Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Open Carry Trouble - New Mexico (settled out of court)
OpenCarry.org ^ | 1 May, 2010 | Scooter88310

Posted on 05/19/2010 7:09:55 PM PDT by marktwain

This is the letter I sent to my attorney. I just pasted it here.

On January 15th 2010, at approximately 7:30PM, in Artesia, New Mexico I was traveling on highway 285 with my wife and 2 young daughters, ages 4 and 1. I came upon a DWI checkpoint operated by the City of Artesia police department. An officer (name unknown) approached my drivers window, informed me that they were conducting a DWI checkpoint, and asked for my license, registration, and proof of insurance. As I handed him my insurance card, I informed him that my wallet was in close proximity to my sidearm. The officer said "O.K, I need you to keep your hands on the wheel for me, O.K?" He was polite and I did as instructed. The unknown officer called for another officer, later identified as Lt. David Spencer, and told him "We have a weapon here." Lt. Spencer approached the vehicle by the drivers side with his hand on his weapon and asked where my weapon was. I informed him that it was holstered on my right hip. Lt. Spencer, then in a loud and demanding voice, ordered me multiple times to "Keep your hands on the wheel!" and "Do not take your hands off that wheel!" Then he ordered me to pull my vehicle over to the parking lot of the Masonic Lodge next to the checkpoint, where he told me to put the vehicle in park. I was too afraid to reach for the gear shift, so I asked my wife to do it for me. I shut off the vehicle and Lt. Spencer ordered me to "Get out of the vehicle and keep your hands where I can see them." I asked if this was all really necessary, the only response from Lt. Spencer was an order to turn around and put my hands on the vehicle. At this point I was standing in front of the rear drivers side window, in full view of my children. Lt. Spencer approached me from behind and removed my pistol from its holster. The moment I felt him pull on my pistol I told him that I did not consent to any search or seizure of my person or property. His reply was "I'm not searching anything, this is for officer safety." He then sat my loaded firearm on the curved trunk of my car. My wife informed me after the event that when Lt. Spencer removed my weapon my 4 year old cried out "DON'T SHOOT MY DADDY!" Lt. Spencer began to question me about why I carry a firearm. I told him for self-defense. He balked and asked "Why, is someone after you?" My response was "I never know when I might need it." He asked if I had a concealed weapons permit. I told him no, and informed him that New Mexico was an open carry state, and I did not need a permit to openly carry a sidearm. Lt. Spencer argued with me telling me that if my jacket falls over the gun it is concealed. I reminded him that the firearm was not concealed, but New Mexico allows concealed carry in a private vehicle by non-permit holders. I then noticed another officer by the passenger side of the vehicle, Later identified as Sgt. Jarod Zuniga, who informed me that it was still not allowed if the weapon is on my person. Lt, Spencer the re-iterated his opinion that I needed to get a CCW permit. He asked if I was a felon, I replied that I am not. Sgt Zuniga asked who the pistol was registered to. I told him I purchased it new, so it would come back registered to me. Sgt Zuniga then proceeded to write the serial number of my firearm on a pad. I said "So, Now your going to search my pistol?" He was looking down at the vehicle, and I was able to make out "I have every right to do this" or "I am perfectly within my rights to do this." At this point the officers asked for the registration for the vehicle. My wife looked, but could not find our copy. We told the officers that we had misplaced it, but the license plate had a valid sticker. Sgt Zuniga said that the state could revoke registration, and they needed to see our copy. Then returned to his cruiser. My oldest daughter Julie was still crying, Lt. Spencer said I could get in the vehicle to calm her down. I opened the rear drivers door and re-assured my daughter that everything was O.K. She immediately calmed down. I asked Lt. Spencer if he could place his hand on my pistol so that it would not fall off the curved trunk when I shut the door. Sgt Zuniga returned with a citation for no proof of registration. I signed the citation in the area for court appearance. I was told I could secure my pistol and be on my way. Both officers had their hands on their weapons as I retrieved and holstered my own. The entire incident lasted between 30 and 45 minutes.

I did some looking and found that Spencer is the troop leader for the New Mexico Mounted Patrol. Troop 18 in Artesia New Mexico.

....already signed the settlement papers. Just waiting for the check to clear. Sorry about not using paragraphs, It never occured to me.

