# Handcuffed, disarmed for obeying the law



## KenpoTex (Jan 10, 2010)

> Charlie Mitchener is a 61-year-old general building contractor with an office near Patrick Lane and Fort Apache Road in Las Vegas. He holds permits allowing him to legally carry concealed weapons in Nevada, Florida and Utah.
> 
> 
> "Upon presentation of my (firearms permit), the officer asked if I had the weapon on me to which I replied yes. She then said to spread my legs and put my hands behind my back. I complied and she then handcuffed me. While doing so, she said that she wanted to make certain 'that we were all safe.' "
> ...


http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html

Yeah...everyone was safer because the good guy was placed in cuffs.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 10, 2010)

...sigh...

So, this poor fella' has had his office broken into several time and after having his identity verified is cuffed and has his weapon removed. 

I'm all for females being able to do the same jobs as men, but if they can't then they don't need to. 

IMHO, she put this poor fella in danger actually. What if the perps had still been inside? 

What if they rushed her, disabled her, then ran outside? The poor guy was cuffed and disarmed.. how in teh hell could he have defended himself? 

He follow the rules... and suffered for it. 

I think this rookie should be reprimanded and given additional training if she's going to stay on the force.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 10, 2010)

celtic_crippler said:


> I'm all for females being able to do the same jobs as men, but if they can't then they don't need to.



This had nothing to do with gender ... it had to do with size (and, quite possibly, training)... and I know a Washington State Trooper who is shorter than I who trains *relentlessly* likely due to *his* stature and fervor to do his job effectively.

Your statement was a weensy bit gender-biased ... sorry, had to point that out.

I'm not sure why she did what she did. I wonder if the man was irate and upset? If he were shaken and angry and it seemed uncontrollable in said circumstance and I felt I couldn't rely on this guy to not shoot ME (if I were the officer) I may do the very same thing.  But we have his account alone and his training ... even though many go through the certification process and who can really say how they would react in such a situation?

I'm not happy this man was put in handcuffs on the surface ... but I just kinda have to wonder ....


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 10, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> This had nothing to do with gender ... it had to do with size (and, quite possibly, training)... and I know a Washington State Trooper who is shorter than I who trains *relentlessly* likely due to *his* stature and fervor to do his job effectively.
> 
> Your statement was a weensy bit gender-biased ... sorry, had to point that out.
> 
> ...


 
The reason I pointed that out was because she cited that an an excuse for disarming him and cuffing him. 

I don't doubt the ability of women due to gender. I've been to seminars where females half my size tossed me around like a rag doll ( I'm not a small guy)... so I know they can do the job if they have the proper taining! LOL 

My concern is that she may have put this man's safety in jeoparody due to her own shor comings or lack of confidence. 

That could or could not be her fault, it could be a training issue. Regardless, it needs to be addressed before she gets someone, or herself, killed.


----------



## Carol (Jan 10, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> This had nothing to do with gender ... it had to do with size (and, quite possibly, training)...



The article makes it quite clear that this is gender-related.  Not saying they are correct, but that is clearly the picture they are trying to paint:



> America in 2025, gals: Keep at it, and it can be your own private Afghanistan.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 10, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> I'm not sure why she did what she did. I wonder if the man was irate and upset? If he were shaken and angry and it seemed uncontrollable in said circumstance and I felt I couldn't rely on this guy to not shoot ME (if I were the officer) I may do the very same thing. * But we have his account alone and his training ... even though many go through the certification process and who can really say how they would react in such a situation?*



It wouldn't surprise me, based on his training, if he is more competent than she is...just saying.

If someone who has several CCW permits, has obtained professional training, and who notified her that he was armed (something I doubt that I would do) is such a problem for her, perhaps she is in the wrong profession.   What was her legal justification for cuffing him and removing his weapon?  The concept of "officer safety" is not carte blanche to do whatever one wants.

And for the record, I don't care that she's a female.  If a male officer had done this I'd be saying the same thing.


----------



## Carol (Jan 10, 2010)

If being female truly wasn't an issue, then there would be no need for such commentary in the article.  

Last year I was channel flipping and caught a rerun of Cops on G4 or some such network.  A Washington State officer (male) was approaching a drug suspect, also male.  The officer asked the suspect's permission to search his person.  The suspect said that he had syringes in his backpack, which IMO is not against the law.  As a result, the subject was handcuffed "for his protection and for the protection of the officer".  I am reading this as the suspect having something that is legal to possess, and is out of apparante courtesy letting the officer know about what is in his bag.

I'm not going to make a definitive statement based on what was seen on TV, but I suspect there are certain policies (at least in the west) that advise police officers to handcuff a subject when they volunteer that they have certain materials in their possession.  

If the officer in Las Vegas was following department policy, then is it truly her that has the actions that are objectionable?  Or is it the people that made the policies that she is following?  

The article seems to be more interested in denigrating female officers than finding the root cause of the issue.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 10, 2010)

Here in Texas you are supposed to show your CHL IF AND WHEN the LEO asks for your ID.

If you are not asked for your ID, you don't have to say anything.

But, just drive to Louisiana and you will find if a LEO 'approaches you in an official manner' you must inform him you are armed.

Funny thing about this Las Vegas thing is if he had been carrying illegally he would have not had to say anything. Surely the officer understood if he was of ill intent he would have just kept his mouth shut and waited for the right time, size difference or not.

Well no good deed goes unpunished.....

I've been stopped a few times and the LEOs here were nice. One even asked what kind of handgun I had on me.

Only question is, in Nevada do you have to show your CCW when stopped?

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 10, 2010)

Carol said:


> If being female truly wasn't an issue, then there would be no need for such commentary in the article.
> 
> ...
> If the officer in Las Vegas was following department policy, then is it truly her that has the actions that are objectionable?  Or is it the people that made the policies that she is following?
> ...



If the author of the article is attributing the situation to the fact that the officer was a female, that's his deal.  I frankly didn't even notice that comment the first time around because the author's opinion doesn't really have a bearing on the facts of the case.  
According to the information we have at the moment we have a business owner who has been the victim of a crime but when he, out of what I'm sure was his attempt at courtesy, informed the officer that he was legally armed, she had an issue with it and treated him like _he_ was a criminal.  



			
				Deaf Smith said:
			
		

> Only question is, in Nevada do you have to show your CCW when stopped?


 I'm curious about that as well.  However, even if that is the case, this wasn't a "stop."  He was the one who reported the crime, I would personally feel no obligation to inform the officer that I was armed in a situation like this (and stories like this leave me with even less motivation to do so).


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 11, 2010)

I should be clearer - I think the author is gender-biased (agree with Carol) in his assumption here.  His own article says the officer says she took this action to make sure they were all safe.

Now ... I agree with Tex that I question the judgement of handcuffing the owner of the business.

That said ... I have to wonder, given the final line of the article, if the business owner who was handcuffed was also gender-biased here since that seems to be half of the issue.

So ... why exactly did she feel unsafe with a man larger than her *certified* with a firearm?

I'd rather have someone with a level head, training and a firearm who seems to be calm in the situation on hand if I were the only officer, and only if immediate action need be taken.  Calling for backup and waiting for backup seems to be the policy, no?

Hence, it's very easy for me to allow these questions to bump around in my head:

1. why the need to address gender in the article at all if this were strictly about procedure and rights?

2. was this the first incident like this with this officer riding alone?

3. was business owner trying to force officer to take immediate action when she had no police backup and was flying solo?

4. was business owner trying to play hero for the lil' lady?

I just question the validity of the complaint when it's not just about procedure - and it seems like we've only heard part of the story.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2010)

I think a lot of people are making a lot of assumptions (yall know the saying about "assume"), her training? her experience? her confidence? Based on this rendition?

The way I read it:

Call of a break in.

Man on scene says he has a gun. Claims to be the owner.

We don't have "good guy radar". Unless she had personal contact with the man before and KNEW he was the owner, she doesn't have any idea who is who. Maybe the owner is really dead inside and this guy is a disgruntled customer.

A lone officer responding to a possible BIP arrives solo to find an armed man....could she have dealt with it better/differently? Probably. If I had a nickle for every time I answered yes to that question. 

