Follow up on the Staunton VA incident

[Blackfork]

Not to cut it too finely but police don't have ANY rights. They have POWER, which is granted from "the people" only. Citizens have Rights. Humans have RIGHTS. They were intended have Rights made inalieanable by the Bill of Rights, so that those rights could NEVER be infringed by the state.

But we've been regulating and legislating for the past 200 years generally increasing the POWER of the State and limiting the Rights of individual citizens. But we haven't gone so far as to declare a "Human Right" to write tickets, drive squad cars and make arrests.

Police aren't mentioned in the BOR except to LIMIT and restrain their powers.

Again: Police may have POWER which trumps, (these days) Human and Citizens rights, but police have zero "rights."

 

[ceetee]

How about another difference? Would your friend, if someone got in their car to leave before he ran their openly displayed car tag, display his badge and gun and inform them he was "detaining" them until he could run their tags?

Meh. I never said he was my "friend"... Matter of fact, I always considered him to be one of those "I'm better than you" hypocrits. BUt to answer the question... No. Anybody that wanted to leave was able to.

I don't blame the sheep that called. I do blame the members of the so-called civil defense league for not playing their cards right and showing the officers just how wrong they were. They should have refused the id's and stated that they were going to leave, if even for just a walk around the block. This would have forced the police to act properly and leave them alone or screw up. The screw up would have led to a major lawsuit and we wouldn't need to have this conversation because it would be being taken up in court.

You said it better than I have, except that I do blame the sheep for making a big stink about nothing.

 

[JohnBT]

"...so-called civil defense league..."



It's the Virginia Citizen's Defense League.

Only accurate arguments are interesting.

John
Member www.vcdl.org

 

[islandphish]

nitpick as you like, sorry i didn't properly remember your league's title.

either way, the hand was poorly played. respond to that.

sorry you are so wrapped up in being right that you make a big deal about someoe messig up a name.

 

[txgho1911]

Everyone should have the right to openly carry wherever they happen to be. There are many points about VA law that are backazzwards.
The reaction by a "patron" was knee-jerk in the least and a target of opportunity for some leftist who had to leave so everyone there didn't see him giggling like a little oh I am not going there.
CCW and open carry should both be universally a non issue for everyone. That includes 911, dispatcher, responding officer along with every managing officer and office holder. Infringements there of should be the focus.

I would hope the VCDL and others would continue to opencarry even after they take the state Vermont/Alaska. Open carry should be practiced by all who are legally able whenever they can. A right not exorcised is no right at all.

 

[JohnBT]

"nitpick as you like, sorry i didn't properly remember your league's title.

either way, the hand was poorly played. respond to that.

sorry you are so wrapped up in being right that you make a big deal about someoe messig up a name."

I'd be happy to lend you $10 for a keyboard with shift keys that work so I can read what you're writing.

John

 

[ZeSpectre]

I think it's pretty obvious that the police had every legal right to approach the men and speak to them. They even had the right to ask for their id's in order to run background checks. The men had no need to comply and should have been free to go at any time. If the police prevented them from leaving they were in an illegal position.

You are wrong. In Virginia the police did NOT have "every legal right" to interfere with the citizens simply on the basis that they were armed and some other citizen got nervous. This is because NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

Yes the cops had a duty to respond to the call but an appropriate response would have been to observe from a distance. Sorry but law enforcement is just that, enforcement, I.E. something that happens AFTER a crime is committed. The citizens committed no crime, actual or intended, and yet law enforcement sprang into action. Simply put they overstepped their authority. I guess I'm particularly sensitive on this specific issue because back in my LEO days I made a similar mistake as a rookie and got seriously REAMED by a review board over it. But I guess that was a long time ago.

The part I find a little interesting is that nobody seems to be thinking about this "concerned citizen" who essentially filed a false report. At minimum someone should educate him on VA law and warn him/her not to do that again unless there really is a crime in progress. Also the police dispatcher should have had the "concerned citizen" verbalize the crime. It probably would have saved a lot of grief.

I just hope both sides can figure out a way to save face all around so that people on both sides will be open to education. As it stands now it's just turned into a pissing match.

 

[islandphish]

zespectre,

i think that the police had the right to "ask" the people to show him their id's or run their names. The police had no right or power to detain the men as far as i understand the law. Just as they could "ask" to search a car or house they could "ask" for ID or names. Compliance was optional.

I agree with your view of the law as reactive totally.

Definitely the cops should have explained to the reporter the law to avoid future mishaps.

 

[gunsmith]

God bless the VCDL

If only we had a few million people like them.

sorry you are so wrapped up in being right that you make a big deal about someoe messig up a name

No disrespect meant to you...words mean things!