--------------------------cut-------------------------

Yeah, Got a lawyer. We did sign papers to settle out of court. My daughter would ask every time she saw a cop if they were going to come and shoot me, So I called a friend of mine who is an Alamo officer to meet us at McDonalds in uniform and talk to her..... She's not afraid of cops anymore. Thanks Officer Thompson.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; nm; opencarry
I posted this as much intact as I could. I thought people would be cheered that the police in New Mexico cannot harrass legal open carriers without consequences. I hope that they are learning that they serve the people, and not the other way around.
1 posted on 05/19/2010 7:09:56 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The cops attitude doesn't surprise me at all. New Mexico is a blue state. Obama won 54% of the counties there.

You made 'em pay - sweet.

2 posted on 05/19/2010 7:18:11 PM PDT by Spirochete (Texas is an anagram for Taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
One of my close neighbors(only a quarter mile away) to my shack in NM is a state trooper. He had no problem with me openly carrying, on or off the property. Last summer I killed 5 rattlesnakes using my carry piece (and rat-shot).

Some cops know better. Some don't. They need training. Cheaper training than settlements.

/johnny

3 posted on 05/19/2010 7:21:49 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Just the difference between the HP in a red state versus a blue state. The Mississippi Highway Patrol asked to see my weapon, looked it over good, commented on it positively, and handed it back. They wanted to know my opinion on how it handled and if I had any malfunctions while shooting it. They were very courteous and friendly. This is how police in a free state versus how jack booted thugs act in a blue state.


4 posted on 05/19/2010 7:22:42 PM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug

I hope they have gone through proper training and are now treating open carriers with the respect they deserve. As you said, it is cheaper than the settlements.


5 posted on 05/19/2010 7:25:19 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I’m glad that you and your family are ok after that incident. Kudos to you for the settlement!


6 posted on 05/19/2010 7:25:22 PM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete; All
Just to be absolutely clear: The article is written in first person, but I did not write it. I only posted it. The original was written by Scooter88310 at opencarry.org.
7 posted on 05/19/2010 7:27:49 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Just because they are cops doesnt necessarily mean they know the law.At least thats what it seems.


8 posted on 05/19/2010 7:32:15 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life is tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNdandelion

What a jack ass that thug cop was. Nazi Thug. I hope he is ruined.


9 posted on 05/19/2010 7:35:09 PM PDT by rogertarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Well score one for the “victim” mentality.
There are two sides to every story. This is half of one. Sounds like a shakedown of the city by a shyster and a “victim.” Maybe it isn’t. Maybe it is.

If the cops were out of line, then they need to be investigated and disciplined. Were they? If they acted inappropriately, had they done this other times? If they acted in violation of state law, under color of authority, was that a crime under New Mexico law?

If they weren’t, was this guy a jerk? Did they take the time to check him out and finding the one violation do nothing but cite him and let him go? Were they the very model of restraint when dealing with the guy? If this was a story where a wanted man was caught with meth in the trunk or an illegal would it be “good job officers”?

Or does anyone care to think here? The lawyer knows that insurance companies who provide liability protection for the cities have full say up to a certain dollar amount on what to settle and what to contest. All he has to do is pitch it below this level and the good people of New Mexico just shelled out some money. Not bad for a letter.

Just a little quick here to “Nifong” the officers. If they were wrong, they need to be retrained, disciplined, or taken off the road.

I don’t see where the guy rated any cash either way.


10 posted on 05/19/2010 7:45:17 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

As far as I understand, the police are under no obligation to tell the truth and will assert things that are untrue to gain what they need. One is obligated to know their rights to mitigate this.

Can always ask for a supervisor to come to the scene as well.


11 posted on 05/19/2010 7:48:36 PM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Need work. MBA, CPA, Black Belt. Diverse industry and cross border experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I'm a citizen of New Mexico; and I'm working on challenging some of the state's gun laws. Here's a letter I just sent up to my Rep. in the State Legislature:

Mrs. Gutierrez,
      We were talking on the phone earlier today about State Statutes which contradict the State Constitution; specifically as it related to the right to keep and bear arms. You requested that I send a letter to your e-mail account; this is that letter.


