Do I look like a "hayseed" to you? This is how I looked when I was grabbed that evening.
Posted on 06/05/2004 8:48:52 PM PDT by natewill
Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
I was "seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
Hope you, at least, get an apology. I wouldn't lay even money on it though.
Lawyer time.
Hope he sues the pants off the officers, the department, the store and the town.
We've gotten the 911 tapes preserved, but since the PD is calling this an "internal investigation" we can't get anything more out of them under the RSA 91-A right-to-know law. Filing a lawsuit is very expensive, and I'd prefer to spend my money on the adoption we're planning - we're going to see if the pressure we're working on applying in other areas, including through the Governor of New Hampshire, will be sufficient.
If you decide to sue, post it on FreeRepublic. I'd send a check, and I'm sure others would.
Live Free or Die should live up to its motto.
(Maybe you're getting too many infiltrators from New York City via Vermont up there. They are colonizing Vermont like they have colonized Florida. Not only can't they read the Constitution, they can't figure out to vote.)
We'd definately pass the hat.
Hey dummy, I AM ARMED IN MY BUSINESS, my customers however are not allowed, keeps me happy, keeps my customers happy, keeps my insurance company happy. If you think I'm wrong , just go to your local mall, ask for the leasing/business office, and simply ask if it's ok to armed with a loaded weapon while on their property. Good luck!
That's a total spin on what really happened. The system worked here, and worked perfectly. The police recieved a complaint, investigated, found the complaint to be groundless and immediately released the suspect on the scene. It doesn't get anymore perfect than that.
I'm much happier with a system where the police investigate first, dismiss second. I'd have a much greater problem with Psychic Police (tm) who're inclined to decide the validity of a complaint without even showing up.
Sorry, anyone in a retail bookstore with an open weapon in the small of his back is a dim witted, boarder line moron, and a poor citizen!
Why don't you e-mail Barnes and Noble, ask what their position is on customers entering their stores with open, loaded weapons. My guess, they are against it, and so is the insurance company that writes their policy. Hey wait a minute, I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess they don't want any loaded weapons on their premisis , concealed or not!
In Florida v. J.L., the Supreme Court required that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just its tendancy to identify a particular person, before it may be relied upon to effect a seizure.
An accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and appearance is of course reliable in this limited sense: It will help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse. Such a tip, however, does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person....
Firearms are dangerous, and extraordinary dangers sometimes justify unusual precautions. Our decisions recognize the serious threat that armed criminals pose to public safety; Terry 's rule, which permits protective police searches on the basis of reasonable suspicion rather than demanding that officers meet the higher standard of probable cause, responds to this very concern. See 392 U. S., at 30 . But an automatic firearm exception to our established reliability analysis would rove too far. Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun. Nor could one securely confine such an exception to allegations involving firearms.
HOLY CRAP, I bet that has a small kick!
If they did not wish weapons on their premises, they could post a sign. The fact that they have not, and that the general manager of the store personally told me that they do not wish to bar those who lawfully carry firearms, suggests otherwise.
Gee, thanks, Bootstick, I'll keep the fact that you think I'm a dim-witted borderline moron in mind the next time I think about joining MENSA.
Ask Suzanna Grati-Hupp and Luby's cafe why not.
They oughta make asshat business owners like you culpable for dis-allowing personal protection should your store get held up or fall victim to an attack.
Calling everyone a moron, is, well,,,,moronic.
Do you post a sign boot? -- Do you have a metal detector at the shops entrance? - Or do you conduct searches?
keeps me happy, keeps my customers happy,
How do you know if your customers are 'happy' at having to conceal, from you, what they may be carrying?
the fact keeps my insurance company happy.
Your business insurance has a 'no gun' clause? Really? --- How much does it save you over standard policys that don't specify such arcane 'risks'?
If you think I'm wrong , just go to your local mall, ask for the leasing/business office, and simply ask if it's ok to armed with a loaded weapon while on their property. Good luck!
Why ask? We have an inalienable right to carry arms. Obviously, there are a lot of people, like you, that disagree with that principle. - - I find it best to ignore such fools.
"No GUNS allowed. I don't care if you can protect yourself, I just want your money."
Yea, that'll get em in the door.
Although I wonder if a door, and his business even exist.. I think bootie is like a lot of FReepers here, in that he's actually selling his dreams.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.