Unlawful??? Detainment Video

[Cochese]

once again you are full of shit. If I agree to show up in court they can certainly give the idiot a ticket. BUT we weren't talking about traffic now were we? once again you are wrong both in your advice and interpretation of the law. You are not an LEO and neither am I but I will stack my knowledge against your failed google skills any day of the week.

I am a police officer. Certified in TX and CO.

RDJ is correct as far as this pissing match is concerned.

 

[Rossim22]

You can't be serious. :nonono:




So the police can't do anything when the public calls in a complaint? :dw:

No sense in responding then, huh?

I am totally telling my dispatchers that when I return to work!! :beer:


:bored:

Sure they can respond to the call and check out the situation but the phone call alone will not result in an arrest or citation at all. All I'm saying is that a phone call is HEARSAY, which cannot be used as evidence in court. I'm right this time bro, get over it and stop twisting what I say to try to ridicule me.

 

[Cochese]

Sure they can respond to the call and check out the situation but the phone call alone will not result in an arrest or citation at all. All I'm saying is that a phone call is HEARSAY, which cannot be used as evidence in court. I'm right this time bro, get over it and stop twisting what I say to try to ridicule me.

I'm not here to twist what you say or ridicule you. Nobody said the phone call alone results in arrest/summons. The call, if it is not a refused RP (complainant), meaning the caller is a known RP that will identify as a witness, is a great starting point but the cops will develop their own PC for charges.

The phone call is not hearsay and can and will be used in court as evidence.

You are wrong. Well intentioned perhaps, but incorrect.

 

[Hitman318]

:dw::??::burn:

ARE YOU SERIOUS? ARE YOU A LEO????

Hearsay (since you like wikipedia): "Hearsay is information gathered by one person (COP) from another person (PHONED-IN COMPLAINT) concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person (COP) had no direct experience. "

If I call the police and say I just saw a man speeding at least 30mph over, a LEO cannot cite the individual for speeding unless he did it again in front of them, my information to them was HEARSAY.

You better break out the manual and freshen up robocop.

Cant speak for RDJ but I AM a LEO. A called in complaint gives PLENTY of probable cause to make an investigative stop if the vehicle/subject matches a description given. Quit giving advice on matters you know nothing about, it just makes you look even more incompetent when it comes to legal issues. Yes, without having the caller listed as a witness I cannot issue a citation, but it is WELL within the scope of my duties to conduct an investigative stop and run a warrant check and an arrest from anything stemming from the stop would be upheld.

Ive got court cases and arrests THAT HAVE BEEN UPHELD after making stops in this exact situation, what do you have?

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Ive got court cases and arrests THAT HAVE BEEN UPHELD after making stops in this exact situation, what do you have?

Common, we all know that real life experience is no substitute for Wikipedia...

 

[Rossim22]

Cant speak for RDJ but I AM a LEO. A called in complaint gives PLENTY of probable cause to make an investigative stop if the vehicle/subject matches a description given. Quit giving advice on matters you know nothing about, it just makes you look even more incompetent when it comes to legal issues. Yes, without having the caller listed as a witness I cannot issue a citation, but it is WELL within the scope of my duties to conduct an investigative stop and run a warrant check and an arrest from anything stemming from the stop would be upheld.

Ive got court cases and arrests THAT HAVE BEEN UPHELD after making stops in this exact situation, what do you have?

Once again you're misinterpreting what I said. You need to think before you type. A phone call complaint is NOT evidence against the person as it is hearsay. Sure you can pull him over, absolutely. If he happens to have a warrant at the same time, of course make the arrest. But you cannot receive a call saying a white mustang was going 100mph past me, pull the guy over and give him a ticket based only on what was said to you.

Get offfff myyy nuuuuttttssss

 

[RDJ]

Once again you're misinterpreting what I said. You need to think before you type. A phone call complaint is NOT evidence against the person as it is hearsay. Sure you can pull him over, absolutely. If he happens to have a warrant at the same time, of course make the arrest. But you cannot receive a call saying a white mustang was going 100mph past me, pull the guy over and give him a ticket based only on what was said to you.

Get offfff myyy nuuuuttttssss

once again you are mostly incorrect. If a white mustang goes past me at 100mph and I can give enough of a description of the car and/or the driver they can certainly pull him over. and it is NOT heresay since I am willing to testify and am a known witness. What I say and observed can certainly be used in court if they wish to call me. an anonymous phone call is also not heresay untill they get to court. the guy does not have a right to Cross-examine me until we get to court, I said this once before an you conveniently ignored it.

 

[rubber duck]

That is actually a separate situation all together, you are required to have and carry a license when you are operating a vehicle on the road. You are not required to carry identification walking down the street. You may be required to identify yourself depending on your state's law on "stop and identify"

Now, I'm not going claim I know all the gun laws in all the various states, but I'm going to tender a guess that in most, if not all states, you need to have ID on you if you're carrying a firearm, and produce it when asked to do so.

 

[Rossim22]

once again you are mostly incorrect. If a white mustang goes past me at 100mph and I can give enough of a description of the car and/or the driver they can certainly pull him over. and it is NOT heresay since I am willing to testify and am a known witness. What I say and observed can certainly be used in court if they wish to call me. an anonymous phone call is also not heresay untill they get to court. the guy does not have a right to Cross-examine me until we get to court, I said this once before an you conveniently ignored it.

Yes they CAN certainly pull him over... i've said this three times now. :dw: Your phone call is hearsay, however your testimony as a witness would be deemed admissible evidence in court... your phone call ALONE is nothing but a tip, it is NOT evidence as it is hearsay.

 

[Cochese]

Once again you're misinterpreting what I said. You need to think before you type. A phone call complaint is NOT evidence against the person as it is hearsay. Sure you can pull him over, absolutely. If he happens to have a warrant at the same time, of course make the arrest. But you cannot receive a call saying a white mustang was going 100mph past me, pull the guy over and give him a ticket based only on what was said to you.

Get offfff myyy nuuuuttttssss

I love how you are ignoring everything I say.


You are incorrect.

A phone call complaint, from a known reporting party/complainant/witness holds a lot more value than you are affording it in this instance.

It also varies, depending on locale. Some areas, you CAN pull someone over and do exactly that.

Case in point...

I am a municipal police officer. I was driving down the interstate when some assclown goes blowing past me and is cutting people off left and right, driving like a general dick, tailgating, and I watched as he literally forced a guy onto the shoulder to complete his totally unsafe lane change.

I called up them state police boys and reported this dickhead. A trooper gets him stopped about 3 miles ahead and I pull in behind the Trooper as instructed by their dispatch. I explained what I saw, in great detail, and completed a witness statement. The trooper advised they received "more than one call" regarding this guy and commenced to issuing him a state summons for reckless driving.

The trooper witnessed none of this by himself, and I had no jurisdiction where I observed his traffic violations (out of my city where I work as a LEO), but, based on my known RP status, and my articulate witness statement, he summons this prick into court.

It happens.

Everyday.

You are incorrect.

 

[Cochese]

Yes they CAN certainly pull him over... i've said this three times now. :dw: Your phone call is hearsay, however your testimony as a witness would be deemed admissible evidence in court... your phone call ALONE is nothing but a tip, it is NOT evidence as it is hearsay.

Let me break it down for you...

A phone call is NOT hearsay dammit. A phone call is a phone call. There are two types of complainants. The known RP, who leaves their info for a call back, or to provide a witness statement if necessary. They generally agree to cooperate with a subpoena as a witness in court (not ****ing hearsay, WITNESS TESTIMONY)

The other type of complainant is an anonymous caller. This is still not hearsay dammit. This is simply an anonymous RP. This is a building block. This still gives us a call for service, a general start. It at least provides a location and description of an actor/suspect, along with a general description of violation. This gets us into the area, and allows us to develop our own additional material, so to speak. This can still be referred to in court, and is NOT HEARSAY.

It will be referred to by a prosecutor as an anonymous reporting party and the reason for police response. Never at anytime, will it ever be referred to, or treated as hearsay. I don't have a law degree, but I guarantee I've spent more time in court than you have in the sack. :dancenana::-D

 

[Cochese]

Regarding the original topic...

There is another thread about it over at Glock Talk started by the same OP if you guys want additional LEO input.

Here is one of my replies because I am way too lazy to retype this chit.

Unlawful??? Detainment Video - Glock Talk

I guess the real question here is, whether the police had RAS to "detain" this jerkoff.

Most of us walk the line between consensual contacts and Terry stops in our line of work. The officer tells him right away that he is detained. The Sergeant offers a different opinion.
This "man with a gun" call, (I'm assuming this was the call for service they received) is not a valid reason by itself for a Terry stop, I F the caller was anonymous.

If it is a known RP, it may be a different story. See USSC case Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).

I generally make things work when I contact someone, based on what I have to work with. If I get the vibe that they are an OC zealot like this pile of cuddle cream, I treat them accordingly. I am QUITE familiar with my state laws and find it entertaining to show them how in over their head they can get, real quick. I will limit it to a consent contact if I don't have RAS. It's pretty easy to articulate seizure or lack there of if I bait them at their own game.

I've dealt with this myself on occasion (and even linked the YouTube :rofl: ) and the easiest thing to do is eff them at their own game. They are all, without fail, dooshbags of the highest order, looking for the same things.

Exposure to their "cause."

or

A payout.

or

Attention/confrontation.


The one thing I will afford them, without fail, is my undivided attention and rapist wit. :supergrin:

Its rad when they start with "am I being detained!?" "am I free to leave??" and 15 minutes later, I'm still developing my contact and getting enough info to unfound the call and complete my notes with no detention or other legal issues to concern myself with. They will without fail, call in to complain, and I will offer my MP3 of the contact if I remember to hit record, or... even better, their YouTube link to our IA folks and poof. Complaint go bye bye. Sometimes it becomes a positive eval entry for dealing with a "irate citizen in an exemplary manner" or whatever they call it.

:rofl:

 

[va boy]

Guy obviously needs another hobby, why would you "poke the bear"?

 

[Rossim22]

Let me break it down for you...

A phone call is NOT hearsay dammit. A phone call is a phone call. There are two types of complainants. The known RP, who leaves their info for a call back, or to provide a witness statement if necessary. They generally agree to cooperate with a subpoena as a witness in court (not ****ing hearsay, WITNESS TESTIMONY)

The other type of complainant is an anonymous caller. This is still not hearsay dammit. This is simply an anonymous RP. This is a building block. This still gives us a call for service, a general start. It at least provides a location and description of an actor/suspect, along with a general description of violation. This gets us into the area, and allows us to develop our own additional material, so to speak. This can still be referred to in court, and is NOT HEARSAY.

It will be referred to by a prosecutor as an anonymous reporting party and the reason for police response. Never at anytime, will it ever be referred to, or treated as hearsay. I don't have a law degree, but I guarantee I've spent more time in court than you have in the sack. :dancenana::-D

A phone call is he said she said bull shit. What "kind" of evidence is it? Hearsay and it's NOT admissible in court. The person would have to testify in the judicial proceeding and the following testimony would be acceptable evidence. The initial phone call is HEARSAY. An anonymous tip is HEARSAY and is the reason why it cannot be used in court. I don't understand how any of you are arguing this fact. Sure police can use hearsay to collect further evidence, no problem. But a simple phone call complaint holds no water in court. PERIOD

 

[svtcop]

Sure they can respond to the call and check out the situation but the phone call alone will not result in an arrest or citation at all. All I'm saying is that a phone call is HEARSAY, which cannot be used as evidence in court. I'm right this time bro, get over it and stop twisting what I say to try to ridicule me.

No bro, you're wrong...but you're never gonna see it. So whatever, every cop on this forum could tell you the same thing. You know better anyway. :bored:

Now, I'm not going claim I know all the gun laws in all the various states, but I'm going to tender a guess that in most, if not all states, you need to have ID on you if you're carrying a firearm, and produce it when asked to do so.

Not true. If the police are lawfully identifying a person, he/she only needs to be able to provide the information. Doesn't need an ID for open carry in some states. Concealed is a different animal though.

 

[svtcop]

I am a police officer. Certified in TX and CO.

RDJ is correct as far as this pissing match is concerned.

Not really a pissing match, Rossim22 is pissing into the wind.

 

[rubber duck]

If the police are lawfully identifying a person, he/she only needs to be able to provide the information. Doesn't need an ID for open carry in some states. Concealed is a different animal though.

Hmmm, need an ID to drive a car, but not to openly carry a firearm in a public place in some states? Seems a little backasswards if you ask me, but to each state their own I guess.

 

[svtcop]

Hmmm, need an ID to drive a car, but not to openly carry a firearm in a public place in some states? Seems a little backasswards if you ask me, but to each state their own I guess.

You don't need an ID to drive a car. You need a drivers license, there is a difference.

You don't need an ID to walk on the street. There are a ton of people, including cops, that are uneasy with open carry. I gotta tell you, I would rather see a gun and know you have it than just wonder whose got one shoved next to their johnny.

 

[svtcop]

A phone call is he said she said bull shit. What "kind" of evidence is it? Hearsay and it's NOT admissible in court. The person would have to testify in the judicial proceeding and the following testimony would be acceptable evidence. The initial phone call is HEARSAY. An anonymous tip is HEARSAY and is the reason why it cannot be used in court. I don't understand how any of you are arguing this fact. Sure police can use hearsay to collect further evidence, no problem. But a simple phone call complaint holds no water in court. PERIOD

C'mon man, this can't be this hard for you.

What experience do you have with court proceedings and rules of evidence?

 

[rubber duck]

You don't need an ID to drive a car. You need a drivers license, there is a difference.

You don't need an ID to walk on the street. There are a ton of people, including cops, that are uneasy with open carry. I gotta tell you, I would rather see a gun and know you have it than just wonder whose got one shoved next to their johnny.

Yes, I'm aware you need to be licensed to drive a car, and have this form of ID on you, a driver's license is a form of ID. To me there's a difference between "walking down the street" and "walking down the street with a gun on your hip and a scoped rifle on your shoulder". I just find it hard to believe that states wouldn't require a form of ID on your person in order to carry a firearm on you, and you have to rely on someone saying, "oh, I'm Joe Shmoe". Joe Schmoe you say? Sounds legit to me.