      The problem of contra-constitutional laws is not confined only to the right to keep and bear arms; it is instead a pervasive threat to the rule of law because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction is an axiom in Logic which, simply stated, says: No statement may be simultaneously true and false. The example I gave earlier is this:
      The New Mexico State Constitution, Section 6 of Article 2, says:
            No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
      Yet 2009 NMSA 1978 30-7-2.4 says:
            1.      Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
            2.      a peace officer;
            3.      university security personnel;
            4.      a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
            5.      a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
            6.      a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
      B.      A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
      C.      As used in this section:
            1.      "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
            2.      "university premises" means:
                  a.      the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
                  b.      any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
      D.      Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

      As we can plainly see here this statute violates the first sentence in the given Constitutional section in every possible way: citizens are not allowed to bear their arms for security or defense on University premises, citizens are not allowed to hunt or target shoot on university premises (A-Mountain could be construed to be ‘University Premises’).
      Similarly questionable statutes are:
      ●      30-7-2. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon.
            ○      Depending on how “any other type of deadly weapon” is interpreted it could criminalize the open-carry most weapons.
      ●      30-7-2.1. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises.
            ○      Same as 30-7-2.4
      ●      30-7-3. Unlawful carrying of a firearm in licensed liquor establishments.
            ○      Same as 30-7-2.4
      ●      30-7-4. Negligent use of a deadly weapon.
            ○      Damages, injuries, and deaths should be prosecuted under their appropriate laws or civil suits.
      ●      30-7-8. Unlawful possession of switchblades.
            ○      Switchblades are an arm, and therefore should be allowed the open-carry rights just as guns under Art II, Sec 6.
      ●      30-7-13. Carrying weapons prohibited.
            ○      On busses; w/o prior approval from the Company.
                  -      The Company can disallow firearms and weapons, just like any other privately owned business; however, if they are to disallow weapons the same posting requirements on buildings should be imposed on the busses.
      ●      30-7-15. Weapons; transporting.
            ○      Prohibits weapons from being accessible while in transit on a bus; thereby abridging the right to security and defense.

      However, it could just as easily be something violating Sections 8 & [possibly] 11 of Article 2 of the State Constitution, they read as follows:
            Sec. 8. [Freedom of elections.]
            All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.

            Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
            Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

      All that would be needed would be a couple of state statutes; say one disallowing anyone who is wearing a six-pointed star from voting, and another requiring all Jews (or Hispanics, or Anglos, etc) to wear a six-pointed star. {Obviously the choice of example is reference to Nazi Germany; but that is precisely how Nazi Germany was able to ‘legally’ oppress its Jewish Citizens.}
      The only way to prevent such from happening here is to hold our Constitutions in highest respect and treat them as the Supreme Laws of the Land; which, in fact, Section 1 of Article 2 states:
            The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

      This sums up my concern: if the people are not allowed to use their Constitutions as legal defense (or legal ‘offense’, challenging the validity of contra-constitutional laws) then the government can do anything it wants without restraint.

Sincerely,
      OneWingedShark

12 posted on 05/19/2010 7:52:11 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

See post #12; and just to be clear New Mexico State Law considers the vehicle to be an extension of your domicile... meaning that you can do anything in your car with a gun that you could do in your house.


13 posted on 05/19/2010 7:55:30 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: imahawk

It has been my experience that cops are the least educated on laws. I learned long ago to never ask or accept legal advice from a cop.


14 posted on 05/19/2010 8:26:18 PM PDT by Dayman (My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dayman

Words to live by.


15 posted on 05/19/2010 8:31:07 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life is tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
You have got to be kidding. The cop disarming the victim, pulling him out of his car, pointing his gun at him, seizing and illegally searching the gun by running the serial number, lying about the law and detaining him for committing no crime are all absolutely illegal. This isn't a shakedown. A dirty cop with no regard for citizens rights has learned a lesson. It doesn't matter if it's the first time or the 100th time this cop has done it, it's still illegal.

Be clear that according to the supreme court a cop can not even legally ask an open carrier for ID based solely on his open carrying of a firearm. That makes the cops conduct absolutely unforgivable.

16 posted on 05/19/2010 8:31:29 PM PDT by Dayman (My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
If the cops were out of line, then they need to be investigated and disciplined.

I agree with your thought, but often times the judicial system needs to get involved to determine if someone's rights were violated. Civil action can be the trigger (no pun intended) to put the wheels in motion to determine if a cop needs disciplinary action against him or just an education of the law. Without the civil action, an investigation and corrective action would most likely never occur.

