Shame on you pierce county sheriff!

[gehrheart]

Some of the things I'm learning in this thread:

1. Do what you're told, or life will be difficult.
2. Violating the 4th Amendment is okay if done courteously.
3. Carrying a gun doesn't mean you're hoping for a fight, but carrying a recorder does.
4. You should defend your civil rights on a forum, not in real life.
5. Refusing to cooperate with a violation of your civil rights makes you a jerk.
6. Requesting a lawyer is for people who are up to no good.
7. Cops get a pass on violating your 4A if they feel 'nervous.'
8. The stats on open carriers going "postal" must be more serious than I thought if people think it justifies no-RAS stop and an ID shakedown.

I understand the need for police to "check things out" but I see no reason (outside of screams, gunshots, or bloodtrails) why they can't enter the establishment and LOOK AROUND. Do the staff or patrons appear distressed? Is someone wearing an expression of abject terror while pointing to the guy with the gun? It probably takes less time to stand there for 15 seconds with your eyes open than it does to initiate the kind of contact that potentially violates the 4A. Take another 15 seconds and ask someone behind the counter how things are going.

Yea, that pretty much sums up my understanding of this. If (generally do not) if I was OC and put into this situation, I am not sure I would be so quick to produce ID either. It wasn't, wasn't there and internet chatter is just internet chatter.
I will say i believe there should never be any type of compromise on any constitutional right. I do believe the officer was wrong.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

And the jury found that pastor not guility. That to me means the LEO's were in the wrong. Will they continue to treat people that way? If we dont know our rights will they tell us?

If you like, you can read ORS 336.057 and then compare its language with your own high school experience. Then decide for yourself if the public employees in charge of designing public school curriculum on Constitutional education have intended public schools to produce citizens that are functionally literate about their rights and all the other things that functional citizens need to be informed about regarding the Constitution.

ORS "336.057 Courses in Constitution and history of United States. In all public schools courses of instruction shall be given in the Constitution of the United States and in the history of the United States. These courses shall:
(1) Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in grades 9 through 12.
(2) Be required in all state institutions of higher education, except the Oregon Health and Science University, and in all state and local institutions that provide education for patients or inmates to an extent to be determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. [Formerly 336.230; 1977 c.226 §1; 1999 c.1023 §1]"

Keep in mind that those who graduate high school and later go on in life to become police officers, raise their hand and swear an oath to uphold and defend the very same thing that most of us (thanks to public schools run by public employee union members) have no functional literacy of...as per the "policy" standards erected by those public employees in charge of school curriculum.

Like I said though, read the law and decide for yourself. But keep these little tidbits in mind too:

Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section 21.
Acts to be plainly worded. Every act, and joint resolution shall be plainly worded, avoiding as far as practicable the use of technical terms.–

ORS 174.010 General rule for construction of statutes.
In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 7982
1980 Ore. AG LEXIS 218; 41 Op. Atty Gen. Ore. 281
December 16, 1980

REQUESTBY:
[*1] The Honorable Verne Duncan
Superintendent of Public
Instruction

OPINIONBY:
JAMES M. BROWN, Attorney General

The Board has the duty to establish state standards for public schools and prescribe required or minimum courses of study. ORS 326.051(1)(a), (c). Certain courses are, however, prescribed by statute. See, e.g., ORS 336.057; 336.067. District school boards have the duty to ensure that courses of study prescribed by law and by the rules of the Board are carried out, and may establish supplemental courses not in lieu of the prescribed courses.

AND........

WILSON v. CHANCELLOR, 418 F. Supp. 1358; 1976


"Political subjects invariably will arise during the course of study required in Oregon schools by Oregon law. ORS 336.057 requires public and private schools to give instruction in the consti-tution of the United States for a mini-mum of five years. ORS 336.067 re-quires 'special emphasis' on instruction in obedience to law, respect for the flag, and the federal and state constitutions, and 'other lessons which tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.' "

 

[Dake]

I think it's ironic that the same people who think that the Arizona police should be able to ask Hispanics for their ID are usually the ones opposed to the same treatment.

Beat me to it.

 

[Ravenous]

I am 100% supportive of Arizona and their law, but the hypocrisy does run deep here. I don't believe that being asked for your identification or being required to comply when asked should be offensive to anybody. The fact of the matter is that we all have to work together to get rid of the negative stigma of carrying a weapon, and If that requires that I be accommodating when asked for my ID then so be it. I don't consider it an inconvenience in the slightest. I guess being asked for my government issued ID by a government employee isn't where I'm going to draw the line.

 

[gogoDawgs]

Beat me to it.

I am 100% supportive of Arizona and their law, but the hypocrisy does run deep here. I don't believe that being asked for your identification or being required to comply when asked should be offensive to anybody. The fact of the matter is that we all have to work together to get rid of the negative stigma of carrying a weapon, and If that requires that I be accommodating when asked for my ID then so be it. I don't consider it an inconvenience in the slightest. I guess being asked for my government issued ID by a government employee isn't where I'm going to draw the line.

Perhaps you haven't read the Arizona law. Perhaps you do not understand 4th amendment law or Terry v Ohio.

I am in full support of the Arizona law: which is verifying the citizenship while investigating a crime in where law enforcement has RAS or PC to make a stop.

I am not in favor of being stopped for committing no crime and being forced to show my papers to satisfy the officers whims that I am not a felon. The officer must have RAS or PC in order to make a detainment.

 

[Ravenous]

Perhaps you haven't read the Arizona law. Perhaps you do not understand 4th amendment law or Terry v Ohio.

I am in full support of the Arizona law: which is verifying the citizenship while investigating a crime in where law enforcement has RAS or PC to make a stop.

I am not in favor of being stopped for committing no crime and being forced to show my papers to satisfy the officers whims that I am not a felon. The officer must have RAS or PC in order to make a detainment.

It isn't what I understand or don't understand. I am not arguing laws or specific cases because I really don't care as I will comply with the officers requests and address wrong doings after the fact. I am aware of my rights but I am choosing not to draw the line at being asked for my ID. In my opinion, with today's society, walking around with a visible weapon is reasonably suspicious. I would rather have the police ask somebody who has a weapon for their ID than ignore it and have people get hurt. That is just me, that is just my opinion. I also believe that the people carrying for the wrong reasons(gang members, drug dealers, robbers) outnumber those of us who carry for the right reasons. I'd rather have them err on the side of caution and nobody get hurt. I'd rather have my fellow legal carriers work with the police than against them. They are the good guys after all. Once again just my opinion, that is all.

 

[gogoDawgs]

I am 100% supportive of Arizona and their law, but the hypocrisy does run deep here. I don't believe that being asked for your identification or being required to comply when asked should be offensive to anybody. The fact of the matter is that we all have to work together to get rid of the negative stigma of carrying a weapon, and If that requires that I be accommodating when asked for my ID then so be it. I don't consider it an inconvenience in the slightest. I guess being asked for my government issued ID by a government employee isn't where I'm going to draw the line.

It isn't what I understand or don't understand. I am not arguing laws or specific cases because I really don't care as I will comply with the officers requests and address wrong doings after the fact. I am aware of my rights but I am choosing not to draw the line at being asked for my ID. In my opinion, with today's society, walking around with a visible weapon is reasonably suspicious. I would rather have the police ask somebody who has a weapon for their ID than ignore it and have people get hurt. That is just me, that is just my opinion. I also believe that the people carrying for the wrong reasons(gang members, drug dealers, robbers) outnumber those of us who carry for the right reasons. I'd rather have them err on the side of caution and nobody get hurt. I'd rather have my fellow legal carriers work with the police than against them. They are the good guys after all. Once again just my opinion, that is all.

In your first statement you say you are supportive of the AZ law. In your second you say you 'really don't care' when referring to specific laws. I find this enlightening and disturbing that a gun owner who purports following of law doesn't care. While I respect your right to not care and also respect your right to forgo your rights during a request/demand for ID I think you must respect others who support all of the Constitutional rights embodied in the Bill of Rights.

As for your statement regarding working with police rather than against them, you are correct. That is why I am speaking with the Vancouver Police Department concerning open carry and the 4th amendment. That is why I have been working with Pierce County brining them into compliance with state law regarding the issue and the City-County building. That is why I am working with Police Chief Brian Wilson in Federal Way regarding open carry at City Hall and the courthouse. However, it is a two way street, and the police need to work with those that carry and understand that they do NOT get to violate other rights when no crime is afoot.

 

[tattoo]

Some just have a need for confrontation. Lets go open Carry over here or there and see if we can get a cop to make a mistake so we can post a thread on it and make ourselves out as heroes. The internet is a good place to learn but also a platform for some to preach. Or toot there own horn. Learn it and do what feels right to you. I think the live by the Bill of Rights types might just need to adjust to the 21st century. Thats where we are now and it is a different world.
KEY WORD ADJUST.
JMHO.
Dave

 

[Ravenous]

Some just have a need for confrontation. Lets go open Carry over here or there and see if we can get a cop to make a mistake so we can post a thread on it and make ourselves out as heroes. The internet is a good place to learn but also a platform for some to preach. Or toot there own horn. Learn it and do what feels right to you. I think the live by the Bill of Rights types might just need to adjust to the 21st century. Thats where we are now and it is a different world.
KEY WORD ADJUST.
JMHO.
Dave

Exactly! When I said I didn't care I wasn't referring to the laws, I do care about the 4th amendment. I was referring to the fact that if a cop asks me for my ID in any given situation I will give it to him willingly, I don't care to confront him based on my civil liberties, because it doesn't matter to me, I find it a reasonable response. If my fiancee asks me to get her a glass of water, it doesn't make me a slave if I do it, it makes me an *** if I refuse for no good reason. I live in a 21st century liberal area and it is my belief that a gun is reasonably suspicious to the society I live in. If I saw a bunch of guys in North Portland and notice they are printing because of guns tucked in their pants I would be suspicious. I would hope the police would be too. So I find it perfectly reasonable and responsible if they ask the middle class, clean cut, white guy in West Linn for his ID if they spot him carrying (i.e. me). Just because you are standing up for your rights doesn't make you right.

 

[gogoDawgs]

Some just have a need for confrontation. Lets go open Carry over here or there and see if we can get a cop to make a mistake so we can post a thread on it and make ourselves out as heroes. The internet is a good place to learn but also a platform for some to preach. Or toot there own horn. Learn it and do what feels right to you. I think the live by the Bill of Rights types might just need to adjust to the 21st century. Thats where we are now and it is a different world.
KEY WORD ADJUST.
JMHO.
Dave

Saying some 'have a need for confrontation' is painting with a broad brush. Saying it over and over again will not make it true. In this case Tom was on his lunch getting coffee doing nothing illegal and was not looking for confrontation.

No, we do not go 'open carry over here or there'. We go about our daily business and lives. Are we aware that all police do not know the laws and are prepared for an encounter, yes. Are there newbies that come on and try to find confrontation, yes. And when they do they are promptly called out on it and taught that is not what we are after.

Adjust to the 21st Century? Of course, I have adjusted and know that there are bad guys that I need to be prepared to protect my family from. However, I still abide by the 21st Century Constitution, State Constitution, state laws and case law that confirm my rights as a freeman. I am asking for the police to do the same. I am asking for the police to follow the law, Constitution and case law. And when all of those state that a LEO needs to have articulable suspicion to detain and identify an individual then I expect them to follow that law and case law. See Flora v. Washington. Officers also need to adjust to what is right and moral.

As to your statement "do what feels right to you" I whole heartily agree. OC is not for everyone, it is a politically incorrect choice. It is legal. A right unexercised is a right lost.

 

[gogoDawgs]

Exactly! When I said I didn't care I wasn't referring to the laws, I do care about the 4th amendment. I was referring to the fact that if a cop asks me for my ID in any given situation I will give it to him willingly, I don't care to confront him based on my civil liberties, because it doesn't matter to me, I find it a reasonable response. If my fiancee asks me to get her a glass of water, it doesn't make me a slave if I do it, it makes me an *** if I refuse for no good reason. I live in a 21st century liberal area and it is my belief that a gun is reasonably suspicious to the society I live in. If I saw a bunch of guys in North Portland and notice they are printing because of guns tucked in their pants I would be suspicious. I would hope the police would be too. So I find it perfectly reasonable and responsible if they ask the middle class, clean cut, white guy in West Linn for his ID if they spot him carrying (i.e. me). Just because you are standing up for your rights doesn't make you right.

I understand your point of view and accept it, I do find it contradictory.
If a cop asks you 'in any given situation' for your ID you will give it willingly? If you are breaking no laws and going about your legal business and you are stopped, detained and asked for your ID then the cop is breaking the law. So you are ok with the police breaking the law and abusing their authority.

Your final analogy is racist and needs no response.

 

[tattoo]

What can ya say.
Dave

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Sounds to me like another case of someone being a jerk to a cop, then acting amazed that a police's feelings are just as volatile as anyone else's.

I'm not amazed, but I am disappointed. If you're going to be a professional law enforcement officer you need to leave your ego at home. We can't afford for LEOs to have volatile feelings, or to worry about how much respect they get. They have a job to do, and it isn't easy, but they need to be professional about it.

There's something really wrong when a police officer makes the situation all about his own feelings, ego, or well being. In Portland these seem to be the officers who have shot unarmed people offering them no threat. We've had way too much of that. My dad was a police officer and a chief of police. What I'm seeing as routine police behavior these days does not fit with what he taught me about the job.

 

[JohnWayne]

All these OC guys are activists- just like PETA, etc. They are militant in their pursuit to confront LEO as much as possible. That's why he was recording the conversation. How do you know these LEO weren't responding to a call from Starbucks or someone in Starbucks.

If they are called and they believe a crime has been committed or IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED, they are covered under Terry. If then, they attempt to confirm his ID, they can detain him until they have POSITIVELY identified him- not just him giving a name. Then if not crime has been committed and they determine no crime is 'about to be committed' then they'll let the guy go.

This is all what the OC nuts miss. They pick and chose the Constitution they want to read. Here, they ONLY read the narrow reading of the 4th- not all the case law and state/city law associated. If they had they would understand all of the above.

Then they find some rumpkin deputy to take a few of all the facts and give his legal finding- even though he's not a judge.

And really, all this even does is wind up the OC wingnuts and associates. Most of us with common sense will tell ya that this is SUCH a remote situation for gun carriers that it really only happens when these nutbars try to make it happen.

 

[mjbskwim]

I understand your point of view and accept it, I do find it contradictory.
If a cop asks you 'in any given situation' for your ID you will give it willingly? If you are breaking no laws and going about your legal business and you are stopped, detained and asked for your ID then the cop is breaking the law. So you are ok with the police breaking the law and abusing their authority.

Your final analogy is racist and needs no response.

Yet you gave one anyway.
Confrontation is what you need in your life.
Cool

Now as far as a cop asking me for my ID "at any given time" No.This is not Russia or China.I don't have to carry it all the time.

But if I am open carrying a gun and they want to see my ID,maybe I should give them a copy of the 4th,so they understand they are violating my rights?
Then inform them of the repercussions of asking for the ID
(I will show you but you are violating my rights and I will have to file a official complaint with the Fed court,etc)

And maybe hand them a copy of the open carry law?
Just so they can read it also.
Maybe pull out both your DL and CCP,hold them up so the cop can see you are a legal citizen?

Then tell them again ,nicely,not confrontationally,that their bosses are in error if they are asking them ask for ID with out a crime.

The first thing I am seeing here is the people fighting on gogo's side are pushing and confrontational,not even some what nice and cooperative.

Making the rest of us wish you weren't any type of representation of us.

Instead of trying to inform and cooperate to make the gun community look like upstanding citizens.

I don't like how you and others make us look like militia members

gogoDawgs Saying some 'have a need for confrontation' is painting with a broad brush. Saying it over and over again will not make it true. In this case Tom was on his lunch getting coffee doing nothing illegal and was not looking for confrontation.

No but confronting everyone who doesn't see things exactly how you do, does make it true

 

[ZigZagZeke]

From what I gather, this guy recorded a police officer without consent and was arrested and charged on the RCW code listed above. He went to district court and made an appeal, which was denied and he remained charged with a crime. He took it to the state supreme court, was denied and remained charged with a crime. He then took it to a third court to which the charges were reversed and dismissed.

This guy was arrested, charged with a crime and went through three court cases until he could get the charge reversed. And yet the RCW code still reads the same way without an exception, and that was back in 1992.

I promise you will still be arrested and charged for recording an officer if you pull that crap, all while citing case law in the back of a crown vic.

And what the third (and highest) court said was that the RCW code DOES NOT cover conversations in public between officers and suspects because they are not PRIVATE. I spent a little time in law school. Rights that are not exercised and defended are forfeited. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that a questionable search was not illegal because of failure of the suspect to object strongly enough. They called it implied consent. I thank those willing to spend time and money to test questionable enforcement practices and thereby preserve our freedoms.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Some just have a need for confrontation. Lets go open Carry over here or there and see if we can get a cop to make a mistake so we can post a thread on it and make ourselves out as heroes. The internet is a good place to learn but also a platform for some to preach. Or toot there own horn. Learn it and do what feels right to you. I think the live by the Bill of Rights types might just need to adjust to the 21st century. Thats where we are now and it is a different world.
KEY WORD ADJUST.
JMHO.
Dave

How far do we need to adjust? Don't carry? Don't own firearms? Be careful what you say about the president? How much of the Consititution no longer applies in this new world?

 

[tattoo]

I see you have put a lot of thought into your answer so I guess there is really nothing more to say. You have it all figured out.
Dave

 

[U201494]

Your final analogy is racist and needs no response.

Easiest way out of debate, the old "I won't dignify that with an answer."

 

[Wenis]

This f'n thread again....

...someone needs some attention.