I always strive to correct my communication skills, as it is so important, I need a great deal of improvement myself

 

[ceetee]

Yes the cops had a duty to respond to the call but an appropriate response would have been to observe from a distance. Sorry but law enforcement is just that, enforcement, I.E. something that happens AFTER a crime is committed. The citizens committed no crime, actual or intended, and yet law enforcement sprang into action. Simply put they overstepped their authority.

I have to disagree with that, Ze... We (as a society) are always bitching when the police stick to a strictly reactionary role... We don't want police that just hang around to take reports and round up "the usual suspects". We want police that are in tune with the needs of the neighborhood that they're working in. We want police to take pride in their civic responsibilities, and be pro-active in fighting crime at it's source.

But when an issue like this comes up, they're all JBT's, and should be punished. I was the first one in this thread to posit that the most appropriate response would be to educate the caller about the law. I also have no problem with the police asking for ID's. (If you've ever had to fill out the paperwork, then you know that if you don't have ALL the blanks filled in, you get reamed out.) I agree that there was no reason to "detain" anybody, and it sounds to me like in this situation nobody was detained.

So what's it gonna be? Pro-active JBT's who try to take an active role in fighting crime? Or Barney Fife's that stand around slack-jawed and are only useful to write up a report after the fact?

 

[DKSuddeth]

So what's it gonna be? Pro-active JBT's who try to take an active role in fighting crime? Or Barney Fife's that stand around slack-jawed and are only useful to write up a report after the fact?

what crime was committed? Was there ANY evidence that a crime had been committed? If there is no evidence that any crime has been committed, there is zero reason for ANY LEO to stop/detain or ask for ID to run a check.

 

[ceetee]

Way to NOT answer my question...

 

[DKSuddeth]

Because your question requires an absolute answer on whether we want total crime prevention, requiring police officers to demand 'papers' on everyone and everything deemed suspicious or dangerous OR all police officers sitting back and filing reports after the fact. Neither is correct nor relevant to the facts of law as we have established through the years.

 

[Deanimator]

I have to disagree with that, Ze... We (as a society) are always bitching when the police stick to a strictly reactionary role... We don't want police that just hang around to take reports and round up "the usual suspects". We want police that are in tune with the needs of the neighborhood that they're working in. We want police to take pride in their civic responsibilities, and be pro-active in fighting crime at it's source.

But when an issue like this comes up, they're all JBT's, and should be punished. I was the first one in this thread to posit that the most appropriate response would be to educate the caller about the law. I also have no problem with the police asking for ID's. (If you've ever had to fill out the paperwork, then you know that if you don't have ALL the blanks filled in, you get reamed out.) I agree that there was no reason to "detain" anybody, and it sounds to me like in this situation nobody was detained.

So what's it gonna be? Pro-active JBT's who try to take an active role in fighting crime? Or Barney Fife's that stand around slack-jawed and are only useful to write up a report after the fact?

Apparently carrying openly in VA under the circumstances described is not a crime. WHAT exactly were the police "investigating"?

If you call the cops and say, "There are three guys wearing turbans in the Rocky River Donato's Pizza!", what should they do? If my cousins Selim and Hashim and I are eating meatball subs and discussing Sidney Poitier's excellent performance in "The Long Ships", should the police be able to detain and question us? On what basis? Carrying openly in VA isn't a crime. Wearing a turban and discussing cinema isn't a crime in OH. In either case, what "crime" has been prevented?

Are there any limits which you would impose upon the actions of the police taken allegedly to "prevent crime", especially when there isn't one iota of evidence that a crime has been or is about to be committed? Should the police be able to detain and question anyone wearing a turban? How about if they speak Arabic and carry a Koran? People who wear turbans, carry the Koran and speak Arabic sometimes commit crimes. Does that justify forcibly detaining them for questioning every time somebody calls the police to report those NON-criminal behaviors? At what point does this become harassment? If you don't like people who speak Arabic, read the Koran and wear turbans, can you use the police as an instrument of harassment, especially since none of those things are crimes, or evidence of crimes?

Should the police allow themselves to be used as a tool for the expression of the prejudices of the malicious?

 

[Molon Labe]

We don't want police that just hang around to take reports.

Well that's what I want. Our liberties and inalienable rights are more secure when we limit the role of the LEO to that of a historian.

We want police that are in tune with the needs of the neighborhood that they're working in. We want police to take pride in their civic responsibilities, and be pro-active in fighting crime at it's source.

The problem with this approach is that it assumes all cops are honest. Many are not. Since so many are dishonest, and so many have an "us against them" mentality, we must drastically limit their scope of power and authority.

But when an issue like this comes up, they're all JBT's, and should be punished.

Yes, any LEO that operates outside the law should be punished.

I agree that there was no reason to "detain" anybody, and it sounds to me like in this situation nobody was detained.

Were they free to leave? If not, they were detained.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Deanimator

If you call the cops and say, "There are three guys wearing turbans in the Rocky River Donato's Pizza!", what should they do? If my cousins Selim and Hashim and I are eating meatball subs and discussing Sidney Poitier's excellent performance in "The Long Ships", should the police be able to detain and question us? On what basis? Carrying openly in VA isn't a crime. Wearing a turban and discussing cinema isn't a crime in OH. In either case, what "crime" has been prevented?

You left out whether they went to the bathroom. Then they should be checked out.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Detained?

Were they free to leave? If not, they were detained.

Six police cars show up and ask you for your i.d. Would you believe you were free to ignore them, rudely wave them off with the back of your hand, and leave?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Just to be clear, the VCDL members have made it very clear that they were not free to leave and it was a forced i.d. check.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

From the VCDL Action Alert, on October 16:

Note that VCDL has no problem with the police coming to the restaurant to make sure that a crime wasn't being committed. The problem comes when the police, seeing and hearing of no actual crime being committed before (they called the manager on the phone before arriving and were told that there was NO problem) and after they arrived at the scene, proceed to treat the VCDL members like they had actually been doing something illegal. Once it was clear that the VCDL members were minding their own business and the restaurant was quiet, the police should have simply left - as has been done by police in other localities. Instead they ask for ID, post an officer who is told to keep the members in their seats, pressure the management to ask the members to put their guns in their cars, and then, finally, leave.

I would say they were detained.

I would also go so far as to assert that detaining them while pressuring management to do something the law does not require is an abuse of authority. Is this law enforcement or opinion enforcement?

 

[DKSuddeth]

The officer saying 'stay right there' is also a damn fine indicator that they were not free to leave.

 

[Maui19]

I'm going to give the cops a pass on this one. They were polite about it, and clearly made a mistake in asking for the IDs. Hopefully lesson learned.

When a PD gets a call that three armed men are acting suspiciously, they have to check it out. Six squad cars? In my area that would mean 6 cops. That seems reasonable to me, too. I've got to believe they aren't going to ask for IDs next time.

 

[TexasRifleman]

We don't want police that just hang around to take reports.

Uhh, folks. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that, and they have stated that is EXACTLY the purpose of the police,not protection of individuals against crime.

So, that topic is settled, move on to the next one.

 

[ceetee]

If you call the cops and say, "There are three guys wearing turbans...

We can "What if..." this all day. For instance, what if the guys that went to the restroom returned to the main room with guns drawn and robbed everyone? What if the cops never showed up, because when they called the manager, they were told there was "no trouble"?

You would all be bitching about how crappy the police response was, and about how it's a sin the way the police can't be held responsible for our safety...

You can't have it both ways. If you want absolutely no involvement of the police in your own personal lives, great. I envy you your false sense of security. If you want totalitarian JBT's on every street corner asking for travel permits, then I sincerely hope you never get your wish.

Me, I don't mind cops being polite, and respectful, and taking an interest in community policing. It would be a great world if everyone always got their way, but since it's not, and we don't, I just don't understand all the whining. Looks to me like a lesson was learned by all.

 

[Molon Labe]

what if the guys that went to the restroom returned to the main room with guns drawn and robbed everyone? What if the cops never showed up, because when they called the manager, they were told there was "no trouble"?

That's the price we pay to be free.

 

[Deanimator]

You can't have it both ways. If you want absolutely no involvement of the police in your own personal lives, great. I envy you your false sense of security. If you want totalitarian JBT's on every street corner asking for travel permits, then I sincerely hope you never get your wish.

You wonder at my expectations of my being "protected" by the police. Simply, I have NONE. The police have NEVER "protected" me, not even when asked to do so. Given that they have virtually NO legal duty to do so, that's hardly surprising. If I want to be "protected", I've got to do it myself.

I want it ONE way. I want the police to obey the law. When they don't, they're not just useless, they're a detriment to society in general, instilling in observers contempt for the law.

The choice is not between anarchy and tyranny. The choice is between the rule of law, and lawlessness. It's not a GOOD thing for the police to violate the law. Neither is it a good thing for bigots (against gun owners, Muslims, vegetarians, etc.) to be allowed to use the police as a bludgeon against those whom they irrationally hate and fear.

And I have in fact, given the police in the extant case, the benefit of the doubt. I have largely treated them as unwitting pawns of an idiot or a bigot. But that's beside the point.

What if a customer instead of reporting three men with guns going to the bathroom, had reported three BLACK men going to the bathroom? If it's permissible to hold people against their will for LAWFULLY carrying guns and going to the bathroom, why isn't it permissible to hold people against their will for being Black and going to the bathroom? These days, in VA it's illegal neither to carry openly nor to be Black. If it's ok to involuntarily detain someone for openly carrying, why not for being Black?

If somebody who doesn't want to eat around people lawfully carrying guns can manipulate the police for their own selfish benefit, why cannot someone who doesn't want to eat around Black people do likewise?