17 posted on 05/19/2010 8:36:21 PM PDT by mlocher (USA is a sovereign nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

“Some cops know better. Some don’t.”

.
Some cops should be cops; some shouldn’t.
.


18 posted on 05/19/2010 8:43:48 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I was a Deputy for Eddy County, New Mexico back in the late 70’s. I remember a case that occured in Roswell where an individual was arrested for concealed carry. The individual had the weapon in an external holster attached to the belt. He was wearing a Denim jacket and the officer noted the holster just sneaking out from the bottom of the jacket. The outcome of the case was it was not concealed because it was in an external holster on the belt, if it was in an inside the waistband holster it would be considered concealed. We were directed not to hassel anyone carrying thus.

Things may have changed since then, but there is case law somewhere in the Roswell DA’s office.


19 posted on 05/19/2010 8:44:08 PM PDT by TEXASPROUD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TEXASPROUD

P.S. Artesia is in north Eddy County.


20 posted on 05/19/2010 8:45:59 PM PDT by TEXASPROUD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Thank you Mr Statist Tyrant!

Parting with cash is the most effective way to direct cities to restrain their loose cannons.

The cop in this case was clearly attempting to provoke an incident (unsuccessfully this time). Better screening methods need to be in place for recruiting of police.
.


21 posted on 05/19/2010 8:50:58 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Thank you ever so much for posting this interesting civics lesson. I’m glad it all worked out OK.


22 posted on 05/19/2010 8:56:03 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug

Post #4 is the best summation of what American police should be, compared to those cops in America who model themselves on the State Police of the commie part of the world, that I have yet read.


23 posted on 05/19/2010 8:57:44 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dayman

Says who?
That’s the point.

I want facts. You want to go off half cocked.

Doesn’t anyone think anymore?

Read it again. Did I excuse the cops’ actions? No. I called for an investigation.


24 posted on 05/19/2010 9:01:42 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

“I don’t see where the guy rated any cash either way.”

I must disagree. There was no need to be so aggressively “Cop-ly”, and the man’s family was unnecessarily traumatized.

Worse yet, the basic assumption, that a cop is justified in just about anything, ‘cause a cop’s life is more valuable than a mere citizen’s life, needs to be brought forth and then discredited.

I am for any damages being assessed against the offending cops, not the taxpayers. Only if the jury awards more than the cops have should the employers of the cops (the citizens) have to pay.


25 posted on 05/19/2010 9:02:19 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mlocher
Yes, but that didn't happen. The judicial system is what didn't get involved. What did happen sounds like a shakedown letter and a pay off...something an insurance carrier does because litigation costs more.

If it wasn't a shakedown and pay off, was there a written apology? A reprimand? An investigation? Will these same officers, if they acted improperly, act again the same way on the next check lane? Will the next person know their rights? Has it happened before? Who will know now?

More facts needed but not, apparently, on this thread for some Code Orange Freepers.

But thank you for your thoughtful, rational reply.

26 posted on 05/19/2010 9:11:12 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“Thank you Mr Statist Tyrant!”

Banging your pocket Constitution on your keyboard while you type, are you? Perhaps while waiting for the Depakote to kick in, you missed this part of the post:

“If the cops were out of line, then they need to be investigated and disciplined. Were they? If they acted inappropriately, had they done this other times? If they acted in violation of state law, under color of authority, was that a crime under New Mexico law?”

Hmmm, I want the incident looked into to see if there was a problem, was it a pattern, was it a violation of law, and you want the insurance company to write a check and have business as usual. I also want additional facts and you are hunky dory with one person’s version with the other side not even needing to be heard.

Definitely Code Orange Freeper material.


27 posted on 05/19/2010 9:19:08 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

The facts, as presented, don’t show even by the man’s statements where he suffered any loss nor deserved any money. What damages can you indicate? If the officers acted unprofessionally or illegally, they need to be disciplined or fired.

The man indicated no financial loss and there was no court action or jury. What was alluded to was a lawyer wrote a letter and the city cut a check. Once again under a certain threshhold, the city doesn’t even have a say, that is the insurance carrier’s call.

Your cop views as stated are a strawman and not germane to this incident. There just aren’t enough facts and only one side of the incident is presented.

As for civil liability, the cops are liable if they act outside of policy and law and can be personally sued in addition to their agency. They aren’t immune, at least in my state.


