R&R Arrested at March On NRA

Ronan · Aug 5, 2018

swinokur said:
According to VA statute posted by another member, the police line was illegal. therefore the arrest was illegal.

IANAL

No idea if it will be proven however.

wow...

Rab1515 · Aug 5, 2018

swinokur said:
According to VA statute posted by another member, the police line was illegal. therefore the arrest was illegal.

IANAL

No idea if it will be proven however.

Posting again for visibility. The decision was made several days in advance about the barricade and the configuration. Which pretty much is in conflict with with va statute because they can only be errected in emergency situation.

VA law § 15.2-1714. Establishing police lines, perimeters, or barricades.
Whenever fires, accidents, wrecks, explosions, crimes, riots, or other emergency situations where life, limb, or property may be endangered may cause persons to collect on the public streets, alleys, highways, parking lots, or other public area, the chief law-enforcement officer of any locality or that officer's authorized representative who is responsible for the security of the scene may establish such areas, zones, or perimeters by the placement of police lines or barricades as are reasonably necessary to (i) preserve the integrity of evidence at such scenes, (ii) notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 46.2-888 through 46.2-891, facilitate the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic into, out of, and around the scene, (iii) permit firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical services personnel to perform necessary operations unimpeded, and (iv) protect persons and property.

ironpony · Aug 5, 2018

Rab1515 said:
Posting again for visibility. The decision was made several days in advance about the barricade and the configuration. Which pretty much is in conflict with with va statute because they can only be errected in emergency situation.

and did they take it a step further and say one could "break the law once" cross the line one way? Can they negate a law temporarily?

Ronan · Aug 5, 2018

ironpony said:
and did they take it a step further and say one could "break the law once" cross the line one way? Can they negate a law temporarily?

One officer can say 'its fine', then the next one says 'no its not' and then you are screwed.

Cops can do w/e they want on small scale things like that. It's up to you (and your lawyer) to get you out of it (innocent before proven guilty, amirite?).

swinokur · Aug 5, 2018

FCPD turned this into a shite show.

It's on them.

delaware_export · Aug 5, 2018

Someone may have this posted, but you guys are in the picture! Good work.

https://ijr.com/ijr-red/2018/08/1114080-march-nra-counter-protesters-rights/

Stoveman · Aug 5, 2018

swinokur said:
FCPD turned this into a shite show.

It's on them.

Ed Zachary. There is no group that supports the guys and gals in blue more than the PP, hell we even had a "Blue Lives Matter" sign out yesterday, but we've got to call balls and strikes here and FCPD screwed the pooch BIGLY on this one.

spoon059 · Aug 5, 2018

whistlersmother said:
Yep, they're following orders, so we'll give them a pass.

Would you make that same argument in Montgomery on December 1, 1955? That officer was "following orders".

Sgt Pope was "following orders". So why is he being sued?

I think it's a slight stretch to compare a criminal citation for crossing a police line with an entire police force setting dogs on people.

I'm fairly certain that I indicated that when I worked civil disturbance I was forced to follow LAWFUL orders. Setting dogs on children isn't a lawful order. Making a non violent arrest for a criminal infraction (whether or not I observed the infraction) is a lawful order.

Big difference.

Sorry you don't like it. I understand some people here don't like police. It is what it is. The officer that issued the citation was likely ordered to do so, regardless of how he felt about the incident. Court exists for a reason... both the criminal trial AND potentially a civil lawsuit against the police department.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

buellsfurn · Aug 5, 2018

Stoveman said:
Ed Zachary. There is no group that supports the guys and gals in blue more than the PP, hell we even had a "Blue Lives Matter" sign out yesterday, but we've got to call balls and strikes here and FCPD screwed the pooch BIGLY on this one.

and add that Rack was the one from memory that asked us all the give guys and girls in blue a big hand for being their and doing a good job. After we sang the pledge of allegiance

Stoveman · Aug 5, 2018

buellsfurn said:
and add that Rack was the one from memory that asked us all the give guys and girls in blue a big hand for being their and doing a good job. After we sang the pledge of allegiance

Yes he did. He led all the assembled patriots in giving the FCPD a YUGE round of applause.

whistlersmother · Aug 6, 2018

spoon059 said:
I think it's a slight stretch to compare a criminal citation for crossing a police line with an entire police force setting dogs on people.

I'm fairly certain that I indicated that when I worked civil disturbance I was forced to follow LAWFUL orders. Setting dogs on children isn't a lawful order. Making a non violent arrest for a criminal infraction (whether or not I observed the infraction) is a lawful order.

Big difference.

Sorry you don't like it. I understand some people here don't like police. It is what it is. The officer that issued the citation was likely ordered to do so, regardless of how he felt about the incident. Court exists for a reason... both the criminal trial AND potentially a civil lawsuit against the police department.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Which you just proved my next point. Arrest first, let judge sort it out later.

Had EVERYONE been arrested or NO ONE been arrested, I wouldn't have any problem. But the police decided to arbitrarily chose whom to arrest and whom not to arrest.

It's the double standard and, dare I say, the hyprocrisy of it all.

We shall see if this was even a lawful order of the police. It's been suggested up thread that the line was not lawful.

Five minutes to arrest, a decade to exonerate and no repercussions to anyone except the arrestee - something's wrong with that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

28Shooter · Aug 6, 2018

"The officer that issued the citation was likely ordered to do so, regardless of how he felt about the incident." - Is that really a defense? I give law enforcement officers more credit than that and hope they would have higher ethical standards than "I was only following orders."

