I got detained.... again

[Lawdog]

While it may be true that, in the early days of the republic, slaves could carry guns if their masters allowed them to, after Nat Turner's slave rebellion in 1831, in which a fair number of whites were killed, laws were passed in many states and counties that made arming slaves illegal. In fact, many places made it illegal merely to teach slaves to READ. So my comment was directed at the 30 years between Nat Turner's rebellion and the Civil War.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

While it may be true that, in the early days of the republic, slaves could carry guns if their masters allowed them to, after Nat Turner's slave rebellion in 1831, in which a fair number of whites were killed, laws were passed in many states and counties that made arming slaves illegal. In fact, many places made it illegal merely to teach slaves to READ. So my comment was directed at the 30 years between Nat Turner's rebellion and the Civil War.

Again, there seems to be some exceptions. Although, you may be correct on the slave issue.

Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. 12 The following year, the North Carolina supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided: “That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a license therefore from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefore, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefore.” 13 --State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250 (1844).

[netwrkranger]

Lawdog wrote:
It does not matter that you did not break any laws. If a cop does not like you, he will lie and claim you did break a law. And chances are he can get at least one of his cop buddies to lie too, and two witnesses against one is rough when you're the one and the other side has the two. Or the cop can run you in for something petty like jaywalking. You lost time just from them stopping you, something I consider to be a valuable asset.

Would it not stand to reason that it would be most prudent to stand mute to any questioning or respond to questions with a question when encountered by any LEO?

[netwrkranger]

fulltitle wrote:
Incident of dark-skinned man open carrying [Virginia] Summer of 2007: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/3298-1.html.

LAWLS!!

- netwrkranger

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Would it not stand to reason that it would be most prudent to stand mute to any questioning or respond to questions with a question when encountered by any LEO?

Without Prejudice.
A very good idea is to say nothing. They like to get people talking. I handed a COP more than one form of credentials and I just kept telling him to look at the credentials. But he was a bit nutty and agressive-that is why I made a point to stand in front of his car cam. When he persisted with asking a "last name"... I made a point to say clearly: "Oh... you mean the d/b/a... the last name is". I was switching into lets play fantasy fiction games with armed temperamental 'genisues' in costumes in the middle of the night as if I have nothing better to do.

One might be safe with:

1) Non-offensive commands or directives. "Look at the credentials I handed you."
2) Questions. "Is that not on the ID I just gave you."

Such isn't testimony.

Don't think for a moment that they dont know what they are doing. Some of them might not but why slack?

[Livefire]

This how you approach it......

My name is ............
I sojourn at 123 Main st

Am I being detained?????

Am I free to go ?????

Watch the video "BUSTED" on youtube.....it was put out by
ACLU lawyers so the status quo folks like Lawdog and Shoonra shouldnt have a beef with it! :-)

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
A very good idea is to say nothing. They like to get people talking. I handed a COP more than one form of credentials and I just kept telling him to look at the credentials. But he was a bit nutty and agressive-that is why I made a point to stand in front of his car cam. When he persisted with asking a "last name"... I made a point to say clearly: "Oh... you mean the d/b/a... the last name is". I was switching into lets play fantasy fiction games with armed temperamental 'genisues' in costumes in the middle of the night as if I have nothing better to do.

That reminds me,

Despotic power is the unrelenting war of an armed great robber against legally unarmed people. [L] Cato’s Letters, #25, p. 183

One might be safe with:

1) Non-offensive commands or directives. "Look at the credentials I handed you."
2) Questions. "Is that not on the ID I just gave you."

Such isn't testimony.

Don't think for a moment that they dont know what they are doing. Some of them might not but why slack?

It is great to see people doing what they can to hold onto their rights.

“Common good consists of every member of society retaining as many of his natural rights as possible.” --Brutus; I Kurkand

”Dormiunt aliquando leges, numquam moriuntur. The laws sometime sleep, but never die.”

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Livefire

This how you approach it......

My name is ............
I sojourn at 123 Main st

Am I being detained?????

Am I free to go ?????

Watch the video "BUSTED" on youtube.....it was put out by
ACLU lawyers so the status quo folks like Lawdog and Shoonra shouldnt have a beef with it! :-)

OR why help them fill out their paperwork if they don't have probable cause and you don't have any "government contracts"?

People call me ______.
I sojourn in [city].

Am I under arrest?
Am I free to go?
If "No" is said for both;
What is your probable cause for arresting me?
(Say "arrest" here instead of detain. If they answer as to why then they have admitted that it is an arrest.)

Make sure to ask each question at least three times and more if you are not getting a responsive (what truly answers your question) answer.

[Soldier of Truth]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Make sure to ask each question at least three times and more if you are not getting a responsive (what truly answers your question) answer.

The quickest, simplest and effective way, is not to engage in too much dialogue. There is a reason that the "right to remain silent" is to be recognized.

The courts consistently hold that an "arrest" occurs when a reasonable person feels they are not free to leave.

The District Attorney General's web site for Alameda County has a great treatise on "Police Contacts."
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/po...les/POLICE.pdf

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/po..._articlescases


But, the quickest and simplest way " I " would do it is to state and ask: "I wish to leave. Am I free to leave?"

If answered "no." Then I have just established that I am under arrest.

Then I would immediately shut my mouth and say NOTHING else until released or I am before a magistrate on a probable cause determination hearing.


Just my .02

[ezrhythm]

Must see vids regarding being detained;
http://youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA