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

[Guest JustMyLuck]

Good info to have ....

JML

Edited October 24, 2009 by JustMyLuck

[Thince1980]

When you are in a public place and confronted by a LEO, you have no right to or expectation of "privacy".

Are you an idiot?

Here is a list of 13 Supreme Court Cases outlining the legal standing of "Privacy" in this country.

Maybe that will clean things up for you a bit. Though I doubt it based on several of the responses you have posted on this thread.

If you are not operating a vehicle, or something else that requires license or identification then you have absolutely ZERO obligation to show them any type of identification.

EDIT:

Thanks flyinglowwithheat for that great piece. I would say that at the beginning of the story, before the LEO got his panties in a bundle the situation definitely qualified as the first option.

1. 1. Consensual

At any time, a police officer may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the officer also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts†[3] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time. 4] Police are not usually required to tell a person that she is free to decline to answer questions and go about her business; [5] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?†[6] [7]

Edited October 25, 2009 by Rebtl

[Guest flyinglowwithheat]

Are you an idiot?

Here is a list of 13 Supreme Court Cases outlining the legal standing of "Privacy" in this country.

Maybe that will clean things up for you a bit. Though I doubt it based on several of the responses you have posted on this thread.

If you are not operating a vehicle, or something else that requires license or identification then you have absolutely ZERO obligation to show them any type of identification.

EDIT:

Thanks flyinglowwithheat for that great piece. I would say that at the beginning of the story, before the LEO got his panties in a bundle the situation definitely qualified as the first option.

1. 1. Consensual

At any time, a police officer may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the officer also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts†[3] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time. 4] Police are not usually required to tell a person that she is free to decline to answer questions and go about her business; [5] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?†[6] [7]

more like a sheep!! LOL...baaaaaaaaa

Hey Thanks and your welcome Rebtl!! Just something to think about when we're out and about BEING THE GG'S carrying our sidearms...ARE YOU GONNA BE A SHEEP OR A REVOLUTIONARY?? ....pick your side??

I was thinking about that this morning as I sat in my cozy warm house having a cuppa tea on a gorgeous Sunday morning...JUST IMAGINE THE SOLDIERS THAT PICKED UP THERE WEAPONS, SAID GOODBYE TO THERE LOVED ONES AND LEFT FOR OFTEN TIME YEARS TO FIGHT FOR A FREEDOM THAT WE STILL HAVE TODAY. NO MORE CUSHY EVENING IN FRONT OF THE WARM FIREPLACE WITH THE FAMILY......INSTEAD THEY MARCHED THROUGH MANY STATES, POORLY OUTFITTED AND ILL PREPARED BUT WITH A LOVE FOR THERE NEW COUNTRY THAT MADE IT ALL WORTHWHILE.

YouTube - Johnny Has Gone For A Soldier - James Taylor - Mark O'Connor

Sorry to sound so melodramatic but think about those guys (read the book "1776", it will bring it very close to home!!!)

Every time you say "Hey here you go Officer" you slowly chip away at the freedoms that were fought with LOTS of blood, sweat and tears over the years!!

1776 (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Guest Old goat]

Every time you say "Hey here you go Officer" you slowly chip away at the freedoms that were fought with LOTS of blood, sweat and tears over the years!!

You're joking right?

[jaysouth]

Again, spare me the rhetoric or your take on "liberty and freedom", if you pull that stunt here in TN, that is refuse to identify yourself in such a situation, you are going down and hard. Right and wrong, is like truth and beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Courts are always sympathetic to law enforcement and will always give them the benefit of doubt when confronted by such a case.

I have not commented on the actions of the LEOs beyond the take down, and will not do so until I see some harder facts than presented on an internet forum. If what was reported was in fact true, a determined plaintiff could possibly get some redress if they had some big bucks to give to an attorney.

Whether right or wrong, these days, officer safety trumps any soap box oration.

[Guest canynracer]

Funny, most here are talking about chipping away our freedoms...

yet the Soldier that is sworn to DEFEND our freedoms CHOSE NOT TO PERSUE THIS.....

[bubbadavis]

Again, spare me the rhetoric or your take on "liberty and freedom", if you pull that stunt here in TN, that is refuse to identify yourself in such a situation, you are going down and hard. Right and wrong, is like truth and beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Courts are always sympathetic to law enforcement and will always give them the benefit of doubt when confronted by such a case.

I have not commented on the actions of the LEOs beyond the take down, and will not do so until I see some harder facts than presented on an internet forum. If what was reported was in fact true, a determined plaintiff could possibly get some redress if they had some big bucks to give to an attorney.

Whether right or wrong, these days, officer safety trumps any soap box oration.

PLEASE stop trying to compare what happened in NC with TN. The state's laws are very different. Open carrying in NC is legal. In TN, carrying a handgun is against the law. A HCP only gives you a defense against that crime.

So, in TN, if you are carrying a firearm and a LEO asks for your permit, you are requred to show it. Otherwise, you are subject to arrest.

That is not the case in NC.

[USMCJG]

PLEASE stop trying to compare what happened in NC with TN. The state's laws are very different. Open carrying in NC is legal. In TN, carrying a handgun is against the law. A HCP only gives you a defense against that crime.

So, in TN, if you are carrying a firearm and a LEO asks for your permit, you are requred to show it. Otherwise, you are subject to arrest.

That is not the case in NC.

You are wasting your time. He has been told at least a dozen times that the laws are different here than they are there, and exactly what those differences are. We have some pretty conflicted people here who apparently hate socialism AND individual liberty, all at the same time. I just hope he isn't a LEO. Don't taze me bro.

[jaysouth]

An officer is responding to a call, "man with a gun". He arrives at the scene, he is under no obligation to observe "your rights". His obligation is to protect himself and the public from harm, which is presumptive by that type of call. He is bound by protocols that his department has promulgated, not your "rights". In most jurisdictions, the LEOs would come in with drawn guns at low ready.

If you tried this stunt in ANY state, if your refused to identify yourself to an officer answering a call for man with a gun, you are going down on the ground and get handcuffed.

I have never maintained "right" and "wrong". I am telling what will happen in such an encounter. If this riles you , start writing letters to your legislature and judges. Don't beat your chest about your "rights". You don't have any until the officer determines that there is no threat, or the threat has ended.

Please observe that I have not offered any personal views on the case reported. I have spend a lot of money on publications, memberships and lawyers to preserve gun rights. I also understand how that plays out on the street and in courts, and how acting stupid in public will get you a free trip to jail.

I was a LEO for many years and never lost a case in court to a latrine lawyer. I am carrying the message, if you don't like the message, go after the folks who write the messages. An ad hominum attack on me does not correct the situation. If you don't like the way things are, get involved in the system. But post-1911, our liberties vanish more and more every day. Not from me, from the folks you elected to office.

ANY STATE

Edited October 26, 2009 by jaysouth

[Fallguy]

An officer is responding to a call, "man with a gun". He arrives at the scene, he is under no obligation to observe "your rights". His obligation is to protect himself and the public from harm, which is presumptive by that type of call. He is bound by protocols that his department has promulgated, not your "rights". In most jurisdictions, the LEOs would come in with drawn guns at low ready.

If you tried this stunt in ANY state, if your refused to identify yourself to an officer answering a call for man with a gun, you are going down on the ground and get handcuffed.

I have never maintained "right" and "wrong". I am telling what will happen in such an encounter. If this riles you , start writing letters to your legislature and judges. Don't beat your chest about your "rights". You don't have any until the officer determines that there is no threat, or the threat has ended.

ANY STATE

Are you really serious?

First a citizens rights should always be foremost in an officer's mind. I know the seldom are...but they should be. But legally he is under obligation to observe the person's rights....or he may be the one in trouble at a later point.

Officers in states where the Open Carry possession of a handgun is not a crime, should consider that is the very scenario at play when someone calls about a MWG. That is not to say they do not need to be suspicious and careful, but they need to remember it is very possible that absolutely no crime is being committed.

Have you seen the video posted in another thread where a person is OCing in North Carolina, is asked for ID, refuses...and nothing happens? There are also other videos of people from other states of people doing the same thing. So while I may not always recommend it (and never would in TN), OCing and refusing to show ID doesn't always mean a face plant and getting handcuffed in all states. At least not if it the incident is being recorded....one reason many OCers carry some type of recording device. If it does happen I hope the officer is reprimanded by the judge, as in this case, and eventually LE gets the word.

[USMCJG]

An officer is responding to a call, "man with a gun". He arrives at the scene, he is under no obligation to observe "your rights".

100% incorrect.

His obligation is to protect himself and the public from harm, which is presumptive by that type of call. He is bound by protocols that his department has promulgated, not your "rights". In most jurisdictions, the LEOs would come in with drawn guns at low ready.

Wrong again. Constitutional rights and state laws ALWAYS trump departmental protocol. At least from an actual legal standpoint. Not saying LEOs can't or haven't gotten away with serious infractions against the Constitution and state laws.

If you tried this stunt in ANY state, if your refused to identify yourself to an officer answering a call for man with a gun, you are going down on the ground and get handcuffed.

Wrong yet again. I could actually site many cases and even show you videos where calls have been received about a "man with gun" and nothing has happened other than a friendly discussion. Those officers actually knew the law in their jurisdictions though, and didn't just make it up as they went along. I have yet to see a video where someone legally carrying a handgun was taken to the ground and handcuffed for not breaking the law. Of course the fact that they were being videotaped is probably why. People, LEOs included, are less likely to break the law on video.

I have never maintained "right" and "wrong". I am telling what will happen in such an encounter. If this riles you , start writing letters to your legislature and judges. Don't beat your chest about your "rights". You don't have any until the officer determines that there is no threat, or the threat has ended.

You don't lose any rights when in the presence of a law enforcement officer. A LEO can determine the threat within the confines of the law in his/her jurisdiction. He can't LEGALLY violate a persons Constitutional rights.

Please observe that I have not offered any personal views on the case reported. I have spend a lot of money on publications, memberships and lawyers to preserve gun rights. I also understand how that plays out on the street and in courts, and how acting stupid in public will get you a free trip to jail.

Thanks for sticking up for our gun rights. But the Bill of Rights has more than one amendment. I support them all.

I was a LEO for many years and never lost a case in court to a latrine lawyer. I am carrying the message, if you don't like the message, go after the folks who write the messages. An ad hominum attack on me does not correct the situation. If you don't like the way things are, get involved in the system. But post-1911, our liberties vanish more and more every day. Not from me, from the folks you elected to office.

ANY STATE

How many cases did you lose to an actual lawyer? I will grant you that we get closer and closer every day to living in a police state post 9/11. But why would I need to contact a legislature to change the laws that don't need changing, even if a few LEOS are willing to break them? That's like the people who think another gun law will stop crime when we already have 20,000 on the books that are broken on a daily basis.

[Thince1980]

he is under no obligation to observe "your rights".

You, and people like you are the reason America and our Freedoms are going to hell in a hand basket.

I like that Obama/Joker picture you have in your sig.

Do you happen to know what website actually started those viral pictures?

It was Infowars.com They ran a contest to see who could design the best one. The Obama as Joker Contest: Entries

Of course that site is run by revolutionaries who want to return our country to the rights the Framers and the constitution granted us.

I am sure it wouldn't meet your high standards of approval for the Amerikan Police State that you seem to like so much.

You should read about the history of the Gestapo and the SS sometime. They were big on not worrying about peoples rights so they could "Protect The Motherland" and "Public Good" and all of that great Orwellian rhetoric you seem to like to throw around.

You can lay down and take the police state if you want. I don't intend to.

[jaysouth]

You, and people like you are the reason America and our Freedoms are going to hell in a hand basket.

I like that Obama/Joker picture you have in your sig.

Do you happen to know what website actually started those viral pictures?

It was Infowars.com They ran a contest to see who could design the best one. The Obama as Joker Contest: Entries

Of course that site is run by revolutionaries who want to return our country to the rights the Framers and the constitution granted us.

I am sure it wouldn't meet your high standards of approval for the Amerikan Police State that you seem to like so much.

You should read about the history of the Gestapo and the SS sometime. They were big on not worrying about peoples rights so they could "Protect The Motherland" and "Public Good" and all of that great Orwellian rhetoric you seem to like to throw around.

You can lay down and take the police state if you want. I don't intend to.

Please go back and read every post. I did not invent 9-11. I did not approve of the state security apparatus called Homeland Security. I do not condone militarization of our local police and takeover by the Feds.

I do not approve of the police state, my personal political leanings are between liberterian and anarchist. I didn't invent the patriot act nor do I approve it. It was the first step toward a national police, which is coming by the back door. The patriot act that your congressman and senators voted for has now created a de facto national ID card by mandating uniform regulations for driver's licenses in all 50 states. I didn't do this or ask for it or condone or approve it, it was the congressmen that you elected.

I have been self employed for the past 30 years because I don't play well with others and have a problem with rules that other people make.

A great deal of my time and effort has been spent to "learn the system". If you don't know the system you can't beat it. I have bent and broken enough laws, codes, and regulations to fill a small city's jail. But you can't beat a system that you don't understand. If you go out on the street and act stupid, expect to go to jail.

The kid in this tale might be able to make something of it if he had ten or fifteen thousand to give to a lawyer, in cash, up front. Justice is not cheap. Again, this is not my system, it is the one that has been in place for long, long timel. I am not a jack booted gestapo for observing how the system works.

Please don't put words in my mouth or impute things that I did not say or feel. I am past being a patriot. I look out for myself and my family, the hell with the rest of you idiots that keep electing idiots that pass all these idiot laws that eat away at our freedoms.

[Hotshot]

jaysouth said, "If you go out on the street and act stupid, expect to go to jail"

Right or wrong, that about sums it up.

[Guest canynracer]

Reminder for everyone to play nice...you may disagree, but so so without personal attacks.

[E4 No More]

An officer is responding to a call, "man with a gun". He arrives at the scene, he is under no obligation to observe "your rights". His obligation is to protect himself and the public from harm, which is presumptive by that type of call. He is bound by protocols that his department has promulgated, not your "rights". In most jurisdictions, the LEOs would come in with drawn guns at low ready. Wrong. The police have no duty to protect the public from harm; they have the duty to not cause or further harm to the public. If they did have the duty to protect the public from harm they'd be inundated with lawsuits for failing to do so. The type of call does not throw-out common sense at all. There's a big difference between rolling onto a sceen and either seeing a guy waving a gun around and a guy calmly sitting at a table eating with a gun on his hip.

If you tried this stunt in ANY state, if your refused to identify yourself to an officer answering a call for man with a gun, you are going down on the ground and get handcuffed. Wrong. Given these same circumstances cited YOU can bet on being sued for excessive force, (if not assault), if you are the officer and you did that to me.

I have never maintained "right" and "wrong". I am telling what will happen in such an encounter. If this riles you , start writing letters to your legislature and judges. Don't beat your chest about your "rights". You don't have any until the officer determines that there is no threat, or the threat has ended.

Please observe that I have not offered any personal views on the case reported. I have spend a lot of money on publications, memberships and lawyers to preserve gun rights. I also understand how that plays out on the street and in courts, and how acting stupid in public will get you a free trip to jail.

I was a LEO for many years and never lost a case in court to a latrine lawyer. I am carrying the message, if you don't like the message, go after the folks who write the messages. An ad hominum attack on me does not correct the situation. If you don't like the way things are, get involved in the system. But post-1911, our liberties vanish more and more every day. Not from me, from the folks you elected to office. Given the corruption of our legal system now days this isn't saying much. That's like saying, "It ain't illegal unless you get caught."

ANY STATE

I'm just saying.

[Thince1980]

Reminder for everyone to play nice...you may disagree, but so so without personal attacks.

Duly Noted

[Guest Orionsic]

thats quite a story.

+1

[Mark@Sea]

City of Norfolk has paid tens of thousands to an individual who open carries "to the terror of the police". Not once, mind you, but at least twice to the same guy.

The attitude/belief that "Officer safety trumps everything, including constitutional rights" is making that guy rich. He would, I think, have a very good federal case against the individual officers involved if he chose to pursue that angle. Some language about "depriving civil rights under color of law" comes to mind. No immunity under those circumstances, the officers involved could and should get hammered.

I find it sadly funny that people on this board are so easygoing about surrendering personal rights in order to make life easier. Wear your chains lightly, but I'll pass, thank you.

[Guest flyinglowwithheat]

City of Norfolk has paid tens of thousands to an individual who open carries "to the terror of the police". Not once, mind you, but at least twice to the same guy.

The attitude/belief that "Officer safety trumps everything, including constitutional rights" is making that guy rich. He would, I think, have a very good federal case against the individual officers involved if he chose to pursue that angle. Some language about "depriving civil rights under color of law" comes to mind. No immunity under those circumstances, the officers involved could and should get hammered.

I find it sadly funny that people on this board are so easygoing about surrendering personal rights in order to make life easier. Wear your chains lightly, but I'll pass, thank you.

I don't know if this is an accurate quote (hope it is!) but the posts below it are interesting too!!!

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.EFEC

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is

wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts

they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,

it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not

warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of

resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as

to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost

in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from

time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson sounds like someone who would have OC'd most of the time!!!!! I wonder what he would have done @ WaffleHouse??....LOL!!>>>>>>WWTD!!!!!!

Edited October 30, 2009 by flyinglowwithheat

[J5684]

Not to feed the fire but I still don't know if the deputy just strolled in or was called by someone.

That would make the argument..

[wjh2657]

"That would be the only way to change things. I was going to say he'd need at least enough for moving expenses, but with military at your back, why worry? The protection of a fortress/military base should be unequalled. "

That protection would be in an unarmed state. It is illegal for any military personnel to carry a personal weapon on a military base anywhere in the world. The soldier indicated he knew this when he mentioned he was going to "drop off" his gun at a friends house before returning to base. It is true he had the right to carry off base, but he would get very little sympathy or support from the military for carrying a gun on "liberty." I don't agree with this fact but it is the way the military thinks.

I spent 30 years on active duty in the USMC and went through hell just to transport a target weapon to the range on base to shoot representing the USMC! The weapon had to be returned to the armory by a direct route from the range to armory in as short a time as possible. It had to be locked in a case and unloaded. No ammo could be present in the same area as the gun. I had to have a written clearance from my Commanding Officer to pickup and transport the weapon.

The U.S. Military has the most stringent Gun Control Measures in the U.S. This one of the reasons I tried to live off-base whenever possible.

The title implies that a civilian agency was mistreating a soldier and they were but he would have been handled a lot rougher by the military. If you haven't figured it out yet, being a Military man doesn't mean your rights should be respected more, it means you pretty much don't have any rights. Or I should say, you have what rights your command says you have!

I lived that way for thirty years, by my own choice. It just goes with the uniform.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Since the soldier was gonna drop of his gun at a buddies, that says to me he lives in the barracks. A soldier in the barracks would have to his gun locked up in the arms room of the unit he is with. Not a good situation. If its the weekend, there would be little chance he can get his weapon out of the arms room when he pleases. Thus leaving him unarmed when he traveled off base. Leaving the gun at a buddies off-post makes it easier for him to access his gun.

Now if he lived in military housing, than he wouldn't have to leave his gun off-post at a buddies.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

WOW...One heck of a thread about nothing and everything. Dont worry you will get use to me not making much sense.

It has been established that the young soldier was within his rights both to carry his weapon and not show his ID. OK

I was 19 once and probably then I would have done just as this soldier did and suffered the punishment from the military.....the kid sounds like I was. But no check that.....I am carrying an illegal knife, the officer is getting the ID along with yes and/or no Sirs!

Given the same situation today a few years older than 19. I am sitting there with my gun all legal and my knife all not and the LEO asks for an ID....at this point it becomes more like a poker game to me.....I know I dont have to but I am going to show it to them, why push the issue..... I do still have the knife.....So I am calling their bluff so to speak......now what?

I've already asked if the manager if he wants me to leave and while the answer is fuzzy it isnt YES I want you to leave, so I am still good there.

Now the ball is in their court, they would probably check for warrants and such and go about their business as they really would not have a choice as I would have broken no law and complied with their request and they dont at this time know about the knife.

Some here say by doing so I have chipped away at or given away my rights....I say I just avoided a bunch of needless BS. There is no way to know what was on the officer's mind, what type of call he just came from, what kind of day he has had, no way to know anything about him or his mood.

All I DO know is he wants to see my ID and I am carrying a legal gun and this pesky illegal knife.

So by me NOT showing my ID it only arouses the officer's suspicions/fears. If I do just show it to them just what would/could they do at that point? they asked the manager if he wanted the soldier to leave as had the soldier. The manager has not really answered the question rather he has said he would like it better if I left the gun in the car. At this point I would just leave because.........

There is still the issue of the illegal knife, just because they dont know I have it and they didnt find it right away dont mean it suddenly became legal.....more reason to show the ID and diffuse the situation and/or the officers fears or suspicions.

I would not feel I had lost anything by showing the ID. It very well could have completely changed the officers attitude. Not showing it did so also but in a bad rather than good way for me.

Another thing I do not understand about this story is the deal with the judge?.....If the owner never asked the man to leave how could he be trespassing? Why would the judge even say such a thing without even asking if the soldier had refused to leave? It just dont make sense to me. I am however easy to confuse

If the officers really wanted to arrest the young man and cause him trouble they still have the illegal knife. It would seem to me this would be a more serious charge than the trespass and would have caused the soldier more problems with his command.

So IMO the young soldier is lucky that he was not charged with having an illegal weapon... the knife.

So I guess all is well that ends well but I am confused as it does seem the officers had a bit of a chip on their shoulders but didnt use the illegal knife to nail the kid? And for some reason I get this feeling that somehow we dont have the Whole story.

So the confusing thread confused me and now I need a nap....

Edited November 6, 2009 by Sgt. Joe

[JayC]

I'm not sure the knife was technically illegal, more than the officer didn't notice it on a pat down, but I maybe incorrect. The knife he describes sounds like it does not qualify as a weapon under NC law.

And I agree, it might have been easier to just go along with the request, but it should be your choice to be nice and go along with an unlawful request, not be arrested and harassed if you choose not to comply with an unlawful request.