unreasonable or warranted search

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

Interesting to see doc an fall made there way over to this forum. I warn yall that this form is nothing like the ones in Ga.

 

 

I have brought this story up here more than once. I have read the trancripts, reports an depos on this case over an over.You can take Falls word for what happened. The city trieed to bypass state law by hireing a rent a cop an that person had a melt down cause he saw a gun which any normal Ga cop would not look twice at. He had fall cuffed an stuffed for tresspassing which they cant do per Ga law.

 

Fall was out in hours. Rent a cop lost his shirt. An the city became the gun capital of the state for the year. Now everyone with a badge in that town understands the law well an is up to Georgias normal standards.

 

 

Dumb judge though, twisted the law to protect the cop from losing his shirt. Not a supprise though, Those judges are floating around.

 

The phone call says a lot..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcibQADw8Eg

Edited November 8, 2013 by RebelCowboySnB

[Chucktshoes]

Well now, having all the information paints quite a different picture.

[Guest Siege]

I can tell you one thing; if I was in a park with my kids and saw this douchebag wandering around, there is a good possibility I would call the police. No responsible gun owner would act like that and there are just enough lunatics walking around our streets to keep from from taking any chances with the safety of my kids. As I say frequently following stories like this, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I see a douchebag around here, but it isn't Falls.

You know what they say about assumptions. Boy, you made some big ones, apparently, based on false information, rumor and hearsay that you didn't even attempt to fact check, and just went with to soothe your own ego by trying to make someone else look bad.

However, I will refrain from saying what I think about people - supposed pro-2A people especially - who are willing to risk someone's freedom, safety, and indeed their very life - given how quick cops are to pull the trigger these days - by calling the police on someone who has done precisely nothing wrong, illegal, threatening, intimidating or otherwise suspicious. In the state of Georgia, at least, the possession or carrying of a firearm is not, in and of itself, a crime, nor is it RAS or PC to believe one exists. If you freak out so easily at the sight of someone other than you legally open-carrying just because there are children around, you need to go ahead and surrender your firearms and move to some place where your sensibilities are less likely to get someone else jailed or shot by the police; you know, like Illinois or California, where the police will protect you (after they shoot your child because he had a toy gun) and where criminals obey laws and don't carry guns illegally.

When was the last time anyone ever saw an actual criminal open-carrying? I'd wager none, or so few as to be statistically irrelevant.

 

When I see someone in a park open-carrying, MY first thought is "Oh good, another vigilant citizen concerned for their safety, just like me." Not sure what your malfunction is.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Siege

[Guest Fallschirmjäger]

Let us not call anyone names.  The guy doesn't know me and he heard a biased story, deliberately misrepresented to present what should be a non-issue in the most slanted light available. 

He made assumptions, but based only upon the worst representation of events, and he took those representations as being at least somewhat close to the truth. 

Without having access to the other side of the story (referring to #10 that MacGyver posted) he was unable to form an independent opinion.  He was led to the opinion that he had, so I can't truly blame him.

 

If I may say, please let this be a lesson that the first story you hear, may not be the most accurate one.

[Fourtyfive]

They had apparently asked him to leave the park, and he didn’t comply. The police had the blessing of the magistrate judge who told them that they had sufficient probable cause for an arrest.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3564/u-s-district-judge-open-carrying-handgun-reasonable-suspicion-crime/#WAmpol0KRCzEGpW2.99

What does that read like to you ? Edited November 8, 2013 by Threeeighty

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

They had apparently asked him to leave the park, and he didn’t comply. The police had the blessing of the magistrate judge who told them that they had sufficient probable cause for an arrest.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3564/u-s-district-judge-open-carrying-handgun-reasonable-suspicion-crime/#WAmpol0KRCzEGpW2.99

What does that read like to you ?

Care to point to the park rules that he broke that gave the rent a cop the athority to throw him out? I know Tn is not this way but per state law you cant eject someone from a public park for being armed anymore than you can eject them for being black.

 

He also never refused to leave. By the time real LEO got there they were in the parking lot where the rent a cop was trying to detain him for LEO to talk to him. This is a big park so he had to have walked strait out when told.

 

He handed over his GWCL when asked. It was the only ID on him. He is not required to have any ID on him in Ga unless he is driving. He gave his name an DOB when asked. He did everything required.

 

The judge was told that he refuled to leave a park when told, that he refused to give ID an gave a fake name an DOB. All lies.

 

 

If you go back to post 20 an read that link you can read the real story. You can read the actual court documents. All 3 peoples depos are there to read along with trancripts of what was said word for word. You can also read the opinions of lawyers in Ga an Ga LEOs.