We are also seeming to be taking the word of what looks like a guy not liking being disarmed "by a girl" as 100% accurate.

I'm not all too fired up over this story.

IMO it reads like another story designed to fire up the "right to carry types" and portray law enforcement as governmental repression agents eager to trample everyones second amendment rights..soon followed by a hearty backslapping about how much better gunfighters they are than the cops.

Im am EXTREMELY pro 2nd. But sometimes I think people are out LOOKING for things so hard that they see things through warped lenses.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2010)

Something every cop discovers in short order. 

They will recieve a complaint from a person that TOTALLY seems like a 180 from the way the contact really went. Many times it's simply due to the persons emotional response to the police contact...sometimes they are outright fabrications.

Of course some of them are also justified, I have been involved in enough IA'a (investigating them) to know the difference after a few questions to all involved.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 11, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html
> 
> Yeah...everyone was safer because the good guy was placed in cuffs.



On the one hand, I probably wouldn't have handcuffed the guy if he wasn't a suspect of anything and had a lawful CCW.........at the same time, officers should have latitude in situations where they reasonably feel a threat might exist, and I don't find handcuffing him and securing the weapon entirely unreasonable.  The court has long maintained that being handcuffed isn't necessarily an arrest.

It's a difficult situation.......I would have reacted differently, but at the same time i'm not going to condemn this officer for doing what she was trained to do, which is handcuff if she feels that the safety of a situation warrants it.



Bottom line, the guy got detained for a short time and his gun taken from his possession for a short time.........that's not as big a deal as everyone wants to make it sound, and really consists of being offended and inconvenienced......and while I can sympathize, these things can happen, and we need to have thick skin in the real world............I myself expect that it's possible if i'm off duty and armed that an officer might respond in a similar manner, and I am fully prepared to cooperate with him without argument until we get the situation sorted out.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> The way I read it:
> 
> Call of a break in.
> 
> ...


 
If she had arrived at the scene and found the guy walking around with a gun in his hand, I could certainly understand her desire to verify his identity and make sure he wasn't a threat before she proceeded to do anything else.  If that had been the case, I wouldn't be questioning her actions.

However, according to the guy's statement:


> *"Each of the occasions began the same: my introduction, my presentation of my Nevada drivers license and my concealed firearms permit.* Prior to today, each Metro officer simply replied thank you, proceeded with his work and then when complete there was a conversation about firearms."
> 
> Things were real different at 5:30 a.m, Jan. 3, however, when Mr. Mitchener called Metro to report the fifth break-in at his office.
> 
> "Upon presentation of my (firearms permit), *the officer asked if I had the weapon on me to which I replied yes. She then said to spread my legs and put my hands behind my back. I complied and she then handcuffed me.*


The way I read it is that in each occasion, he politely presented them with his ID and CCW.  The fact that the officer in this case had to ask him if he had the weapon tells me that it was obviously still concealed.  I would think it would have  have been fairly easy for her to verify with dispatch the name of the caller (if they hadn't already notified her) and figure out that "yeah, the old dude standing in front of me is not a problem."  

I guess I don't get the idea of disarming someone who not only volunteered the fact that he's armed but showed you his ID and CCW.  If he had just walked up to her, said "hey I'm John Doe, I'm the one who called you...etc."  She would have never known he was armed.  His courtesy earned him the fun of sitting around in a pair of handcuffs.

I guess one lesson to take away from this is that _unless one is legally required to do so_, it's probably *not* in one's best interest to divulge the fact that he/she is armed (which is something I already believed anyway).


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2010)

I guess that what I am trying to say is that when a story like this comes out people who tend to think the gvt/LE are out to get their guns jump to one conclusion. And a cop like myself can jump to an entirely different one.

The truth can be one..the other...neither..or somewhere in between.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I guess that what I am trying to say is that when a story like this comes out people who tend to think the gvt/LE are out to get their guns jump to one conclusion. And a cop like myself can jump to an entirely different one.
> 
> he truth can be one..the other...neither..or somewhere in between.



