What to Say to the Police?

[tom19176]

WOW, that is a horrible recording system. I am shocked that a liberal state would have such a system. In NY, there are too many cases where the past of a real criminals are hard to obtain due to the many reliefs the courts allow that seal arrest records.

 

[TOM1960]

Yeah, you're going to have to explain that one. When a person is found to be innocent...there is no criminal record.

Maybe in your state. I was summonsed and arraigned in district court for domestic assault/battery about 10 years ago. My ex falsely accused me and attempted to use a criminal charge to get the upper hand in divorce court. I showed up with witnesses, including paper documentation that proved that I was elsewhere at the time of this alleged incident. She and her boyfriend failed to show. My attorney told the judge that a separation and divorce were current and that she had a 209A (Massachusetts restraining order) against me so that she could throw me out of the house and move her boyfriend in. The judge dismissed the case outright, calling it fraud. When I recently renewed my Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card (FID; required to own rifles/shotguns in MA), the police showed me the CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information; a "rap sheet") record with the charge under my name. Yes, it had "DISM" next to it for "dismissal", but it was still very much there in the state computer and available for law-enforcement viewing. Employers in Massachusetts can also view this info under state laws, so even a dismissed charge can come back to haunt you. The 209A restraining order? They never go away. They go into "inactive" status, so your CORI record would show an "inactive RO". Also, this record becomes a permanent part of the Domestic Violence Registry. Even if you decide to take the monumental effort and expense of having a CORI record sealed, the resulting record in your name will indicate that you have at least one sealed record on file. The police and employers will be able to see this statement as well. The firearms licensing authority in my local police department explained this to me and showed me my CORI record. It will never go away, regardless of what some slick-talking lawyer might tell you.

 

[tom19176]

Did they allow you to renew your firearms permit?

 

[TOM1960]

Did they allow you to renew your firearms permit?

Yes, since there was no convictions of any type, the Dracut, MA Police had no choice but to renew my FID. In Massachusetts, the Firearms Identification Card (FID) is a "shall issue" permit. If you meet the basic requirements, the local police chief has no choice but to issue it. The guidelines follow the federal ones in some ways, but even felony convictions can be "burned off" for the FID after 5 years. Unfortunately, this is a trap, because even though a convicted felon can demand his/her FID after 5 years from conviction/end of sentence, they would still be FEDERALLY prohibited from owning a firearm/ammunition. Why this is, who knows?

For the License to Carry Firearms (LTC, Class A or B), it is strictly up to the local chief's discretion whether an individual is a "suitable person". The LTC is required to own large-capacity firearms (over 10 rounds for semiauto rifle or 5 shells for semiauto shotgun and ALL handguns). Some cities and towns do not issue them at all or subject them to onerous restrictions, which are printed plainly on the license (employment, target-only, hunting-only, etc.). Violations of any restrictions are felony crimes and cause for immediate revocation of the LTC. Local chiefs have been known to deny or refuse renewal of LTCs to anyone who was the subject of a restraining order, no matter whether they deserved it or not or how long ago the alleged incident happened. One 71-year-old man was denied a renewal of a LTC that he held for over 40 years, because his local police chief discovered that he had been arrested on a juvenile complaint at the age of 9 for stealing a neighbor's chicken! Sounds far-fetched, but I can assure you that it is true. The Massachusetts LTC issuance laws are rife with abuse.

FIDs and LTCs do not address the issue of knife carry at all. I am sure that some people on this board wondered about this, since the Florida concealed carry permit allows for edged weapons. Either the FID or the LTC will allow a person to carry pepper spray/Mace (there is even a restricted FID for pepper spray/Mace only; no firearms or ammo allowed). This restricted FID is only $25 for six years, while the regular FID and both classes of LTCs are $100 for six years.

 

[tom19176]

Thanks for all the info......Gee I thought NY was bad.....

 

[(jeff)]

When I was about 18 I was searched by a police officer. I had pepper spray, a 3 inch folder, and a concealed 4 inch fixed blade. Concealing fixed blades is illigeal here. Our conversation went like this:

Cop:"why do you have so many weapons?"
Me:"Weapons? They're useful tools."
Cop:"Oh...okay, well you can't conceal fixed blades so just make sure your shirt isn't covering it."
Me: "Okay, I'm sorry."

That was it. If you are nice, honest, and respectful, police officers will treat you the same way.

 

[TOM1960]

When I was about 18 I was searched by a police officer. I had pepper spray, a 3 inch folder, and a concealed 4 inch fixed blade. Concealing fixed blades is illigeal here. Our conversation went like this:

Cop:"why do you have so many weapons?"
Me:"Weapons? They're useful tools."
Cop:"Oh...okay, well you can't conceal fixed blades so just make sure your shirt isn't covering it."
Me: "Okay, I'm sorry."

That was it. If you are nice, honest, and respectful, police officers will treat you the same way.

Would you want to bet a lifelong felony criminal record on that? Me neither. I do not know why you were searched, but you were damn lucky that you were dealing with a reasonable officer. It could have very easily gone the other way. Where I live, many of the officers are young and trying to make a name for themselves. A felony arrest would only add to their star wattage. This is why I dress plainly, keep my concealed weapons very well concealed and avoid bars and other trouble spots.

 

[QuietBearr]

Many municipalaties have a 3-3 1/2 inch blade carry. Hard to figure why State law dosn't overide them?

The reason for that is actually a legal term called "pre-empting"

Some and actually most states have what is called a pre-emptive law, meaning that the state law overrides all the local, city, and county laws.

However some states, (NY in particular) do not have this laws and the laws can get increasingly more strict as they go down in the structure (state, county, city, and even possibly area in the city or neighbourhood/borough)

That is why carefull research is needed. Honestly the best approach I have found is to actuall start with your local precinct. Call them and ask your question. They wont know, but will tell you who to call. Call them. They wont know either and will refer you to someone else, call them. Wade through all the red tape and get to someone who can help.

The most important thing is to RECORD ALL YOUR CONVERSATIONS. While it may seem paranoid, it is a viable court defence if you are told by authorities something that is not true. (BE SURE TO TELL EVERYONE THAT YOU TALK TO THAT YOU ARE RECORDING THE CONVERSATION, AND GET THAT PART ON TAPE TOO).

 

[TOM1960]

The reason for that is actually a legal term called "pre-empting"

Some and actually most states have what is called a pre-emptive law, meaning that the state law overrides all the local, city, and county laws.

However some states, (NY in particular) do not have this laws and the laws can get increasingly more strict as they go down in the structure (state, county, city, and even possibly area in the city or neighbourhood/borough)

That is why carefull research is needed. Honestly the best approach I have found is to actuall start with your local precinct. Call them and ask your question. They wont know, but will tell you who to call. Call them. They wont know either and will refer you to someone else, call them. Wade through all the red tape and get to someone who can help.

The most important thing is to RECORD ALL YOUR CONVERSATIONS. While it may seem paranoid, it is a viable court defence if you are told by authorities something that is not true. (BE SURE TO TELL EVERYONE THAT YOU TALK TO THAT YOU ARE RECORDING THE CONVERSATION, AND GET THAT PART ON TAPE TOO).

Some states, including Massachusetts, prohibit the recording of conversations with police. You can videotape an interaction with police (photos without sound) but not tape-record it. Yes, really weird laws in this state. Two gay young men recorded a gay-bashing incident during a traffic stop in a town just south of Boston. The police officers were behaving like donkeys, uttering anti-gay slurs (regardless of sexual orientation, we all know that is a big no-no in modern society!) and threatening the couple with arrest. When the gay men went to the authorities to report this , they ended up being charged (felony) under the anti-wiretapping law. The police, of course, got off scot-free. Definitely check your own state's laws before pushing the "record" button.

 

[titus010782]

Is there a lenght law for California? Either way, my experience with police is that they scare the F out of me (even the guys I know which are LEO's...). At least you can count on a criminal to be a criminal, cops go both ways most of the time and you never know what your gonna get.

As for what I would tell a cop if I got pulled over with a large knife is nothing other then to answer honestly if he asked me directly if I do have a knife. If asked why I have a knife, I'd tell him/her that cuz I need to occationally cut things.

I suggest to always kiss ass, follow directions, and be nice. It's better then getting your ass beat like Rodney King!

Rodney King is either a masochist or really really stupid. No wait! he is neither!! He is in fact a racist that thought he could pull that card on ordinary men just because he thought the badge they were wearing would protect him.
The courts did bad by the justice system when they let that asshole off

 

[AbnInfantry]

When a person is found to be innocent...there is no criminal record.

That statement isn’t just wrong, it’s absurd. American judges and juries aren’t allowed to issue “innocent” verdicts. Even in cases where jurors are absolutely convinced of a defendant’s innocence, the best they can do is issue a “not guilty” verdict. If you had a dollar for every prosecutor and LEO who’ll eagerly tell you “not guilty” doesn’t mean “innocent” (except when one of them is the defendant), you’d be a very wealthy person.

If you’re convicted in the federal system (and in every state I’m aware of), a probation officer (who often has nothing to do with “probation” as the general public thinks of the term) is assigned to prepare a presentence report. In some jurisdictions here in the Land of the Free, conviction rates are so high they start work on the report shortly after an arrest is made. One section of the report is “Criminal History.” Contrary to what joe-bob believes, a person’s criminal history includes all cases which proceeded to court (and usually all arrests which get recorded). If a judge or jury declare a defendant “not guilty,” the fact he was arrested and prosecuted still appears in his “Criminal History.”

Under federal sentencing guidelines (the word “guidelines” doesn’t mean what most people would assume), the length of sentence a judge imposes is based on the points assigned to the offense for which a defendant was convicted with points added for any prior convictions. A conviction for a single petty misdemeanor years earlier for which the defendant paid a small fine can add months, perhaps even a year, to a federal prison sentence on a wholly unrelated matter.

A federal judge can actually add years to a person’s sentence for offenses a defendant was never charged with or convicted of, but that’s another subject and I don’t want to disillusion joe-bob types too much. Points are not added for arrests alone or for “not guilty” verdicts. “Not guilty” verdicts are, however, included in the presentence report reviewed by the judge. While sentencing guidelines give federal judges little discretion compared to most state judges, the fact a person has a record of arrests and/or “not guilty” verdicts is almost guaranteed to hurt him when the judge decides which end of the range of permissible sentences to impose. There’s no shortage of judges, prosecutors and LEOs who regard people with “not guilty” verdicts (except in cases of their brethren) as scumbags who somehow “beat the system” and use that to rationalize a harsher sentence or more aggressive prosecution.

Here’s another tidbit of information for you, joe-bob. Let’s say you’re arrested. Yes, I know, only bad people are ever arrested in the USA but let’s just pretend for a moment. Either during the booking procedure or later, you’re asked if you go by any other names. You say, “Well, my first name is Robert, so some people call me ‘Bob’.” What you and most folks would regard as a mere nickname is now recorded in perpetuity as your “criminal alias.” If a person obtains your record, they’re going to read that not only have you been arrested before, even if you were found “not guilty” or the charge dismissed, you have a “criminal alias.” You must be a bad person to have a “criminal alias,” right?

 

[MORIMOTOM]

it is not uncommon for joe-bob to get something completely wrong and backwards here.

a person's arrest, regardless of the outcome in court, is almost certainly going to be viewable in their rap (record of arrest/prosection).

i was a probabtion officer for severaly years, as well. we received the police arrest reports, then wrote a "pre plea" report for the judge. we had 48 hours, excluding weekends, to submit this report. this has nothing to do with conviction rates. its been a while, but iirc, the judge only sees the p.o. report, not the police report.

the pre plea i wrote went directly to the court for the attorneys and the judge. these reports were done in addition to the probation case load i already supervised.

a person gets arrested, the case gets assigned to a probation officer, the p.o. writes the report.

re: criminal alias. yes, that is a possibility. i will only add that many people use different names when arrested, and having the record of aliases can be useful in determining a person's true identity. it is often not so simple as "bob" vs. robert, but different enough to confuse the system enough to make it appear as though they are different people.

i have no experience in federal courts, so cannot comment on the sentencing points system.

 

[AbnInfantry]

i was a probabtion officer for severaly years

If you're also a current or former BATF agent, I beg you to please keep that fact to yourself.

we received the police arrest reports, then wrote a "pre plea" report for the judge. we had 48 hours, excluding weekends, to submit this report. this has nothing to do with conviction rates.

Specific procedures are going to vary from state to state, perhaps even by county. I once asked a Klamath County, OR deputy sheriff why they’d started a presentence report on a person who never even had an overdue library book before and who hadn’t been charged with any offense in Oregon. His reply was essentially, "Nearly everyone gets convicted, so why not?" That was where I got the "conviction rates" notion. Considering the USA has, by far, the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world—seven times higher than Red China’s—his remark certainly seemed plausible ... other than the minor detail the defendant hadn’t committed any crime in Oregon (he was arrested on a warrant from another state).

the pre plea I wrote went directly to the court for the attorneys and the judge. these reports were done in addition to the probation case load I already supervised.

In some jurisdictions, the preparation of presentence reports (even mistake-filled, cut-and-paste jobs which would have embarrassed a reasonably bright sixth grader) is a full-time position and the people performing this function aren't always called POs. In Alaska, many DOC employees with the job title "probation officer" have absolutely nothing to due to with supervising people on probation or parole. Their counterparts in the federal BOP have the title "correctional counselors."

re: criminal alias. yes, that is a possibility.

It's not just a possibility; I watched it happen.

 

[AbnInfantry]

Unfortunately, this is a trap, because even though a convicted felon can demand his/her FID after 5 years from conviction/end of sentence, they would still be FEDERALLY prohibited from owning a firearm/ammunition. Why this is, who knows?

Contrary to widespread ignorance, convicted felons in many states may possess firearms and ammunition under state and federal law. [For the purpose of this discussion, I’m going to ignore the existence of the Second Amendment and the word “unalienable” in the Declaration of Independence, just as nearly all judges, prosecutors and LEOs do.] If a person commits a state felony, some states have a process for restoring that person’s “privilege” to possess guns (for all practical purposes, the “right” to keep and bear arms died in America with the 1939 Miller decision; anyone who thinks Heller changed that hasn’t read or fully comprehended Scalia’s weaselspeak). In South Dakota, the privilege to possess firearms is automatically restored after a sentence is completed in full (this includes any term of parole or probation, not just incarceration). In Alaska, the privilege to possess long guns is restored as soon as a sentence is finished; there’s a ten-year waiting period before being allowed to possess handguns (it was a five-year period but an NRA-endorsed/pro-RKBA Republican governor got it increased to ten years).

Different states have varying time periods; some require a person to petition a court for a restoration of civil rights. In the 1998 Caron decision, SCOTUS ruled a state’s partial restoration of firearms privileges had no effect on federal anti-gun laws; only a full restoration of all firearms privileges will protect a “prohibited person” from prosecution in a federal court. The last time I checked, Alaska officials were still telling people who’d completed their sentence that they could legally possess rifles and shotguns (which they can under Alaska statutes). BATF agents would then arrest and an AUSA prosecute folks who followed the AK Attorney General’s advice for GCA-68 violations in federal court.

If a person is convicted of a federal felony (which most federal offenses are, including the anti-switchblade statute), the only way he or she can legally possess a firearm under GCA-68 is if they receive a virtually-impossible-to-obtain presidential pardon. A federal felon used to be able to apply for an administrative restoration of his gun privileges under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). In 1992, however, Charles Schumer (D-NY) persuaded Congress to defund the BATF background investigations specified in the statute. The law is still on the books but it’s effectively dead (much like the Second Amendment).

If you are nice, honest, and respectful, police officers will treat you the same way.

Just out of idle curiosity, do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?

An accurate statement would read, "If you are nice, honest, and respectful, police officers may treat you the same way." Or they may treat you as they did Lester Siler, Kathryn Johnston, Calvin Roach, Brett Darrow, Donald Scott, Staff Sergeant Mark T. England, John Adams, Xavier Bennett, Ismael Mena, Frances Thompson, Alberto Sepulveda, Alberta Spruill, Ashley Villareal, Kenneth B. Walker, and thousands of other Americans. Nine of the people I cited, including one age eleven and another age eight, were killed by LEOs even though they'd broken no law.

After using perjury to obtain a search warrant, Atlanta police fired 39 rounds at 92 year-old Kathryn Johnston on 21 November 2006, killing her and wounding three fellow cops. They then planted marijuana (which they just happened to have handy) in her residence in an attempt to justify their botched raid. Over time, however, their rehearsed set of lies began to unravel. Despite killing an innocent, elderly woman inside her home and committing perjury and other felonies, these police officers received less actual incarceration for their crimes than many Americans have endured for nonviolent, victimless “offenses.”

The same was true for the five Tennessee deputy sheriffs who viciously tortured handcuffed Lester Siler in his home on 8 July 2004 for two hours in an attempt to coerce him into signing a form giving them "consent to search" his residence. The sole reason they were prosecuted is because before the deputies (illegally) ordered his wife to leave the house, she turned on a hidden tape recorder. The audio of the first hour of Mr. Siler's brutal torture and a TBI transcript is readily available to anyone capable of doing a Google search. Over 300 Tennessee LEOs wrote the court urging the judge to impose little or no punishment on fellow LEOs for their heinous misdeeds.

On 17 July 2005, San Clemente businessman Greg W. Hall was involved in a minor traffic accident. Police gave Hall two breathalyzer tests, both of which revealed a blood alcohol level of zero. Despite the results of the tests and Hall’s cooperation, he was arrested on “suspicion of DUI” and booked into the Orange County Jail. Even though he was "nice, honest, and respectful," the handcuffed Mr. Hall was attacked and severely beaten by five deputies known within the department as “the Psycho Crew”. He was dragged down a corridor, his face repeatedly shoved into cell bars and slammed onto the concrete floor, and relentlessly pummeled by fists and jackbooted kicks to his ribs. Hall was left with “a concussion, broken ribs, a gash in his leg, an eye contusion, broken veins in his feet, a shattered front tooth, lacerations and bruises over his body, contusions to the knee, neck pain, a fractured right wrist and nerve damage to his left hand” according to medical records.

The Orange County Jail has a well-documented history of similar incidents. In December 1999, four deputies attacked a 20 year-old inmate in an isolated corner of the jail and tortured him by crushing his testicles. Prosecutors admitted the torture occurred but since other deputies refused to testify against their “brothers of the shield,” no criminal charges were filed against them.

 

[TOM1960]

That statement isn’t just wrong, it’s absurd. American judges and juries aren’t allowed to issue “innocent” verdicts. Even in cases where jurors are absolutely convinced of a defendant’s innocence, the best they can do is issue a “not guilty” verdict. If you had a dollar for every prosecutor and LEO who’ll eagerly tell you “not guilty” doesn’t mean “innocent” (except when one of them is the defendant), you’d be a very wealthy person.

If you’re convicted in the federal system (and in every state I’m aware of), a probation officer (who often has nothing to do with “probation” as the general public thinks of the term) is assigned to prepare a presentence report. In some jurisdictions here in the Land of the Free, conviction rates are so high they start work on the report shortly after an arrest is made. One section of the report is “Criminal History.” Contrary to what joe-bob believes, a person’s criminal history includes all cases which proceeded to court (and usually all arrests which get recorded). If a judge or jury declare a defendant “not guilty,” the fact he was arrested and prosecuted still appears in his “Criminal History.”

Under federal sentencing guidelines (the word “guidelines” doesn’t mean what most people would assume), the length of sentence a judge imposes is based on the points assigned to the offense for which a defendant was convicted with points added for any prior convictions. A conviction for a single petty misdemeanor years earlier for which the defendant paid a small fine can add months, perhaps even a year, to a federal prison sentence on a wholly unrelated matter.

A federal judge can actually add years to a person’s sentence for offenses a defendant was never charged with or convicted of, but that’s another subject and I don’t want to disillusion joe-bob types too much. Points are not added for arrests alone or for “not guilty” verdicts. “Not guilty” verdicts are, however, included in the presentence report reviewed by the judge. While sentencing guidelines give federal judges little discretion compared to most state judges, the fact a person has a record of arrests and/or “not guilty” verdicts is almost guaranteed to hurt him when the judge decides which end of the range of permissible sentences to impose. There’s no shortage of judges, prosecutors and LEOs who regard people with “not guilty” verdicts (except in cases of their brethren) as scumbags who somehow “beat the system” and use that to rationalize a harsher sentence or more aggressive prosecution.

Here’s another tidbit of information for you, joe-bob. Let’s say you’re arrested. Yes, I know, only bad people are ever arrested in the USA but let’s just pretend for a moment. Either during the booking procedure or later, you’re asked if you go by any other names. You say, “Well, my first name is Robert, so some people call me ‘Bob’.” What you and most folks would regard as a mere nickname is now recorded in perpetuity as your “criminal alias.” If a person obtains your record, they’re going to read that not only have you been arrested before, even if you were found “not guilty” or the charge dismissed, you have a “criminal alias.” You must be a bad person to have a “criminal alias,” right?

Here in Massachusetts, a woman's maiden name and/or married name can be added as an "alias". Anything to make a person seem more sinister in the eyes of LEOs and judges than they actually are.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

If you're also a current or former BATF agent, I beg you to please keep that fact to yourself.

i dont work for the feds, but why would i keep this a secret?

In some jurisdictions, the preparation of presentence reports (even mistake-filled, cut-and-paste jobs which would have embarrassed a reasonably bright sixth grader) is a full-time position and the people performing this function aren't always called POs. In Alaska, many DOC employees with the job title "probation officer" have absolutely nothing to due to with supervising people on probation or parole. Their counterparts in the federal BOP have the title "correctional counselors."

perhaps. but i did both.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

abn,

just wondering, what is the point of posting those stories? threads of this type inevitably lead to that sort of posting, but i dont see any purpose to it other than to create a hostile environment here.

just ranting?

i could counter those with civilian encounters that led to the police officers death. but your examples are the exeption, as would be mine.

they only serve to derail the thread, and if you have read this one in its entirety (which i believe you have), you have already seen that happen.

 

[Sep]

Goodness gracious, the key word missing in this exchange is "most". Most police officers will return the favor when you treat them with honesty and respect. If this is not the case, the police force would have been abolished a long time ago.

I've been stopped on the road many times for all sorts of reasons (speeding, expired plate, brake light not working, etc.). In most cases I got off with nothing but a warning, and I suspect it has a lot to do with me being honest and respectful.

Context also has a lot to do with it. A guy dressed up as a handyman with all sorts of tool around him will not look suspicious when he has a rather large folder tucked in. A scruffy looking guy loitering a particular neighborhood might get arrested with the exact same knife.

 

[AbnInfantry]

i dont work for the feds, but why would i keep this a secret?

This may be difficult for you to understand, but there actually are some Americans who deplore a government agency whose primary purpose is to abrogate an unalienable individual liberty expressly "guaranteed" in the Second Amendment. I have a problem with legislators and government employees who swear an oath to adhere to our supreme law of the land and then spend careers betraying that oath in pursuit of a pension or votes. I'm just funny like that.

just wondering, what is the point of posting those stories?

The "point" was an attempt to inform folks such as (jeff) of facts which they're apparently unaware of. When I see a person say something which I believe to be incorrect (as when you stated the Navy issued CRK Green Beret knives to graduates of BUD/S, rather than the reality of the Army issuing them to graduates of the SF Q-Course), I attempt to correct such misinformation. Chalk it up as a personality flaw of mine.

i dont see any purpose to it other than to create a hostile environment here.

If my goal was to create a "hostile environment here" I wouldn't have waited nearly three years after joining this board before posting on it.

i could counter those with civilian encounters that led to the police officers death. but your examples are the exeption, as would be mine.

1. When I was employed as a federal LEO (not with the BATF), I recognized I was a "civilian."

2. Private citizens don't swear an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and aren't committing the crimes you referred to under the color of official authority and at taxpayers' expense. I expect violent criminals to behave as they do. I expect government employees to adhere to their sworn oath, refuse to enforce overtly unconstitutional statutes, and not perpetrate misdeeds or passively condone those by their peers. When I was on active duty, whether as an enlisted man or a commissioned officer, I refused to carry out illegal orders even when my peers cravenly did. Whether a person is a military officer or a cop, a legislator or a federal agent, I expect them not to abuse their position or violate their oath of office. It’s lamentable if you consider my opinions to be unreasonable.

3. The fact you regard the examples I cited (only a handful out of thousands) as mere "exceptions" is part of the problem. The "exception" in the torture of Lester Siler is that the LEOs were actually prosecuted and convicted, and then only because of a hidden tape recorder. Did you miss the fact over 300 LEOs urged a judge to give deputies who viciously tortured a handcuffed man for two hours little or no punishment? Would you care to tell us how many LEOs wrote the court urging severe sanctions for these heinous acts? Brett Darrow never broke any law yet he was the victim of threats and various crimes committed against him by several police officers. When a single LEO was fired (but not prosecuted) after a videotape of his misdeeds was released on the Internet, how did the law enforcement community react? Darrow was subjected to further police harassment and his life threatened on a St. Louis area LEO forum. Kindly identify a single LEO who said, “Hey, this guy is perfectly innocent; leave him alone.” The typical reaction was, “This smart-ass punk got one of our brothers fired.” Smart-ass punk = a young man who violated no law but infuriated police simply because he politely asked them why they were accosting him.

they only serve to derail the thread

I wouldn't want to be accused of using facts and reason to "derail a thread." I'll leave the thread in the good hands of you and joe-bob.

I've been stopped on the road many times for all sorts of reasons (speeding, expired plate, brake light not working, etc.). In most cases I got off with nothing but a warning, and I suspect it has a lot to do with me being honest and respectful.

I was stopped by a Utah state trooper on I-80 after one of my tail lights went out. I was perfectly honest and civil yet he became rude and belligerent when I refused to answer his questions about where I was coming from and where I was traveling to. That information was simply none of his business. He wasn’t accustomed to a “civilian” refusing to answer any question he cared to ask. He must have wasted twenty minutes trying to intimidate me and find some specious pretext to search my vehicle. My only real “offense” was a tail light bulb stopped working. To the trooper, however, my “offense” was I wasn’t sufficiently obsequious and willing to behave as his serf.

Last year, I watched a fascinating seminar on the Internet consisting of a law school professor and a senior police detective; both of whom strongly advised never saying anything to a LEO beyond simple identification. The detective gave numerous examples how wholly innocuous remarks could be (and are) used to convict and imprison people who never committed any crime.

A scruffy looking guy loitering a particular neighborhood might get arrested with the exact same knife.

So a "scruffy looking guy" guilty of "loitering" is acceptable prey for American police officers willing to betray their sworn oath by arresting a person for merely peaceably possessing a knife? Thanks for explaining that. I'll be careful to wear spiffy attire and avoid loitering.

 

[joe-bob]

3. The fact you regard the examples I cited (only a handful out of thousands) as mere "exceptions" is part of the problem.

Yes, yes indeed.