It reminds me of the meme that has been going around of police beating on unresisting people as they shout "stop resisting, stop resisting".
As far as I am concerned, any officer engaged in either of the above two deceptions should be fired and prosecuted.
If someone is cuffed, yet not “under arrest” it is at best, unlawful detention and possibly kidnapping.
It reminds me of the semi-satirical/semi-cynical crime
of Failure to Respect.
It's stuff like this, and the general master/slave mentality government officials have adopted, that prompted the creation of my brochure:
Stop, Drop, and Cower
[Direct Link]
>>I am seeing this more and more, saying “you are not under arrest” as they snap on the handcuffs.
They claim that its for “officer safety”. I guess its for your safety too since, the cowards with a badge will overreact and kill you if you even sneeze in their presence.
Yep, and they can question you too. Miranda only kicks in when you’re under arrest. Otherwise they can question all day and detain you. So they’ll typically put it off until the last second possible. It’s a shakedown method.
“you are not under arrest” as they snap on the handcuffs”
would this not be kidnapping and unlawful containment if you are not under arest? seems to me to be a criminal act and you should be able to sue their pants off
Police state? You tell me are we getting there?
I don’t have a problem if the police politely ask for ID to verify you are not a convicted felon, while you stand there unencumbered and unrestrained. Frankly, I would have no problem if they asked me to remove the magazine and verify the chamber was empty while they checked the ID; as long as I retained possession of the gun and was not restrained.
Cuffing someone (same thing as locking them up) so you can essentially look at their ID is unlawful detention. Doing it “politely” doesn’t make it lawful.
I say that, because they are parsing the definition of “arrest”. If you cannot be arrested indefinitely without being charged, then neither can you be detained indefinitely without being “arrested”.
I have lost about all the respect that I ever had for the police. They are not on a mission to protect and to serve the citizenry, they simply treat everyone they encounter as a known felon (until proven differently).
For those cops that say, “hey I just want to get home alive tonight”, well so do I, so am I justified in treating every policeman as a felon in a phony cop uniform, or a crooked cop, or a stupid cop? Because, “hey, I just don't want you to shoot my family to death, before you go home safe tonight”.
As far as I am concerned, any officer engaged in violating constitutionally protected rights should be "not Tasered", and "Not arrested" and then fired (bye bye pension) and prosecuted as a felon (and lose 2A rights).
Unlawful detainment and deprivation of rights under the color of law...
“‘We don’t know who you are and until we determine you’re not a threat to people in the area we’re going to detain you as a precaution,’ that usually helps,” he said.”
I’m assuming the cops are pulling over EVERY SINGLE vehicle that rolls into that neighborhood, handcuffing the drivers, and running a background check on them...because vehicles are used as deadly weapons on a regular basis..
It's something new to some people I guess. It's only been going on for about a hundred and fifty years.
Notice how the left and the complicit media poison the waters from the beginning by even suggesting that rights are debatable.
The instant any officer handcuffs you is the time to say nothing but “I want to call my lawyer”.
Handcuffing without arrest is an intimidation tactic and a violation of civil rights.
Americans must defend freedom against all enemies,foreign and domestic.
Now wouldn't it be amazing to find out (checking the County commissioners manual) that these; “law enforcement officers” are nothing more than private contractors, who have neither the authority to arrest anyone, or carry a weapon.
And these phony firearms charges are exactly that, phony.
If you look up the definition of a firearm you will find “according to the law” that 90% of the people in jail are there due to fraud by the courts , for firearms violations.
Title 26 USC 5845.,
just remember, it's their laws used against us and your lawyer can't help you, because they're gagged from actually representing you, regardless of what they say they are only there to represent the state, and of course the bar.
Got pulled over in Rutland in ‘99 just because we had out of state plates. Absolutely no reason for the pull over and when challenged the cop did not ever bother to give one. No ticket.
If you’re not under arrest you are free to go. Ask to go... if they do not immediately state your arrest then they have committed a crime.
That is an incorrect statement of law, though may lay persons think such to be the case. The Courts have held that handcuffing is a factor in determining whether a finding of custody is necessitated, but it is not determinative.
"Handcuffing a suspect does not necessarily dictate a finding of custody." See United States v. Purry, 178 U.S. App. D.C. 139, 545 F.2d 217, 220 (D.C.Cir.1976).
"Strong but reasonable measures to insure the safety of the officers or the public can be taken without necessarily compelling a finding that the suspect was in custody." See United States v. Coades, 549 F.2d 1303, 1305 (9th Cir. 1977) See also United States v. Patterson, 648 F.2d 633 (9th Cir. 1977).
For further discussion, also see: United States v. Esieke, 940 F.2d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1991); Flowers v. Fiore, 359 F.3d at 30; United States v. Pratt, 355 F.3d 1119, 1123 (8th Cir. 2004); Meredith v. Erath, 342 F.3d 1057, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Hamlin, 319 F.3d 666, 671 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Jordan, 232 F.3d 447, 449 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Gil, 204 F.3d 1347, 1351 (11th Cir. 2000); Houston v. Does, 174 F.3d 809, 815 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. James, 40 F.3d 850, 875 (7th Cir. 1994), vacated on other grounds, 516 U.S. 1022, 133 L. Ed. 2d 515, 116 S. Ct. 664 (1995); United States v. Jones, 297 U.S. App. D.C. 356, 973 F.2d 928, 931 (D.C. Cir.), reh'g granted and opinion vacated in part on [675] other grounds, 980 F.2d 746 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
I try to take the long view in trying to alleviate such problems before they become problems, by starting with some axioms.
1) Police on patrol are essentially acting as predators. This means that first, something attracts their attention, and then they try to determine is it legal or unlawful. In a way they are like young men girl-watching (as someone said, “like lions watching a gazelle”); because they too are content to just watch intently, unless something compels them to go hit on that attractive gazelle.
So the important lesson here is that if you are carrying, open or concealed, you are not looking or doing something else that attracts the eye.
In this case, his being shirtless, plus his unknowingly being in a place with recent property and gun crime, tipped the balance of attention.
2) Being known to the police as an open or concealed carry person does wonders in their attitude, but is not always practical. But there is also “community standards”, of which it is very important to be aware of. For example, in a “liberal” area, assume that a lot of people will get agitated by just seeing a gun. And that it is going to take a while for them to get over their irrational fear, or at least their willingness to call the police about their irrational fear.
3) This all points to the value of public relations. If you want to carry in an area, you can “inoculate” the area ahead of time about the legality of gun carry, your good intentions, how business owners should approach their employees, etc. Such inoculation can last several years, and avoids a lot of unwanted stress and harassment.
Likewise a friendly conversation with a police officer can inoculate his entire department, again for several years. And they might not even know your name, just that “some people are now legally carrying open and concealed, which is okay, so don’t get upset about it unless you see them doing something else. I’ve mentioned it to dispatch, so if some upset citizen calls in, they will settle them down.”