I agree that there is more than one side to a story.  However, with the multitude of gov/LE types out there who really do buy into the "I'm the only one who should have a gun" crap, I don't think it's a bad thing to take a very critical look at any situation that might have been handled improperly.

If this officer truly can articulate that she was _reasonably_ concerned for her safety (i.e. due to his behavior or whatnot), then that's one thing.  However, if her only reason for her actions was simply "because he had a gun," I don't buy it.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> I agree that there is more than one side to a story. However, with the multitude of gov/LE types out there who really do buy into the "I'm the only one who should have a gun" crap, I don't think it's a bad thing to take a very critical look at any situation that might have been handled improperly.
> 
> If this officer truly can articulate that she was _reasonably_ concerned for her safety (i.e. due to his behavior or whatnot), then that's one thing. However, if her only reason for her actions was simply "because he had a gun," I don't buy it.


 
Agreed. But it's difficult to take a "critical look" when all you have is one side of the story. What happens is everybody jumps to a conclusion that supports their pre-conceptions. And I admit that I have done the exact same thing here. Only framed by MY experience and opinions.

Its my opinion that stories like this can open a "general discussion" about how CCW holders and LE interact, but it's unfair to characterize THIS cop as being "in the wrong" based on a one sided portrayal like this.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 11, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> I agree that there is more than one side to a story.  However, with the multitude of gov/LE types out there who really do buy into the "I'm the only one who should have a gun" crap, I don't think it's a bad thing to take a very critical look at any situation that might have been handled improperly.
> 
> If this officer truly can articulate that she was _reasonably_ concerned for her safety (i.e. due to his behavior or whatnot), then that's one thing.  However, if her only reason for her actions was simply "because he had a gun," I don't buy it.



True.....but we also need to remember that it's unreasonable to believe that all police officers will respond to these type of situations at the level some of us would.  I've been doing this job for going on 14 years........and I don't respond to things like I did when I got out of the academy.  

The reality is that you can't entirely train the good judgment of a veteran officer in to a rookie.  What you can train good hard and fast rules, such as handcuffing suspects when you feel there is a danger, good patdown practices, etc, etc, etc...........so when they get on the street, they respond instinctively to those situations.

The judgment where one develops the ability to read a situation and determine certain nuances takes years to develop.  This is the type of situation that refers to...........a younger officer immediately responds based on their training to the presence of a gun, and goes in to that trained default mode.

A veteran officer, however, will have the experiences to read the whole situation and determine whether that default mode is required.

The flip side of that, however, is the very true fact that often times that default mode will save a younger officer, and can get a veteran officer killed if he's not careful and gets too lax, as the average time of officers killed in the line of duty is 10 years experience...........so it's a trade off.  http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/data/table_07.html


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 11, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The court has long maintained that being handcuffed isn't necessarily an arrest.



Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?


----------



## lklawson (Jan 11, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html
> 
> Yeah...everyone was safer because the good guy was placed in cuffs.


Yup.  Cops can cuff you pretty much at will as long as they have a minimally convincing justification.  And, let's be honest, "He had a gun, I didn't know, him, and I'm responding to a B&E" is, minimal justification.

Note that I didn't say, "good" I said, "minimal."

Cops are given considerable latitude by our society based on the (generally true) theory that they're "good guys" and aren't going to abuse the power we give them.

In this case what the officer chose to do, imo, was not the right choice but neither was it sufficient to level accusations of abuse under color of authority.

I bet there will be some "additional training," a semi-official (and unsatisfactory) apology, and an official "These aren't the droids you're looking for... move along."

I'd be pretty grumpy too if it happened to me, but there's just not that much to comment on.  At best, you could claim that the issue is with society's presentation of firearms, in general.  Guns are "scary and dangerous" and are only to be trusted in the hands of "an official, vetted, government actor" and *NOT* John Q.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 11, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?


Understand this.  If a cop wants to arrest you, *YOU WILL BE ARRESTED*.  Period.  End of Statement.

I am always amused when, on the rare occasion it happens, some new SD/Firearms advocate finally notices that it's not illegal to resist arrest if it would legally be considered "False Arrest."  That includes all the way up to Deadly Force.

The problem is, cops have guns.  "I got guns too" sez they.  Great.  How many of your friends with guns can you call to be there beside you, legally resisting arrest, within 5 min.?  

Yeah.  If a cop wants you cuffed, you're gonna be cuffed.  If a cop wants you arrested, you're gonna be arrested.  Or you will be dead.  Do you grok this yet?

So, if you think it's a bad arrest, then get a lawyer.  Cuz "he was legally resisting false arrest" is probably not going to be much consolation to the widow.  The ONLY time it makes any sense at all to resist is if you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you're gonna end up dead because of the "False Arrest."

To combat the potential of abuse of authority is specifically why we have SO MANY systems in place such as Internal Investigations, External Review Boards, Watchdog groups, pre-training, post-training, continuing training, Mentoring programs, etc.  Notice that "private citizen resisting arrest" isn't in that list.  This is primarily because it doesn't work very well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?



State laws may vary...mine just happen to be easy to look up :lol:

I wouldn't be surprised if other states have a law that looks like ours...there is verbage for "arrest or detention" of a subject.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LXII/642/642-2.htm

*NH RSA 642:2 Resisting Arrest or Detention. *  A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person recognized to be a law enforcement official, including a probation or parole officer, seeking to effect an arrest or detention of the person or another regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest. A person is guilty of a class B felony if the act of resisting arrest or detention causes serious bodily injury, as defined in RSA 625:11, VI, to another person. Verbal protestations alone shall not constitute resisting arrest or detention.


----------



## thardey (Jan 11, 2010)

I don't know, I personally think the guy should have thicker skin. You've gotta know that when you make the decision to carry a gun, people are going to respond in strange ways, including a rookie cops.

A cop want's to handcuff me? Whatever, as long as I know the key is there with him. Do they want to hold my gun while the interview is taking place? Fine, there's stories all the time of that. Being handcuffed doesn't prohibit me from the reason the police were called in the first place. So it's "insulting"? Get over it.

If we're really talking about a place of danger, my gun would be out already, and guess what I expect would happen? The police would probably draw thier own guns, take mine by force, and handcuff me anyway until they figured out what is going on. 

Now, if the officer wants to charge me for having a gun, then I call the NRA, and they sponsor a lawyer for me in the biggest heyday of their career.

But handcuffs are temporary restraints -- they are a form of "force equalizer". They are not a mark of judgment, or condemnation. Getting uspset over it isn't going to help anyone.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 11, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Do you grok this yet?



First off, I don't need to "Grok this".  I get how it works, my dad was a cop for years.  That doesn't preclude me from pointing out the obvious disparity in how these things work.  Personally, whenever I have run "Afoul" of the cops I have been polite and friendly, you just get more mileage that way.  




lklawson said:


> So, if you think it's a bad arrest, then get a lawyer.  Cuz "he was legally resisting false arrest" is probably not going to be much consolation to the widow.  The ONLY time it makes any sense at all to resist is if you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you're gonna end up dead because of the "False Arrest."
> 
> To combat the potential of abuse of authority is specifically why we have SO MANY systems in place such as Internal Investigations, External Review Boards, Watchdog groups, pre-training, post-training, continuing training, Mentoring programs, etc.  Notice that "private citizen resisting arrest" isn't in that list.  This is primarily because it doesn't work very well.




This becomes a grey area, as far as I am concerned.  Yes, this is HOW it works...again, I understand that completely, but you should observe this from another perspective.  Let me give you an example. (this may be long, pardon me)

Illinois has no carry provisions.  We cannot carry a weapon, Period.  HOWEVER... we can TRANSPORT a weapon in a case.  So someone came up with the idea that you can transport your gun in a fanny pack, and that is considered "in a case" and is therefore legal.  However, knowing Law enforcement would not see it this way, he worked with a laywer and drew up a letter designed to be carried when doing the "fanny packing" (also known here as the "six seconds to saftey" rule) that explained the law in detail, why the transportation was legal, etc... 

Why the letter?  Because in Illinois, L.E. are not responsible for "False Arrest" if they believe they are acting in accordance with the law. 