28 posted on 05/19/2010 9:25:31 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Why do you assume that Money changed hands as a result of the “Settlement Agreement”? There is no mention of cash in the Post.

There are other Remedies that can be asked for.

Training and Discipline come to mind.

Yes, attorney Fees as well.


29 posted on 05/19/2010 9:57:24 PM PDT by SwedeBoy2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SwedeBoy2

“already signed the settlement papers. Just waiting for the check to clear.”

(Easy to miss with no paragraphs.)

But, the remedies may not be deserved. Only one side of the story was presented.


30 posted on 05/19/2010 11:11:50 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
You described it as a shake down. That is patently incorrect. The fact that the town settled out of court with so little effort shows that they knew they were guilty and didn’t have a leg to stand on. It also means that the victim should have asked for a lot more.

Nothing I stated was emotional. The cop was wrong on the law and violated the victims rights. While that should be punishable by years in prison, the best he can do is cost the agency some money. The supreme court has been very clear on the issue of open carry.

There was an investigation and it wasn’t favorable. Otherwise they wouldn’t be paying a settlement.

31 posted on 05/20/2010 5:19:07 AM PDT by Dayman (My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug
A few years ago I was pulled over by a city police officer and because I had my firearm with me, I was pretty darn nervous. When I handed over my Drivers lic., ins. reg. and my CCW permit, I immediately informed him that I had a firearm and did he want to see it. He said no and that he didn't need to see my permit either. Twice I asked him "are you sure".

The guy was really cool about it but still gave me a ticket.

For what it's worth, your license plate is flagged with the fact that you are a CCW permit holder...........So When the officer ran my plate in his onboard computer prior to coming up to my car, he already knew I had the permit.

32 posted on 05/20/2010 5:33:41 AM PDT by Hot Tabasco (Peanut butter was just peanut butter until I found Free Republic.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dayman

“You described it as a shake down. That is patently incorrect. The fact that the town settled out of court with so little effort shows that they knew they were guilty and didn’t have a leg to stand on. It also means that the victim should have asked for a lot more.”

Incorrect on all counts.
1. I said it sounded like a shakedown. You say: “That is patently incorrect.” You have no facts to support that, just opinion. I qualified my statement, you did not.
2. “The fact that the town settled out of court with so little effort shows...” My posts indicate that under a certain amount insurance carriers, not governmnetal bodies make the decision. You choose to ignore that. Therefore your opinion, once again, is unsupported. You have no facts to indicate anything.
3. “The cop was wrong on the law and violated the victim’s rights...” Says the supposed “victim.” Only one side was presented, therefore you have no facts here either. What actually happened might have been completely different than was reported. I find it odd for people who want to put the cops in prison for years (for what?), miss the point that the man wasn’t pulled from the car immediately by the cops but asked to drive himself out of line. If the cops were all that thugish, do you think they would have let the man drive to where they were going to violate his rights?
4. “There was an investigation and it wasn’t favorable. Otherwise they wouldn’t be paying a settlement.” Says who? So many assumptions. Who was investigated? What was the result? What was the settlement? How much? Was there an apology? Was there a reprimand? Did the guy pay the ticket? Did the insurance carrier pay the amount? Did the city admit fault? Did this even happen?

You are pretty much working in a fact free zone. You don’t even need a helmet. No danger of hurting your head on one. I qualified my statements and asked for more facts. I said what it sounded like, not what it was. You had no problem seeing only one side and not the objective truth. Don’t you see how other people can do the same but on topics such as the border, global warming,being green, “social justice”, etc.?
Play devil’s advocate once in a while. Look for facts. If they aren’t there, call for them. If they won’t be found, qualify your statements.


33 posted on 05/20/2010 6:59:00 AM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

I didn’t miss a single statist bit of your post.

The fact that the city turned it over to the insurance co to pay is sufficient proof that the claim was viewed by staff as valid.

Get over your knee-jerk leftist tendencies; there is life after freedom.
.


34 posted on 05/20/2010 8:36:11 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Then you didn’t miss how insurance carriers make the call under a certain dollar figure. You chose to ignore it because it discredits your view.

All the rest is immature name calling by an spoiled person and of no importance.


35 posted on 05/20/2010 10:29:53 AM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Carry on Mr O’Tyranny.

As I stated on another post, some cops just shouldn’t be cops. It would be great if the rank and file officers would cull their own ranks, but in this respect cops are no different than convicts; snitches are taken care of.

It is sad that the insurance had to bail this punk out. The city’s premiums will rise to cover the cost, plus profit, I’m sure.
.


36 posted on 05/20/2010 4:06:33 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

You can’t fix stupid.
You have nothing to base your opinion on but gossip, your own prejudice, and a good display of you lack of character.

What’s the difference between you and the Duke University professors that protested against the Lacrosse players with no facts? NOTHING. Same lack of thinking. Well pity for you but, oh well.


37 posted on 05/20/2010 4:51:33 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

I suggest that you get sober before further posting.

That won’t fix your stupidity, but it might give you better judgment. The testimony of the victim of the crime is what you rail against. I suppose that might be nothing to one of your ilk.


38 posted on 05/20/2010 4:59:15 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Well, since you have nothing to add, and are devolved to childish behavior and constructing straw men, what else is there?
Reading over the posts I called for an investigation to determine the facts. If the investigation showed impropriety, then discipline or even criminal investigation. (first post even: #10.)

It’s there in black and white. Important to an honest man. Not, apparently to you. That’s your character. Goodnight Nifong.


39 posted on 05/20/2010 5:48:19 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

There was nothing for you to comment on.

The facts were stated plainly; the remediation was swift and just; it offended your hatred for justice.

What’s new?

You’ve become so predictably boring.
.


40 posted on 05/20/2010 7:54:18 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

What facts?
What remediation?
What swiftness?
What justice?
What hatred of justice by me?

You have nothing but strawmen and mischaracterizations. Wanting something to be so, doesn’t make it so.

You fail and continue to do so. I can continue to call you on it. It doesn’t take any effort.