Ronan · Aug 6, 2018

whistlersmother said:
Which you just proved my next point. Arrest first, let judge sort it out later.

Had EVERYONE been arrested or NO ONE been arrested, I wouldn't have any problem. But the police decided to arbitrarily chose whom to arrest and whom not to arrest.

It's the double standard and, dare I say, the hyprocrisy of it all.

We shall see if this was even a lawful order of the police. It's been suggested up thread that the line was not lawful.

Five minutes to arrest, a decade to exonerate and no repercussions to anyone except the arrestee - something's wrong with that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Welcome to the legal system in the US...

They arrested a youtuber not long ago, for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Cop has a personal issue with that youtuber that owns a very nice mustang.

Pulled a fast one on the kid, arrested him on a Friday night, $70,000 bail, no judge until Monday to throw out the arrest. Stuck on the weekend in jail.

On purpose.

28Shooter said:
"The officer that issued the citation was likely ordered to do so, regardless of how he felt about the incident." - Is that really a defense? I give law enforcement officers more credit than that and hope they would have higher ethical standards than "I was only following orders."

They have to follow orders, just like soldiers. Albeit not the same level of discipline but the blues have each others back and tend to follow orders from higher ups.

GTOGUNNER · Aug 6, 2018

I have this warmed up.

babalou · Aug 6, 2018

exactly

whistlersmother said:
Which you just proved my next point. Arrest first, let judge sort it out later.

Had EVERYONE been arrested or NO ONE been arrested, I wouldn't have any problem. But the police decided to arbitrarily chose whom to arrest and whom not to arrest.

It's the double standard and, dare I say, the hyprocrisy of it all.

We shall see if this was even a lawful order of the police. It's been suggested up thread that the line was not lawful.

Five minutes to arrest, a decade to exonerate and no repercussions to anyone except the arrestee - something's wrong with that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

As we all know, the less commotion and eyes on the police because we follow orders and "respect" the police. If they would have arrested a couple of those yahoos who crossed, it would have been front page news and first on TV. They chose the easy way out. damn Panzy-arshes. This is why people tend to not trust them anymore. Heck, the other side hates them and called for their deaths, etc. And what do they do, bite the hands that feed them. Too bad these losers are not like the ones in FL that are rising up against Mr. Sheriff Barney Fife.

and, of course what does the MSM say, one of the pro gun guys was arrested..... sound bite city for all the sheeple who only have time or only know how to listen for sound bites and not the full story. :sad20:

swinokur · Aug 6, 2018

spoon059 said:
I think it's a slight stretch to compare a criminal citation for crossing a police line with an entire police force setting dogs on people.

I'm fairly certain that I indicated that when I worked civil disturbance I was forced to follow LAWFUL orders. Setting dogs on children isn't a lawful order. Making a non violent arrest for a criminal infraction (whether or not I observed the infraction) is a lawful order.

Big difference.

Sorry you don't like it. I understand some people here don't like police. It is what it is. The officer that issued the citation was likely ordered to do so, regardless of how he felt about the incident. Court exists for a reason... both the criminal trial AND potentially a civil lawsuit against the police department.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I pointed this out as well. Apples and Oranges IMO. But some folks like to conflate two scenarios to support their agenda.

I do not.

That's fine. People are certainly entitled to their opinion.

imaoldcowhand · Aug 6, 2018

Sounds like you guys have too much fun.

Hope all turns out ok for all involved.

CrazySanMan · Aug 6, 2018

Yesterday (Sunday) morning the local Denver CBS station had a minute or so story about the protests in front of the NRA headquarters. I saw some Patriot Picket shirts in the background of the video they showed.

spoon059 · Aug 6, 2018

whistlersmother said:
Which you just proved my next point. Arrest first, let judge sort it out later.

Had EVERYONE been arrested or NO ONE been arrested, I wouldn't have any problem. But the police decided to arbitrarily chose whom to arrest and whom not to arrest.

It's the double standard and, dare I say, the hyprocrisy of it all.

We shall see if this was even a lawful order of the police. It's been suggested up thread that the line was not lawful.

Five minutes to arrest, a decade to exonerate and no repercussions to anyone except the arrestee - something's wrong with that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Read my posts... I don't think that we are in disagreement.

I NEVER said that I agreed with the decision to arrest. I agree that it appears that a police commander chose who to arrest and who not to arrest. It is quite possible that it was an illegal arrest. In fact, if you go back and read my response to the arrest, I suggested a possible lawsuit.

All that I am saying is that the line officer was likely ORDERED to make an arrest. The line officer is not allowed to disobey a LAWFUL ORDER from a superior. It is a lawful order if it is not inherently illegal. If the commander determined (rightfully or wrongfully) that RnR committed a crime, it is a lawful order. The line officer has no discretion.

I was offended by someone comparing this arrest to the Montgomery Alabama violent, illegal and shameful use of dogs on peaceful protesters in 1963.

TheBert · Aug 6, 2018

spoon059 said:
I'm fairly certain that I indicated that when I worked civil disturbance I was forced to follow LAWFUL orders. Setting dogs on children isn't a lawful order. Making a non violent arrest for a criminal infraction (whether or not I observed the infraction) is a lawful order.

You could have quit, you always have the option to quit.

R&R Arrested at March On NRA

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

3D Printing Guru

Ultimate Member

Member

3D Printing Guru

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

TV Personality

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

TV Personality

Peace through strength

Ultimate Member

3D Printing Guru

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

2013'er

Ultimate Member

The Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics