How they treat a soldier....BIGTIME BS!

[Guest canynracer]

I think the perfect end to this story would be for the soldier to have two badges and a nice cash settlement.

Yeah, cause everyone should be FIRED for screwing up.

The cops learned from this experience, and they were embarassed by the majistrate...yes, they should have received discipline from their supervisors for their lack of knowledge, but this is a mistake that i am SURE they wont make again.

and the cash settlement should have come from who? not the city, they threw the case out...how bout the fact that he was punished by the military? psyc eval, and other stuff...the city didnt make him do all that...seems like his military took it harder than anyone else...

[USMCJG]

Yeah, cause everyone should be FIRED for screwing up.

The cops learned from this experience, and they were embarassed by the majistrate...yes, they should have received discipline from their supervisors for their lack of knowledge, but this is a mistake that i am SURE they wont make again.

and the cash settlement should have come from who? not the city, they threw the case out...how bout the fact that he was punished by the military? psyc eval, and other stuff...the city didnt make him do all that...seems like his military took it harder than anyone else...

The military did what they did because of the ILLEGAL actions of police officers. The city, county, municipality has some culpability, as their employees are the ones who broke the law. If I have an employee who, as you put it, "makes a mistake", then I am liable for that mistake.

I understand that there are some people who will almost always defend any officer for any crime or civil rights violation and write it off as a "mistake". Or simply blame it on the innocent person against whom the crime or violation of rights was committed. But I am not one of those people. I am certainly not a "cop basher", though I have no doubt that some will try to label me as one. I simply want accountability. Everyone is accountable for their actions, whether they have a badge or not. I don't want bad officers violating the rights of innocent people. I also don't want good officers being lumped in with those bad officers, as is so often the case, because of the actions of those few bad apples.

Was the officers not knowing the law a mistake? Yes, it may have been. Was their falsifying charges and arresting an innocent person a mistake? No, it was a crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for a citizen, so then why is it an excuse for someone who is sworn to uphold the law? As for everyone being fired for "screwing up", that all depends on the magnitude of the screwup. The one in this particular case was huge. And yes, I do believe that an officer willfully falsifying charges and violating a citizens civil rights is a fireable offense.

Edited October 24, 2009 by USMCJG

[Kelemvor]

Yeah, cause everyone should be FIRED for screwing up.

The cops learned from this experience, and they were embarassed by the majistrate...yes, they should have received discipline from their supervisors for their lack of knowledge, but this is a mistake that i am SURE they wont make again.

and the cash settlement should have come from who? not the city, they threw the case out...how bout the fact that he was punished by the military? psyc eval, and other stuff...the city didnt make him do all that...seems like his military took it harder than anyone else...

People have been fired for far less.

[E4 No More]

Yeah, cause everyone should be FIRED for screwing up.

The cops learned from this experience, and they were embarassed by the majistrate...yes, they should have received discipline from their supervisors for their lack of knowledge, but this is a mistake that i am SURE they wont make again.

and the cash settlement should have come from who? not the city, they threw the case out...how bout the fact that he was punished by the military? psyc eval, and other stuff...the city didnt make him do all that...seems like his military took it harder than anyone else...

Had the deputies simply apologized to the lad when the magistrate informed them I would agree with you: however, the fact that they made the choice to charge him illegally is malicious. They should be fired for that.

And the military will believe what they want, and they will side with the LEOs darned near every time. And don't think the military's actions, (although non-judicial), won't follow that young man for as long as he's in the Army.

[Guest canynracer]

The military did what they did because of the ILLEGAL actions of police officers. The city, county, municipality has some culpability, as their employees are the ones who broke the law. If I have an employee who, as you put it, "makes a mistake", then I am liable for that mistake.

so wait...they made this soldier suffer more because the police officer screwed up??? that makes no sense

I understand that there are some people who will almost always defend any officer for any crime or civil rights violation and right it off as a "mistake". Or simply blame it on the innocent person against whom the crime or violation of rights was committed. But I am not one of those people. I am certainly not a "cop basher", though I have no doubt that some will try to label me as one. I simply want accountability. Everyone is accountable for their actions, whether they have a badge or not. I don't want bad officers violating the rights of innocent people. I also don't want good officers being lumped in with those bad officers, as is so often the case, because of the actions of those few bad apples.

Was the officers not knowing the law a mistake? Yes, it may have been. Was their falsifying charges and arresting an innocent person a mistake? No, it was a crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for a citizen, so then why is it an excuse for someone who is sworn to uphold the law? As for everyone being fired for "screwing up", that all depends on the magnitude of the screwup. The one in this particular case was huge. And yes, I do believe that an officer willfully falsifying charges and violating a citizens civil rights is a fireable offense.

I am not defending the officers, they were wrong and deserve to be reprimanded for their actions, but I dont think they need to be fired.

I think you are looking at this in the extreme....The cops found the crime that they thought fit, they were wrong and the court told them that...but the court ASLO told the officer what crime SHOULD have been attached...trespassing...

do I think the officer over reacted? not sure, it seems that dude could have showed his ID and been done with it...but thats another debate.

You said yourself that it depends on the magnitude of the screwup...my personal opinion is that this was not a criminal screw up...the officers all THREE (even the city officer that showed up) of them should have to go through training courses that emphasise the laws of carry in that state.

Do I think the officer acted unprofessionally? yes, IF, (and that is a big IF)...the incident went down EXACTLY as described.

Far too often we hear stories like this from a one sided view, So quick to jump the gun and compare us to them, without listening to them...I would be MORE interested to see/hear the recording whether thats the dash cam, or the officers tape if he had one...or even reading a police report. unfortunatley, this is a one side of the story type of thing. so why do we always ASSUME that the officer is lying?

again, its my opinion.

Edited October 23, 2009 by canynracer

[E4 No More]

so wait...they made this soldier suffer more because the police officer screwed up??? that makes no sense

I am not defending the officers, they were wrong and deserve to be reprimanded for their actions, but I dont think they need to be fired.

I think you are looking at this in the extreme....The cops found the crime that they thought fit, they were wrong and the court told them that...but the court ASLO told the officer what crime SHOULD have been attached...trespassing...

do I think the officer over reacted? not sure, it seems that dude could have showed his ID and been done with it...but thats another debate.

You said yourself that it depends on the magnitude of the screwup...my personal opinion is that this was not a criminal screw up...the officers all THREE (even the city officer that showed up) of them should have to go through training courses that emphasise the laws of carry in that state.

Do I think the officer acted unprofessionally? yes, IF, (and that is a big IF)...the incident went down EXACTLY as described.

Far too often we hear stories like this from a one sided view, So quick to jump the gun and compare us to them, without listening to them...I would be MORE interested to see/hear the recording whether thats the dash cam, or the officers tape if he had one...or even reading a police report. unfortunatley, this is a one side of the story type of thing. so why do we always ASSUME that the officer is lying?

again, its my opinion.

Wrong! There was no complaint or expressed willingness from the manager that the person was asked to leave a business OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

[USMCJG]

so wait...they made this soldier suffer more because the police officer screwed up??? that makes no sense

I am not defending the officers, they were wrong and deserve to be reprimanded for their actions, but I dont think they need to be fired.

I think you are looking at this in the extreme....The cops found the crime that they thought fit, they were wrong and the court told them that...but the court ASLO told the officer what crime SHOULD have been attached...trespassing...

do I think the officer over reacted? not sure, it seems that dude could have showed his ID and been done with it...but thats another debate.

You said yourself that it depends on the magnitude of the screwup...my personal opinion is that this was not a criminal screw up...the officers all THREE (even the city officer that showed up) of them should have to go through training courses that emphasise the laws of carry in that state.

Do I think the officer acted unprofessionally? yes, IF, (and that is a big IF)...the incident went down EXACTLY as described.

Far too often we hear stories like this from a one sided view, So quick to jump the gun and compare us to them, without listening to them...I would be MORE interested to see/hear the recording whether thats the dash cam, or the officers tape if he had one...or even reading a police report. unfortunatley, this is a one side of the story type of thing. so why do we always ASSUME that the officer is lying?

again, its my opinion.

I know that we only have one side of this story and all of my replies are based on the assumption that the soldiers story in the OP is accurate and includes all pertinent details. If this is the case, and I will admit that it is a big if, then the officers clearly broke the law when they charged the soldier with trespassing. And yes, I do think that they should be terminated and the soldier should receive some sort of settlement for his aggravation. Maybe a few thousand dollars. I also don't believe that the officers found a crime that they thought fit. I believe they found a crime that they thought they might be able to MAKE fit.

If the soldier had shown the officers his ID right from the start then none of this may have ever happened. But that isn't really the point. The point is that he had absolutely no legal obligation to produce ID. This, perhaps understandably, made the officers angry. But that still doesn't give them any right to violate a persons civil rights or to break the law. I've been angry before, but, as far as I know, my anger didn't afford me any expansion of my rights or allow me to violate the rights of others.

The police didn't cause this soldier more aggravation because they were wrong. That aggravation started as soon as he was arrested, regardless of whether or not it was right or wrong.

[Guest jackdm3]

This is my dream: Every soul in America is given a letter that states our rights when being questioned by police. Other than the right to remain silent. But I understand therein lies the public's inability to understand the law in order to help themselves decipher. This will be years in the making.

[E4 No More]

North Carolina General Statutes:

§ 14‑159.13. Second degree trespass.

(a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another:

(1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner, by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized person; or

(2) That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises.

( Classification. – Second degree trespass is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 102; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14©.)

[Guest canynracer]

The military did what they did because of the ILLEGAL actions of police officers. The city, county, municipality has some culpability, as their employees are the ones who broke the law. If I have an employee who, as you put it, "makes a mistake", then I am liable for that mistake.

You still have not answered this

Grand total for this incident: A lot of embarrassment, a lot of talkings to by my command, a forced mental health eval for "my feeling of need to be armed at all times" and "my obsession with weapons", and $200 lawyer fee.

WHY would the military put this soldier through this crap? it certainly isnt as you stated.

Even this statement

Pick your battles. Thats all I have to say.

indicates to me that even HE thought he could have handled the situation better...

[Guest canynracer]

North Carolina General Statutes:

§ 14‑159.13. Second degree trespass.

(a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another:

(1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner, by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized person; or

(2) That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises.

( Classification. – Second degree trespass is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 102; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14©.)

Yes, you keep pointing this out...I get it...its a big government thing, the cops make up the reports, and the military goes with whatever those crooked bastards say...

my point is that this is ONE side of the story, handed down....

you have convicted and executed the military and the cops based on one side of the story.

Edited October 23, 2009 by canynracer

[Hotshot]

Q. Why did he not just hand the officer an ID?

A. Because he wanted to show his ass.

[E4 No More]

Ya'll might be interested in this: http://www.grnc.org/images/wa_2007NCFirearmsLawsPub.pdf

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with

any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public

highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun

is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are

cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Ya'll might be interested in this: http://www.grnc.org/images/wa_2007NCFirearmsLawsPub.pdf

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with

any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public

highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun

is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are

cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

Then it sounds like the LEO's were terrified since, according to the OP, no one else said anything.

[E4 No More]

Yes, you keep pointing this out...I get it...its a big government thing, the cops make up the reports, and the military goes with whatever those crooked bastards say...

my point is that this is ONE side of the story, handed down....

you have convicted and executed the government and the cops based on one side of the story.

Apparently, you missed my big "If" in my earlier post. I too said IF the story was relayed 100% accurately.

[E4 No More]

Then it sounds like the LEO's were terrified since, according to the OP, no one else said anything.

Well, I don't know specifically about North Carolina, but in Missouri when they revised the Common Law to State Statutes it negated the Common Laws.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Thanks for the info. Might do some research tonight.

[Guest canynracer]

Apparently, you missed my big "If" in my earlier post. I too said IF the story was relayed 100% accurately.

I did miss that...sorry...

and I still stand with the

"IF" this story is 100% accurate, we would be reading about a soldier that was mistreated, the miltary laywers intervened, an apology letter was written, and maybe the soldiers head is a held a little higher and has a life supply of Waffles from the Waffle house.

instead I read a shakey story that did in fact happen, but is twisted to encourage support for a soldier that was wrongfully mistreated by jack booted thugs and a meager Waffle house manager.

if this was 100% accurate...it would have been persued...the soldier himself is a soldier because he took an oath to defend the constitution...why would he NOT defend his right if he was TRUELY mistreated?

I am not saying it is, or it isnt accurate...I am just not jumping on the "Poor guy" bandwagon just yet.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I did miss that...sorry...

and I still stand with the

"IF" this story is 100% accurate, we would be reading about a soldier that was mistreated, the miltary laywers intervened, an apology letter was written, and maybe the soldiers head is a held a little higher and has a life supply of Waffles from the Waffle house.

instead I read a shakey story that did in fact happen, but is twisted to encourage support for a soldier that was wrongfully mistreated by jack booted thugs and a meager Waffle house manager.

if this was 100% accurate...it would have been persued...the soldier himself is a soldier because he took an oath to defend the constitution...why would he NOT defend his right if he was TRUELY mistreated?

I am not saying it is, or it isnt accurate...I am just not jumping on the "Poor guy" bandwagon just yet.

That's also what I meant by "according to the OP." Its hearsay, and probably why nothing happened with the situation. I'm off to other things.

[Guest canynracer]

Werd

[Guest jackdm3]

Ya'll might be interested in this: http://www.grnc.org/images/wa_2007NCFirearmsLawsPub.pdf

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with

any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public

highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun

is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are

cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

I certainly didn't see the terror in this situation with his actions. A gun seems to be very "usual" and common in America. "for the purpose of terrifying others" seems to be lacking in this case. And based on the story, "NC is a TRADITIONAL OC state."

If that is true, we have conflicting laws that encourage abuse of powers.

[E4 No More]

I did miss that...sorry...

and I still stand with the

"IF" this story is 100% accurate, we would be reading about a soldier that was mistreated, the miltary laywers intervened, an apology letter was written, and maybe the soldiers head is a held a little higher and has a life supply of Waffles from the Waffle house.

instead I read a shakey story that did in fact happen, but is twisted to encourage support for a soldier that was wrongfully mistreated by jack booted thugs and a meager Waffle house manager.

if this was 100% accurate...it would have been persued...the soldier himself is a soldier because he took an oath to defend the constitution...why would he NOT defend his right if he was TRUELY mistreated?

I am not saying it is, or it isnt accurate...I am just not jumping on the "Poor guy" bandwagon just yet.

Admittedly, I'm a little sensitive to these matters. I had a lieutenant who, (long story short version), while on-duty and in uniform pulled a guy out of his car, slapped him around, stuck his gun in the guy's face, and then threatened to kill him, and all of this was without any crime being committed by the victim - it was personal. Can you say major violations of state and federal laws? The Chief of Police refused to cooperate with the victim when he tried to report it because he was a friend of the lieutenant for 25 years. It was the straw that broke this camel's back when I reported it to the city council and they did nothing about it. I quit after that.

[E4 No More]

Having also been in the Marine Corps I know they have ways to punish people without making it official, and there is absolutely no hearing or trial in the process, but it can definitely ruin a career. They don't care what the truth is; they only care about their appearances.

[USMCJG]

You still have not answered this

Actually, I did. Here is what I said earlier- "The police didn't cause this soldier more aggravation because they were wrong. That aggravation started as soon as he was arrested, regardless of whether or not it was right or wrong."

WHY would the military put this soldier through this crap? it certainly isnt as you stated.

I haven't ever stated why the military would put him through this. Based on the information we have available, he was probably put through his because he was arrested for "Going Armed To The Terror Of The People". As soon as he was charged with this, I suspect it was pretty much a done deal. It doesn't matter that it was immediately thrown out of court. His discipline was more than likely based on the arrest itself, not the disposition of the case.

Even this statement

indicates to me that even HE thought he could have handled the situation better...

Or it could simply mean that it would have been much easier for him to roll over and surrender his rights rather than to stand up for them. Which is always true. See my sig line. Edited October 24, 2009 by USMCJG

[USMCJG]

Having also been in the Marine Corps I know they have ways to punish people without making it official, and there is absolutely no hearing or trial in the process, but it can definitely ruin a career. They don't care what the truth is; they only care about their appearances.

+1. Semper Fi!