So, lets say you are legally fanny packing, and get stopped for "matching the description of a suspect we are looking for" (not fictional, happed to me 3 times since I moved here, white guy in a predominatly hispanic neighborhood known as a place suburban white kids come to buy drugs... they stop me to find out why I'm here) and they pull you and find the gun being legally transported... but beliveing you are carrying Illegally, they haul you in.  You get put into the system, detained, somtimes as long as 48 hours, you have the potential to lose your job, it goes in the paper and everyone can see that you are a "criminal" even if you are not... and _*your only recourse*_ is to suck it up and pay for an overpriced lawyer (that you might not be able to afford if the cop, unknowing of the law hauls you in and you lose your job) and hope that you draw a sympathetic Judge who doesnt toss your false arrest case because the cop believes he was acting in accordance with the law.

NOW... I'm no way citing that example of why we should be allowed to resist.  It's stupid to do so, just like its stupid to get upset and argue with a cop.   However, this does highlight an example of how the ignorance of the officers attempting to enforce the laws can have a profound effect on the innocent, (and Im not calling cops ignorant, don't assume that) well before court even comes up, and that I feel that needs to be recognized, and addressed in some way... Either a way to redress a grievance like that with a more knowlageable supervisor AT THE SCENE, or a possibly a penalty of some sort if the officer is wrong, _*not so that we can punish cops,*_ but rather to make them take the time to listen to the person/think thru what they are doing/know they are correct before subjecting someone to the above, or maybe an automatic rembursement by the courts for any *Real* financial hardship caused by the wrongful arrest (such as a re-embursement of legal fees)  


I'll cite a personal example that is not quite as drastic as the above, but in all fairness, had the officer either a) been aware, or b) if he _was aware_ had cared more about doing the right thing than writing the ticket, would have saved me time and money that I didn't have to spare...

I took my roommates car to work one day, as mine was not running, and was stopped.  The reason?  The officer ran the plates, saw my roomate had a suspended licence, and assumed I was him.  That's a fair stop, IMO, so I was polite and friendly when I explained the situation.  I provided my Licence and proof of insurance, and the officer promptly told me he wanted the insurance for the vehicle I was driving.  I explained (still politley) that the insurance I gave him was mine, and it covered me regardless of what vehilce I was driving to which he responded "No, it doesnt work that way."  He cited me for no insurance, and I had to go to court. I had to use a vacation day from work to go to court, and took my copy of my policy and my ticket, pled not guilty, and was assigned a new court date.  I was also informed that it was in my best interest to come back with a lawyer, if I didnt want to lose my licence. SO... I pay 750.00 out of my own pocket for the lawyer (which you have to understand was almost an entire paycheck for me at the time) and another Vacation day from work... to go in, have my lawyer present the copy of my policy and a letter from my carrier stating I was covered in that vehicle at the time, and be told, go home, have a nice day!

So, 80 hours of my life *GONE*, a hit on my Credit rating because I couldnt make my Mortgage payment on time plus the loss of 2 vacation days because 1 officer either didn't know or wouldnt listen... and I had no recourse.  Should I just have had thicker skin about that?  *shrug* I recognize that it's "just how it is" but wonder aloud if there shouldn't be a better way?


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 11, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Understand this.  If a cop wants to arrest you, *YOU WILL BE ARRESTED*.  Period.  End of Statement.
> 
> I am always amused when, on the rare occasion it happens, some new SD/Firearms advocate finally notices that it's not illegal to resist arrest if it would legally be considered "False Arrest."  That includes all the way up to Deadly Force.
> 
> ...



THIS is how you represent police, by saying essentially, 'we are the police and you will comply or you will be dead?'  You're hoping to get what from this? Respect? Figurative prostration?  

Does this little tirade mean you're on the side of the cop? IA? The journalist? The business owner? 



Cryozombie said:


> So, 80 hours of my life *GONE*, a hit on my Credit rating because I couldnt make my Mortgage payment on time plus the loss of 2 vacation days because 1 officer either didn't know or wouldnt listen... and I had no recourse.  Should I just have had thicker skin about that?  *shrug* I recognize that it's "just how it is" but wonder aloud if there shouldn't be a better way?



This officer was ignorant about motor vehicle insurance policies in that many have the option to cover the driver when operating vehicles not owned by the driver.  But to ticket YOU for no insurance is ... well, illogical. There is a better way; carry the policy summary with you and you can prove precise coverage to the officer - nevertheless, the judge in your first appearance seems "illogical" as well. Requiring you return with a lawyer or lose your license sounds like bullying to me - not a surprising match, unfortunately, with the officer's attitude and ... well, the tongue-lashing you were given above.

*You* need to move the hell out of Illinois, Cryo.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?




Actually he could then be charged with obstruction (for obstructing you in the course of your investigation) THEN he could be charged with resisting arrest for the charge of obstruction.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2010)

Sorry Cryo but I think you were in error regarding the officer "being ignorant". Typically liability coverage may come into play if you unknowingly drive a borrowed vehicle that is uninsured, or under-insured. However, you will not have any damage insurance on the vehicle unless you have a rider for non-owned vehicles, which the officer wouldn't have proof of unless you had the rider paperwork on you. If you did have the rider then perhaps the officer was just undereducated, but in his defense it is extremely rare to see. It's the same thing as when you forget to put a new insurance card in your vehicle. You probably DO have a valid one at home but I will write you the ticket anyway because I have no proof of that. 

Insurance rules could depend on your state law so maybe I'm wrong in your case, but the VEHICLE in this state HAS to be insured. If you are driving a friends car you better be sure he has it insured. If the vehicle is suspended for no insurance then YOU can be arrested for driving it. So here that ticket would have been perfectly valid.

I don't know why the court would suggest you needed a lawyer for that though. Here our ADA just tells them to come back with the letter.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Sorry Cryo but I think you were in error regarding the officer "being ignorant". Typically liability coverage may come into play if you unknowingly drive a borrowed vehicle that is uninsured, or under-insured. However, you will not have any damage insurance on the vehicle unless you have a rider for non-owned vehicles, which the officer wouldn't have proof of unless you had the rider paperwork on you. If you did have the rider then perhaps the officer was just undereducated, but in his defense it is extremely rare to see. It's the same thing as when you forget to put a new insurance card in your vehicle. You probably DO have a valid one at home but I will write you the ticket anyway because I have no proof of that.
> 
> Insurance rules could depend on your state law so maybe I'm wrong in your case, but the VEHICLE in this state HAS to be insured. If you are driving a friends car you better be sure he has it insured. If the vehicle is suspended for no insurance then YOU can be arrested for driving it. So here that ticket would have been perfectly valid.



Here, you are only required to carry liability insurance. My liability insurance (at the time, I have no idea about the clowns Im with now) covered me on my Primary vehicle as well as vehicles I rent or borrow.  I would not, however, cover me on other Vehicles I own.  



Archangel M said:


> I don't know why the court would suggest you needed a lawyer for that though. Here our ADA just tells them to come back with the letter.



With the "I didnt have my card with me" tickets, you can show up at the courthouse any time in the 30 days prior to your court date, show the clerk, and the case is dismissed.  I had that happen a couple times, no big deal... This did not qualify because the insurance was not for the vehicle in question... here the insurance follows the vehicle as well, but I was unaware that the coverage for rented and borrowed vehicles was somthing special, its just somthing I had with my policy most of my adult life, and I assumed thats how it was.  It does make me need to check my new policy since I changed carriers recently, but as I was saying, I had to go to court and plead not guilty, when you do that here, you are assigned a "trial date" by default. Perhaps I could have shown up with just my paperwork, but the Judge said "This offence could be serious and you could lose your licence for a year, its in your best interest to come back with a lawyer" and who am I to argue with the judge?


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2010)

I just had a thought...do Illinois policies/laws say anything about borrowing a car from someone in the same household? 

Mass. has mandatory liability too; an insured driver is not covered if they drive a car that belongs to someone at the same household, unless they are on the car owner's policy.  

When I was married, I had to have my husband on my policy, and he had to have me on his...otherwise we wouldn't have insurance coverage when we drove one another's cars.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 12, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?



You'd be resisting a lawful detention, and then be committing a crime.  It's no different than fleeing from a traffic stop, where you are being detained, but have not been arrested.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 12, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Understand this.  If a cop wants to arrest you, *YOU WILL BE ARRESTED*.  Period.  End of Statement.
> 
> I am always amused when, on the rare occasion it happens, some new SD/Firearms advocate finally notices that it's not illegal to resist arrest if it would legally be considered "False Arrest."  That includes all the way up to Deadly Force.
> 
> ...



Very well put and too the point!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 12, 2010)

thardey said:


> i don't know, i personally think the guy should have thicker skin. You've gotta know that when you make the decision to carry a gun, people are going to respond in strange ways, including a rookie cops.
> 
> A cop want's to handcuff me? Whatever, as long as i know the key is there with him. Do they want to hold my gun while the interview is taking place? Fine, there's stories all the time of that. Being handcuffed doesn't prohibit me from the reason the police were called in the first place. So it's "insulting"? Get over it.
> 
> ...



bingo!


----------



## chinto (Jan 12, 2010)

in my humble opinion, I would say she deserves arrest herself under Title 18 US Code for abuse of Authority and violation of his civil rights  under color or law, and conspiracy to do so if her superiors agreed to her actions.  ( I would also say her superiors deserve arrest for the same conspiracy if they did support her actions. )


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 12, 2010)

chinto said:


> in my humble opinion, I would say she deserves arrest herself under Title 18 US Code for abuse of Authority and violation of his civil rights  under color or law, and conspiracy to do so if her superiors agreed to her actions.  ( I would also say her superiors deserve arrest for the same conspiracy if they did support her actions. )



I think you're getting a little carried away. JMHO.

There was no violation of this man's rights, Constitutional or otherwise.  He did not have his property seized by the state, he was detained for an extremely short period of time and his weapon was detained while the scene was secured, and then returned to him.

This is quite much ado about nothing at all.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 12, 2010)

chinto said:


> in my humble opinion, I would say she deserves arrest herself under Title 18 US Code for abuse of Authority and violation of his civil rights  under color or law, and conspiracy to do so if her superiors agreed to her actions.  ( I would also say her superiors deserve arrest for the same conspiracy if they did support her actions. )



Whatever...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 12, 2010)

Not a very constructive tone, *Angel*. 

I more than half suspect that *Chinto* was using humerous exageration to make a point, rather than being literal.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 12, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> THIS is how you represent police, by saying essentially, 'we are the police and you will comply or you will be dead?'


That is, in fact, exactly how it is.  Welcome to the real world.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 12, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> That doesn't preclude me from pointing out the obvious disparity in how these things work.


Of course there's a disparity.  Cops are granted additional authority and privileges that average citizens simply are not.  That automatically equates to disparity.  I don't have to like it, but I do have to recognize that it exists and figure out how to work within the boundaries thereof.



> and get stopped for "matching the description of a suspect we are looking for" (not fictional, happed to me 3 times since I moved here,


Happened to me too.  



> and _*your only recourse*_ is to suck it up and pay for an overpriced lawyer


Yes.  It sucks mightily.  But it's better than getting shot or busted up for resisting arrest.



> So, 80 hours of my life *GONE*, a hit on my Credit rating because I couldnt make my Mortgage payment on time plus the loss of 2 vacation days because 1 officer either didn't know or wouldnt listen... and I had no recourse.  Should I just have had thicker skin about that?  *shrug* I recognize that it's "just how it is" but wonder aloud if there shouldn't be a better way?


Which is why the threat of lawsuits is so effective.

I feel for you.  I've paid bogus traffic tickets just because it was vastly less expensive for me to do so.  In fact, with "Red Light Cameras," that is a common choice. (don't get me started on those)

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Langenschwert (Jan 12, 2010)

lklawson said:


> That is, in fact, exactly how it is. Welcome to the real world.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 
Indeed. There's a reason they're called an "urban occupation force" 

Best regards,

-Mark


----------