41 posted on 05/20/2010 8:12:49 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I’ve also had a few experiences with law enforcement that id like to share and I believe is useful. I’m from Albuquerque but I’ve been living in Virginia and North Carolina following work. I’m a big gun enthusiast and usually carry in my vehicle for personal protection. This incident was in September of 2010. It was in the small town of Fletcher, NC. Some friends and myself were going on a camping trip over the weekend and we were going to drive my truck up the mountain to where we would camp. I had six firearms with me because we were going to target shoot during that time. I had the rifles and shotguns in cases in the bed of the truck and my handgun was (UNLOADED)in a holster in the bed as well. I have a 1978 F250 single cab and its jacked up and has been restored. My point being it draws a lot of attention. There were five of us. Three in the front and two in the bed
(all of which were of age). I pulled onto the town road, after about 5 min I saw blue lights so I pulled off on a little off road to get off the main road. I stopped and the officer came up to the end of my truck and asked me to step out. I understand the first thing you are supposed to say if your carrying a gun is tell the cop about it. Which I should have done before I opened my door, my mistake. But I thought yelling out that there were guns in the vehicle with five people would agitate him so I figured id go back there and tell him at that point. Lesson learned!! My trucks interior is Rhino Lined so things slide around when I’m driving and it just so happened that when I opened my door an empty pistol mag fell out onto the street. He turned around and saw it so I went ahead and kicked it back onto the side of the road so it would not be run over. At this point he started to ask the two girls in the bed of the truck where the gun was. He was understandably nervous. so I went and put my hands up in the bed of the truck and told him they were in the bed. He then instructed everyone to get their hands in the air. he asked one of the girls where it was and she started to point to where it was. He then pulled his gun and pointed it in the direction of the two individuals in the back and called for backup. In about 45 seconds two more squad cars were at the scene and he then instructed everyone to get out of the vehicle. He trusted me because I had remained calm and respectful during this thing so he told me to climb up in the bed and get the gun. I picked it up with my pinkie by the trigger guard and handed it to him and told him who it was registered to seeing I am under the age of 21 and cannot purchase a handgun from a registered dealer. He told me that I wasn’t even supposed to have the handgun in my possession being that I was not 21 years of age. I told him that I wasn’t intending to create any problems but it was my understanding that I could have it as long as I was 18 or older. He said that I was wrong and that he would go back to his car and look up the law for me. At this time he had calmed down and the other police officers were talking to the rest of my friends. After about 10 min he called me over to his cruiser and pointed something out on the computer that had something to do with conceal carry. Even though it was out of direct reach and access of the girls in the back he said it was still considered concealed. He never mentioned anything about the “law” that said I wasn’t supposed to have the handgun. He was very nice to us after that. He gave me my handgun back and said he liked it very much and would have loved to keep it but he acknowledged that I was within my rights. He asked what the other guns were that were in the cases. He said he was just curious and that they were fine because they were in cases. Among others I mentioned the AR-15 and he didn’t even care. he just said “you’ve got a good collection and you seem to be a law abiding citizen and we like to see that in kids your age” he told me good luck and happy camping. He said he was very impressed with my knowledge of the law. I told him of my future goals in law enforcement and he said if I ever needed any advice to call him or if I ever had any problems with anyone else in NC with my guns to give him a call and he’d vouch for me. At first I thought this guy was going to be the typical bully cop and not listen to anything I had to say which id imagine would have been the case. But he said my polite attitude and respect for authority helped me out more than an arguementive attitude would have. A big thanks to Fletcher Police Dept. I sincerely believe that if I had been pulled over by the State Police I would have done some unlawful jail time. I was pulled over for my plate lights being out.
I understand there are officers that do not remember that they swore to serve and protect. But we cant forget that we have people out there that do care about our country and rights. We must support these cops because it seems as though its not a popular thing in law enforcement to really help people. Also if we expect to retain the right to bear arms we have to show ourselves responsible. It is a great privilege that not many other countries share anymore but this is why America is great. “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson
It is so important that all Americans vote for your local Sheriff. It sounds like a little thing but most Americans do not realize that your Sheriff has more power in your county than the President. Our forefathers set it up this way as a check and balance so that governors, senators, politicians and even the president would never have so much power to rule your very existence.
Last month (November 2010) I had another incident, this time with the North Carolina State Police. I had been in a construction accident in which I almost lost my thumb. I had been to the doctor and he put 25 stitches in the thing. He told me that if it started to bleed again within 24 hours I should go straight to the ER. that was at 10 pm. the next morning I saw that it was bleeding through the bandage so I took the thing off and blood started to squirt everywhere because I had cut the artery. I jumped in my truck and put the emergency lights and took off. The speed limit was 35mps and I was going from 45 to 50mph. I passed an unmarked trooper going in the opposite direction, I saw him hit his breaks so I pulled over and waited for him. He pulled up and I held my hand up to where he could see the problem. He immediately got out of the car and came up. He asked me what the problem was so I unwrapped the bandage to where he could see it without letting blood go all over the place. he said that any injury did not condone going “64 in a 35”. I told him that I had already lost a lot of blood and I didn’t have time to argue but I told him I didn’t believe I was going 64. he then asked for my license and registration and went back to his car. he took about 10 min. by then my clothes were covered in blood. He proceeded to tell me that “ In the state of North Carolina we have something called an ambulance service”. he said I should use it next time. He handed me a ticket stating that I was going 65 in a 35 and said I had to show up In court December 6. Long story short I hired a lawyer and went to court. I didn’t get a court hearing and my lawyer said that my only choice was to go with 49 in a 35 and take a point on my record. This being my first traffic violation. The DA was very unreasonable. Looking back the reason they took care of my case in the back room during court recess was because they knew it would make them look bad in court. Especially with the pictures I took right after I unwrapped my hand when I got to the hospital after being pulled over. I was very disappointed in the $250 I spent on the lawyer. I went to the Fletcher police station and told the Police chief there what happened. He simply told me that some officers forget their pledge to protect and serve the people of the United States. He said that’s not how he would have wanted any of his men to handle things but there’s nothing we could do about it. Again I’m not degrading law enforcement as a whole or the State Police. Every agency has cops in it that are nothing more than high school bullies that graduated and found a way to make an occupation at seeing other people suffer. I hope and pray that when I make my way into the world and make steps to become law enforcement officer myself that I wont forget my duties to the people. The people is what makes this great country and I hope to God it can withstand the evils that wishes to prevail over all that which is good.
Again a big thanks to the Fletcher Police Dept, Hendersonville Sheriffs Dept, and all law enforcement agencies. We all do really appreciate your dedication to uphold the Constitution and serve your fellow man.

I apologize for the length of this, random thoughts, and also for the lack of good grammer.


42 posted on 01/06/2011 1:41:16 PM PST by americanheart78 (18 and American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanheart78

Thank you for relating your experiences. This is how we learn about reality from others.


43 posted on 01/06/2011 7:17:21 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson