Or does being in the employ of a government entity make one above the law? If so, how good can a law be if it must be lifted just to enforce laws?

Do you also support having cops exempt from laws enforced against The People? If so, when governments control weather and a rainy day is mandated, should we exempt cops from the rain, too?

--AS
Shamaya is offline  
Old September 27, 2004, 10:11 PM   #135
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 15, 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,558
Thanks for the update, Michael. Your case grows stronger and stronger. How is Ms. Dean doing? Getting around well again, I hope.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Good to see you here, Shamaya. How's the new digs?
__________________
-Dave Miller
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Personal Protection.
Tick-off Obama - Join the NRA Today - Save $10
TheBluesMan is offline  
Old September 27, 2004, 10:32 PM   #136
guns
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 13
"...officers have to take steps to have the upper hand and to keep themselves, and all civilians around them safe while doing their job. If you would consider officer safety for one second, you would agree."

Unless you are in the Armed Forces Hawgleg44 you are a civilian. I consider my safety as just as important as any LEO's. Rights are not retained by those who would surrender them to some specious linguistic catch-phrases such as:

For the officers safety
For the children
If it saves just one life
It is for your own safety
Civilians don't need guns
The police are there to protect you

Mr Peel was assulted by trained officers who should have known better.
guns is offline  
Old September 27, 2004, 11:06 PM   #137
User Name
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 20, 2004
Location: Woodstock , Ga.
Posts: 152
Hey Michael, fairly new around here but I have been following your progress. I for one was appalled by your treatment. Sorry to hear it went down like that. Regardless of the two pages of "open carry" rantings, it could have been handled so much better! (and I thought that before reading the police procedures)
As far as I see it you only made two mistakes..

1. You got lax in your situation and left your jacket in the car. This "lax" state continued in the store where you were apprended while never seeing it coming. If you had seen them you could have handled the situation as they approached because they would have been forced to make verbal contact with you as they approched. I also feel, that you don't need to be told any of that, as you learned that leason while it was happening. I (unlike alot of other posters) didn't get so passionate about the episode while reading it that I didn't notice your admited fault in that matter. I just had to make mention of it to show "two" mistakes.

2. You tried to do the "civil" thing. (personally I don't see "letting it go" as an option...sorry to those more passive souls but people that lay down...get walked on!) By that I mean, you tried to contact the department as a wronged citizen seeking nothing but an appology and due repremand of the officers. (not knocking your choice, I'm a fair guy and would have probably done the same under the circumstances) But as I look at this from an outside point of view (only being involved as a fellow CCW permit owner) I see that a visit to your lawyer and a "swift" legal request for the documents/statements with out prior warning (ie: letter to the chief) would not have given them enough time to sweep it under the...uhh I mean "investigate". In other words statements may have been gotten, documents would have been gotten quicker, etc. On most suite type cases, time is not an ally. I realize that a suite was not what your intended purpose of all this is, but your rights were clearly violated. Like stated earlier, I would more than likely have tried the same approach...so I'm not knocking you in the least, just making an observastion...That being: I think by going through the channels you did, they had a chance to cover their actions alot before you were able to get any documentation (be it paper, recorded, or verbal...case in point: the transcript and the recording are to differnt lengths of time.. ).
Remember the only people who are truely "innocent untill proven guilty" are the ones in power...all the rest of us peons are just told that so we'll feel better...


I don't have the means to help you and "our" cause financially (if I did I would in a second) but I do want you to know that you have my moral support, and I'll keep ya in my prayers that justice is done. It aint much, but at the moment it's all I got...Keep fighting the good fight!

P.S. Please...as time allows, keep us posted.
__________________
- Veritas - Aequitas -
"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution."
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts - 1789

GUN CONTROL....IT'S NOT A NEW IDEA......JUST A BAD ONE!

Last edited by User Name; September 28, 2004 at 02:46 AM.
User Name is offline  
Old September 28, 2004, 02:27 AM   #138
Handy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2001
Posts: 8,785
A news tidbit was recently relayed to me about a man arrested in the US for racism because his Albanian flag looked like a pre-war German flag.

This would paint Mr. Peel's officers as downright middle of the road.
Handy is offline  
Old September 28, 2004, 08:16 AM   #139
Hawgleg44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2004
Location: People's Republic of Massachusetts
Posts: 440
Posted by "guns":
For the officers safety
For the children
If it saves just one life
It is for your own safety
Civilians don't need guns
The police are there to protect you

It would seem to me that if you want to speak about my post, you would speak about what I said, not throwing in all these anti-gun statements that I would never support. I am a strong supporter of gun rights, and always have been. But, IMO, he brought this situation on himself, as noted in someone else's post above, although they do not share my opinion about the entire situation.

I've said it before, so I'm not going to go into it again. But, being completely oblivious to your surroundings while carrying a gun, ESPECIALLY OPEN CARRY, is totally irresponsible. If the several cops, in full uniform, could walk up to him and put their hand on his gun, ANYONE could have done that.

Maybe this is an excellent learning experience for him and maybe he'll be a little more responsible while carrying.

I think, if a decent lawyer would look into this situation, the officers did absolutely nothing illegal. Maybe excessive, in some people's opinions (who hate cops until they need them), but not mine.

If officer safety means nothing to any of you, don't bother calling when you need help. You would be putting the officer in danger by doing that.

This will be my last post in this thread. It's obvious who is responsible for this whole incident. But, many here seem to be of the opinion that everything is the officers' fault.

I'm unsubscribing from this topic now. Flame away if it makes you feel better.
__________________
Results of the 1998 Massachusetts gun laws:

It is important to keep in mind the ISP reports show that firearm related homicides decreased 56% from 1994 to 1998.

From 1998 to 2002, firearm related homicides increased 48%. During the same time, firearm related accidental deaths have increased 200%.

Will work for ammo.
Hawgleg44 is offline  
Old September 28, 2004, 08:38 AM   #140
mvpel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2000
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 1,847
I've said it before, so I'm not going to go into it again. But, being completely oblivious to your surroundings while carrying a gun, ESPECIALLY OPEN CARRY, is totally irresponsible. If the several cops, in full uniform, could walk up to him and put their hand on his gun, ANYONE could have done that.

I've fully acknolwedged that fact, numerous times on numerous threads. Mea culpa. The Fourth Amendment and its associated NH and US Supreme Court rulings still apply, however stupid I might have been.
__________________
Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, "Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!"
1 Samuel 13:19
mvpel is offline  
Old September 28, 2004, 10:38 AM   #141
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,497
(not harping on you mvpel, just gonna drive home a point to some other posters in this thread).

no matter how a person decides to carry, or even if they dont, situational awareness should remain at the same level. when i go concealed, it doesnt mean i am any less alert as when i go open.

and i enjoy open carry because i do live in a place where no one cares. walk into a stop and rob and you're more likely to get in a conversation with a clerk about how they'd rather be at the range shooting than working a cash register. stop by a pawn shop and no one bats an eye at the hardware on your hip. go into a grocery store where a dozen girl scout troops are selling cookies and no one freaks out.

its my belief that if more people like mvpel did open carry and helped get the average person accustomed to the fact that responsible adults can carry however and whatever they choose (wherever legal), eventually no one will pitch a fit because someone is armed.
yeah, i know its more pipe dream, and most would say it hurts our cause more than helping it, but i dont subscribe to that defeatist attitude.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old September 28, 2004, 01:25 PM   #142
Gunstar1
Member
 
Join Date: September 17, 2004
Posts: 30
Hawgleg44

"If officer safety means nothing to any of you, don't bother calling when you need help. You would be putting the officer in danger by doing that."

That is not the point. The "book" says they cannot do what they did, "officer safety" or not.

"Officer Safety" does not give police the power to violate their own rules and my rights when there is NO trace of wrong doing.

Now, mvpel accepts he should have paid more attention, but what if he did? How would the situation be different? Does this mean if the police officer is sneaky, only then can he violate your rights and department policy? If mvpel caught them sneaking up on him, would they have had to go by the rules?

Open carry is legal, he was doing nothing illegal... exactly how is this whole situation his fault?

Lets see, he was in a bookstore reading a book.
The police could have approched and waited/watched mvpel until they caught his attention.
They could have approched him and "at the ready" ask if they could speak with him.
They could have talked to the manager and found out he was just shopping (the manager was aware of the gun but did not seem concerned).

This is not a cop bash, a friend of mine is in the Sheriff's department. However, if the police cannot follow thier own rules then they should not be police officers. "Police Safety" is no excuse, if you accept minor violations then you should welcome the major ones when they happen.

Risk is a part of their job. Police cannot be allowed to violate their rules or our rights to lower their risk. Either follow the rules and accept the risk or don't be a police officer.
Gunstar1 is offline  
Old September 28, 2004, 04:36 PM   #143
FrankDrebin
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2004
Posts: 1,101
How did mvpel let other armed people sneak up on him from behind? Your gun is worse than useless if other people know you have it, but you don't know what's going on around you. Instead of looking for your pound of flesh, I'd thank the officers for teaching you a lesson that you apparently needed to learn: Either hide your gun, or be aware of the world around you. Someone who carries openly and unaware is dangerous.
FrankDrebin is offline  
Old September 28, 2004, 09:57 PM   #144
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,889
Rich,

I must take issue with your statement that the shirt tail out is a dead give away, and that we all print.

I have always worn my shirt tail out. It is square and designed to be worn that way.
I sometimes help in a CCW class, and always wear a gun. It is usually in an OWB pancake, but often an compact 1911 in a Sparks EX IWB.. No one has ever suspected that I am armed, and when we get to the part of the class where I discuss such things, all say that they had no idea. The next classes I also am armed, and although they know that I am they cannot see it.

I have my friends who also carry check me when we are out together, and they say they have never made me.

If one is careless as to how he wears the gun, and if he is determined to bend over at the waist, it will print. But I am careful how I stand and if I need to get something from the floor, I do not bend from the waist.

One must be aware of the need to conceal, and dress around the gun and holster he carries.

In NM we can carry openly. However, I do not normally because it would be relatively easy to take my gun by a couple of people, and also it does make some people concerned. Sadly, some of the LEOs do not know that open carry is legal. On the trip to the range I often stop in a Love's and then I carry openly. No one ever seems to notice.

I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to open carry, and even if it is done to "train the public." For me, it is not a good idea to carry openly in some places.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13  ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old September 29, 2004, 02:45 PM   #145
OF
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 11, 2000
Posts: 2,239
mvpel is the very definition of patient. The amount of abuse he has taken at the hands of his 'allies' is disgusting. This argument has gone around and around so many times I think I'm going to barf from the spinning.

The guy has said (ad-freaking-nauseum) that he faults himself for not being more aware of the situation. THAT SAID, the cops broke the law and assaulted him for which, contrary to some opinions here, it's not his responsibility to either apologize for or (I can hardly believe this next part) thank the cops for the assault(!).

Now not only is this entire episode mvpel's fault, but he should be thankful for having his rights violated! Unreal.

- Gabe
OF is offline  
Old September 29, 2004, 02:50 PM   #146
FrankDrebin
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2004
Posts: 1,101
Nope, I didn't say he should be thankful his rights were violated, I said he should be thankful that he learned that other people knew he had a gun, while he had no clue of what was going on around him. And that should convince him to leave his gun home before he gets someone else hurt, carry it concealed, or be damn sure he knows what's going on around him at all times when he feels the need to carry a gun and proclaim to the whole world that he's carrying it by displaying it in all its glory for everyone to see.
FrankDrebin is offline  
Old September 29, 2004, 03:01 PM   #147
OF
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 11, 2000
Posts: 2,239
Suffice it to say, Frank, that your condescending little rant is more than a bit insulting. Hell, you're not even bitching at me and I'm insulted.

Who was going to get hurt, Frank? Let me guess, you're all for the 2nd Amendment, as long as it's done your way. Everyone but you is a walking time bomb? An accident waiting to happen? Some people just shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. They might hurt someone. Tell me Frank, do you go into sweats imagining a world where open carry is not only legal, but practiced with some regularity?

Not to mention the pure inanity of attacking mvpel for having the audacity to let himself be assaulted by a gang of cops. How untactical of him.

- Gabe
OF is offline  
Old September 29, 2004, 03:02 PM   #148
OF
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 11, 2000
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
feels the need to carry a gun and proclaim to the whole world that he's carrying it by displaying it in all its glory for everyone to see.
Point taken, Frank. You 'disagree' with the concept of open carry. Well put. Guess we should just go hide deeper and deeper in the closet...

- Gabe
OF is offline  
Old September 29, 2004, 03:10 PM   #149
Gunstar1
Member
 
Join Date: September 17, 2004
Posts: 30
And the police should be thankful that Mvpel did not catch a glance of them sneaking up on him, draw his gun and fire.

The police should also be thankful that Mvpel did not have a backup weapon, that the gun they took was not really easy to fire, and nothing serious happened when they assaulted a civillian.

I know police officers are not always situational aware even though they have training and experience. Does that mean I can remind them by sneaking up and grabbing their gun?
I should not be in trouble since I reminded him that other people knew he had a gun. He should not file charges, he should be thankful after I scolded him on carrying a gun and not being aware.
Gunstar1 is offline  
Old September 29, 2004, 03:52 PM   #150
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,497
Quote:
And that should convince him to leave his gun home before he gets someone else hurt, carry it concealed, or be damn sure he knows what's going on around him at all times when he feels the need to carry a gun and proclaim to the whole world that he's carrying it by displaying it in all its glory for everyone to see.
yes, we should all be ashamed of the fact that we are cowards that carry guns, shame on us! and if we do decide to carry concealed, we should go to confession every week and get atonement for our transgressions. we are evil, bad sinners for wanting to carry guns, oh lordy lordy, will we ever get saved???

if the antis can make enough noise to make us ashamed of our guns, why cant we make enough noise to make them ashamed of their stupidity?
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 -5. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.17690 seconds with 8 queries