[Chucktshoes]

For some of the folks on this board who are so quickly making such harsh judgements, it might be worthwhile to consider that this gentleman's name isn't Lenny.

[Guest BSCLibertarian]

They had apparently asked him to leave the park, and he didn’t comply. The police had the blessing of the magistrate judge who told them that they had sufficient probable cause for an arrest.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3564/u-s-district-judge-open-carrying-handgun-reasonable-suspicion-crime/#WAmpol0KRCzEGpW2.99

What does that read like to you ?

 

That was based on a lie by the security guard, who paid an out of court settlement because of it. The entire incident was recorded, and the security guard never told him to leave the park. This is the reason why the charges were dropped by the prosecutor. Please stop repeating things that are not true.

The affidavit was false. It should not be a big surprise that a magistrate ratified a false affidavit. After all, he was not there, and he probably thinks the people who present these things to him are honest.

The audio recording tells a very different story. Result = charges dropped, settlement paid.

[Fourtyfive]

I've already been accosted for reading the article and posting what I read and really don't care about it , not my problem. As for repeating things I'll quote it all day long if I want to. 

 

I don't fly your flag around here.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Threeeighty

[jacob]

The guy doesn't know me and he heard a biased story

If I may say, please let this be a lesson that the first story you hear, may not be the most accurate one.

What biased story are you talking about?? The link I posted initially?? How was it biased?? I just reread and if anything it points out the flaws in the legal process and the procedures LEO'S sometimes employ that are disrespectful to our 2 freedom. Not once does this story paint you in a bad light; if anything it only defends your right to open carry if you so choose. Now as I stated previously I choose not to open carry because I feel it makes me an unnecessary target...YMMV...

[Guest BSCLibertarian]

I've already be accosted for reading the article and really don't care about it , not my problem. As for repeating things I'll quote it all day long if I want to. 

 

I don't fly your flag around here.

Uh, ok. I have not a clue what that post even means.

 

Anyone else see the irony here?

 

[URL=http://s379.photobucket.com/user/jmhwspmusic/media/Screenshot2013-11-08at94730AM_zpsad97f9dc.png.html][/URL]

 

It's actually my fault and really I should have taken note of something very telling before responding. You have a post stating "Non-compliance is reason for arrest, plain and simple" and "we the people will not comply" in your signature LMAO. Oh yeah and "Don't Tread On Me"......Good stuff.

 

:confused:

[Adam5]

Don't know what GA law is, but if it is similar to TN the officer may just have had reasonable cause to Terry stop the guy. 

Prior to this case, being armed was not enough RAS for a Terry stop in GA. This had been previously upheld in the case of State vs Jones.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Adam5

[jacob]

Uh, ok. I have not a clue what that post even means.

Anyone else see the irony here?


Oh yeah and "Don't Tread On Me"......Good stuff.

:confused:

Huh

[LagerHead]

All,

I am closing this thread down. It is obvious that this isn't a "Kwik" incident and while the discussion is welcome and some of the information obtained/assumed was incorrect, I don't want TGO to become a jump off point for folks out of state to come in here just to bash us without any further contribution. You guys from GA are welcome to stick around and participate in the forum - in fact, please do so - but if you're only here to jump on our users, even when they may be wrong, please refrain. 

 

One thing to remember is we're all in this fight together. If you're one of the "poke the bear" types remember that your actions have consequences that may or may not be in the best interest of the entire gun carrying community, e.g. Kwik. If you're not one of those type and you are simply being harassed by folks that don't know the law then we're behind you 100%. 

 

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, this thread hasn't degenerated to the point I'm talking about but I'm going to stop it before it does since I see several new members here who joined only to respond to this thread. 

 

Oh, and Airborne! You know who you are. 

[MacGyver]

Welcome to TGO, everyone!  Having spent the first 18 years of my life in Atlanta, I still have a fondness for the place.  Y'all have a lot of law from a firearms perspective that we would love to have up here in Tennessee.  Unfortunately, taking this same walk in any park in any major metro area in Tennessee would have you arrested with a different end result.

 

I'll be honest in saying that my first impulse is to shut this thread down - for two reasons.  One, is that we suddenly have an influx of people from outside of our immediate community coming onto the board to jump into this thread.  The second is that experience tells me that these open carry threads generally only go one way, and that folks will keep pushing the issue as long as they have a platform to speak.  I'm going to go against my impulse for now and keep this thread open, but everyone please be cognizant of TGO's code of conduct.  This thread is on thin ice, so to speak.

 

After reading the initial article that was posted here, the court documents and the majority of the thread over on GeorgiaPacking, here's the thing that just doesn't sync up for me - I just can't level set that this particular walk on this particular day had to result in Mr. Proescher getting arrested. 

 

I'll agree that he shouldn't have been arrested.  I'd like to support his ability to carry openly.  It wasn't long ago in Georgia that this by itself would have constituted a crime.  I'm glad the security company settled and the Mr. Proescher got enough money for a nice AR out of it (though I will say that I've never seen a settlement agreement that doesn't have a confidentiality clause that prohibits talking about the outcome).  I'm glad this case hopefully resulted in some better training for somebody.  But, I fail to see how this case advances our rights, our agenda at large as gun owners or our message with the public at large.

 

This isn't the Woolworth's lunch counter, y'all.

 

I know that we trend towards these all or nothing positions these days, but I'd argue that we can all step back from the edge just a little bit.

 

I'd argue that there's some distance between Gestapo'ish "papers please" police force and a police officer who's just trying to figure out if a person with a gun on his hip represents a threat.

 

I'd argue that there's a little distance between helping less-informed officers understand the law as it exists and being non-cooperative.

 

I'd argue that there's some distance between being civil and how these encounters so often go.

 

There's some distance between having the government on your front porch and going to seek the man out so you can poke him with a stick.

 

I'll give Mr. Proescher a wide latitude as he presents his version of events.  But, I personally level set that with his statement in his signature over on GeorgiaPacking that he "will not answer questions, I will not produce identification."  I'll level set it with the fact that he left his license in the car, but brought his recorder with him.  I'd argue that had he presented a license - despite the fact that the law does not technically require it - he would have driven out of there that afternoon.

 

Like I said, I'll give the gentleman a bit of latitude, but looking at what we do know - regardless of whether the guard changed his story or not - it sure looks like he went out that day prepared to be detained, whether or not he actually expected it when it happened.

 

This case may actually hurt the community because now there's opinion in Georgia that open carrying is reasonable suspicion to detain.  I didn't see in the GeorgiaPacking thread that the decision was going to be appealed. 

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this helps the community of gun owners at large. 

[McGarrett]

I guess I will continue to walk for exercise in my driveway like I have been doing. In fact I need to head on out there now since it has warmed up some.

 

A little different after hearing his side of the story.

 

Agreed showing DL might have prevented this from going further but a DL is not required for a walk in the park. DL is for operating a vehicle. Does GA law require a picture id to be carried and presented along with their hcp? 

 

Looks like some lessons learned all around but I do not want to go through something like this so I stick to CC and keep my id, hcp on me at all times. in 11 years of carrying I have never been asked for my hcp or even had an opportunity to present it to an officer and hope it stays that way. I'll just buy my own AR lower with my money and save a lot of headache.

 

I see no need to lock this thread, it seems to be civil and constructive so far. I am sure GA carry related topics concern some TGO members that live close to the border or travel to GA on a regular basis.

 

Just my 2 cents, I'm going out in the driveway to get some exercise now.

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

I have a recording device most of the time. I also have a dash cam in my car. Does that mean I am looking to be detained every time I leave my house?

 

Yes, fall did leave his DL in his car. Most of the people I know do that. That makes sure it is in your car when you are. It is not needed any other time in Ga. The ons that dont have more than one car.

 

"will not answer questions, I will not produce identification." I cant blame him for having that mindset now. He tried it the other way an ended up in jail. Why do that again.

 

I have open carried in my local city park hundreds of times an it has never crossed my mind that anyone would detain me for it. It is normal here. Fall had before an has after in that same park

 

Fall also did not have the money for a retainer at first.

 

A lot off effort is going in to trying to make it sound like he was fishing. Maybe he was, I dont know. Seems to me though that he was going about it the wrong way if he was. He was in his normal clothhing in his normal park carrying his normal gun. He was following his standard day, doing nothing that the people in the Ga gun forums saw as odd. The only odd thing that happened that day was the actions of thhe people with badges.

 

Useing what is normal in Tn to make asumptions about something being abnormal in Ga does not work.

 

I will let the lawyers talk about the case law an how a civil ruling effects criminal law but my understanding is that fall did not have the money or didnt think it was worth it to push the ruling just to try to get another pay day from the city.

[BigK]

I'll give Mr. Proescher a wide latitude as he presents his version of events.  But, I personally level set that with his statement in his signature over on GeorgiaPacking that he "will not answer questions, I will not produce identification."  I'll level set it with the fact that he left his license in the car, but brought his recorder with him.  I'd argue that had he presented a license - despite the fact that the law does not technically require it - he would have driven out of there that afternoon.

 

This is interesting, IMO. At first it sounded like the run-of-the-mill hot shot OC'ing to cause trouble and create a lawsuit. Then more facts made is sound like a completely innocent guy getting harassed by bad cops. Now, the idea of surreptitiously bringing a recorder with you on a routine walk sound like it's back in the former camp again. I'm interested to hear more about why anyone would think they may need to record a conversation while exercising in the park.

Edited November 8, 2013 by BigK

[Guest Fallschirmjäger]

If I may, I'll touch on a few points recently brought up, without formally quoting the authors...

"...I just can't level set that this particular walk on this particular day had to result in Mr. Proescher getting arrested..."

It's a bit of a bewildering question for me as well.  I had been walking in that particular park for the better part of a year (my first recollection was in March of 2011.)   I was assured by Mr McQuagge that although they did not like guns in the parks it was not illegal.

 

"...though I will say that I've never seen a settlement agreement that doesn't have a confidentiality clause that prohibits talking about the outcome..."

Oh, it has one and I've thoroughly violated it.  There's a $100 penalty.  Think any lawyer is going to show up in small claims court for that amount?

It they want it, it's theirs though, just write me a letter and we'll get a court date.

 

"... I'd argue that there's some distance between Gestapo'ish "papers please" police force and a police officer who's just trying to figure out if a person with a gun on his hip represents a threat..."

That was more-or-less the arguement put forth by Ms Tuwanda Rush-Williams (representing Bell and Dantzler) "How do the officers know you're not a crazed gunman?"  I pointed out that "How do I know you're not _______" is not the same thing as "I can reasonably suspect that you are in violation of the statute prohibiting _______."

If a police officer were to look at Ms Rush-Williams, how was he to know she was not a $2 crack whore?  She is equipped to be one, having the necessary 'plumbing', but there is no articulable reason to suspect she is, and therefore is prohibited from stopping her 'just to find out.'

 

"... I'd argue that had he presented a license - despite the fact that the law does not technically require it - he would have driven out of there that afternoon..."

Being positively identified would not have in any way proven or disproven a charge of trespassing.  To say I'd have left without being charged only gives credence to the theory that I was arrested merely as a pretense, a "he didn't respect my authoritah" charge.  I  complied with the officer's demands and gave my name and date of birth, exactly what the Supreme Court decided was sufficent in Hiibel v Nevada. 

I don't carry my license in my wallet and have not done so since around 2007.  I have a bad habit of forgetting my wallet so the license stays in the car along with two 20-dollar bills so I can eat and get gas (no pun intended.)  If I need my license for identification, I can pretty much guarantee it's within walking distance since I drove to whereever I need it.  Keeping my wallet in my car keeps me safe from the $10 fine for not having it with me should I ever be stopped for any reason.

 

"...Does GA law require a picture id to be carried and presented along with their hcp? "

No, not even the older, non-picture license did.  Additionally, there is no statutory authority for an officer to demand the display of a Georgia Weapons License, unlike a driver's license.  The law mandates that one 'posess' a license, but does not set a penalty for not having a GWL on one's body when carrying, I carry mine just to be on the safe side and avoid having to wave it around in court as a defense.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Fallschirmjäger

[Guest Siege]

They had apparently asked him to leave the park, and he didn’t comply. The police had the blessing of the magistrate judge who told them that they had sufficient probable cause for an arrest.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3564/u-s-district-judge-open-carrying-handgun-reasonable-suspicion-crime/#WAmpol0KRCzEGpW2.99

What does that read like to you ?

Oh. A warrant. Because those are ALWAYS valid? Judges behind a bench are never deceived by police officers, or collude with them to harass people who annoy them? Because all warrants are valid, just like this one? Or this one?

Seems to be a lot of people out there with some really skewed notions of law enforcement's honesty and how the justice system works in this country these days, as if taking a few months of classes, swearing and oath and someone pinning a badge on your chest somehow instantly makes a person incapable of deceit or of acting in their own interests to someone else's detriment.

[Guest Fallschirmjäger]

This is interesting, IMO. At first it sounded like the run-of-the-mill hot shot OC'ing to cause trouble and create a lawsuit. Then more facts made is sound like a completely innocent guy getting harassed by bad cops. Now, the idea of surreptitiously bringing a recorder with you on a routine walk sound like it's back in the former camp again. I'm interested to hear more about why anyone would think they may need to record a conversation while exercising in the park.

I used to never carry one.  But as a result of reading the widely varying accounts between an officer's 'official incident report' and what is recorded on a voice recorder, I changed my mind. 

I carry a firearm because not all predators are four-legged.

I carry a recorder because not all statements made are the truth.

 

Consider for a moment what might have happened had I Not had a recorder?

The officer's statements that I attemped to coneal my name could not have been disproven.  The officer's statements that I mistated my date of birth could not have been disproven.  Officer Adam Barth Bell's statement that I wanted to sing [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqymcJRSbxI]"Bohemian Rhapsody" in the back of his car[/url] would have gone completely without notice.

 

 

Okay, I'll give Bell the last one, the recorder was off by that time.  BUT anyone who's met me will know I couln't carry a tune in the literal bucket.

edited-to-add... nothing surrepticious about the recorder, it sits there on my belt; even has a red glowy-eye thing when recording.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Fallschirmjäger

[Guest Siege]

This is interesting, IMO. At first it sounded like the run-of-the-mill hot shot OC'ing to cause trouble and create a lawsuit. Then more facts made is sound like a completely innocent guy getting harassed by bad cops. Now, the idea of surreptitiously bringing a recorder with you on a routine walk sound like it's back in the former camp again. I'm interested to hear more about why anyone would think they may need to record a conversation while exercising in the park.

 

I don't leave the house without one these days. In fact, Falls and I have the exact same recorder, purchased on the advice of a mutual friend from GCO. I open carry only extremely rarely, usually at places like gas stations where my gun is already on my hip anyway (insted of in the small of my back in my Remora CC holster that I use when going into places where I don't wish to risk being asked to leave or having to explain myself to someone, such as grocery stores, malls, movie theaters, etc.), but regardless of whether I'm OC, CC, or not even carrying at all, if I am outside my own home (or workplace), I'm recording audio, period. I carry it for the same reason I carry a firearm: to be prepared, just in case. It serves only to ensure my actions are aboveboard, and that any claims I make in that regard can be validated as factual instead of hearsay.

 

I don't expect or want - by any stretch of the imagination - to be forced to need that evidence any more than I want to be shot, to shoot someone, or for that matter, to use any of the several fire extinguishers I have in my home. I don't expect my home to catch fire, but I'd still be stupid if I didn't have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, knowing just how possible it is; likewise, I don't ever want to be called on to use my firearm in self-defense, nor be jailed by police officers who have a poorer understanding of GA state firearms laws than I do, but if either of those - or many other - unlikely but extremely possible situations should ever come to pass, I would feel just as stupid for not having an audio/video recorder as I would if my house burned down because I didn't have a fire extinguisher.

Too many people are detained, harassed or arrested by police who don't understand (or don't care about) the law simply because they were carrying a firearm. It happens ALL the time, in many states, Georgia included. Another GPDO member's brother was done rather wrong by the police in Glynn county (youtube video from the police cruiser dashcam of the incident here). Think back on what you now know about Falls' incident in question, and tell me this: would he have been exonerated in this case, as he was, had he NOT been recording audio, and thus was able to provide an incontrovertible record of exactly what transpired? Do you think that the court would have taken his word over that of the police officers involved? Is it not possible the officers were more restrained in their actions knowing that they were not the only ones who had an evidential record?

 

Even if these specific officers would have been completely honest and professional regardless, there is significant evidence available that some police officers are simply bullies or even outright criminals in uniform who are perfectly willing to break the law whenever it suits them, and if there's anything you do on a regular basis that might cause you to be drawn into contact with the police - e.g. because you carry a firearm, which some officers clearly don't like - then it is imperative you be able to confirm your side of a story, because otherwise the courts will take a police officers' word over yours any day of the week. Similarly, all it takes is for some random citizen to catch sight of your concealed firearm for half a second to result in police being called to the scene, and some people are more than happy to make up false claims of "he pointed his gun at me" and the like just to serve their own personal agendas, or to protect their egos.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Siege

[TMF]

Sudden influx of Georgian folks becoming new members in the past 48 hrs.

[Pain103]

Sudden influx of Georgian folks becoming new members in the past 48 hrs.

Darn Bulldog fans are reproducing like rabbitts.

[Guest Fallschirmjäger]

Sudden influx of Georgian folks becoming new members in the past 48 hrs.

I know, right?

It's almost as though they heard about something being reported incorrectly and thought it important enough to give the true facts.

 

I bet they've taken over the other sub-forums, too, dang rebel scum.