Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by TBO, May 3, 2012.
A lot, if not most, of your posts beg further questions for either clarification or correction. You evidenced that with your response to "Are you going to pay?" Thanks for taking the bait.
Had you responded, "Thanks for the link. I subscribed and am waiting for the info by mail," That would have been received a lot better.
Your posts reflect a very idealistic view of how law enforcement works day to day, dealing with all types of individuals. Some are involuntarily the object of police scrutiny. Some are unwittingly so (meaning they got caught doing something someone else thought or knew was wrong). Others volunteer for the scrutiny, like Mr. Proescher.
While you want everyone treated like they are completely void of wrong doing, there have been a whole bunch of really bad people who initially act all innocent and pure. Even completely legal activity can generate suspicion. I know, you find that hard to believe.
Your insistence that the legal burden on the prosecution of innocent until proven guilty extends backwards out of the courtroom into the field is also wrong. Look it up.
Suspicion is a principal part of this incident. The security guard mistook carrying a handgun in a park for suspicious behavior. He needs his *** kicked for that, plain and simple.
Police arrived. Proescher provided his GWL. You want that to be the end of the story. The problem was, his name and the birthday as printed on the license did not match. Now that raises the suspicion flag right there. How long did it take for Proescher to tell them the problem? Well, first, according to the police report, he said it might be 12/5 or it might be 5/12. Run the evasive answer flag up under the suspicion flag.
Of course, he was under no obligation to make the officer's job any easier. As a matter of fact, it's his right to not cooperate in clearing up the matter with a little piece of information. As a few others said in this thread, this might have been over very quickly if he had explained the date difference. But, no, he didn't.
I have a question as to how his behavior with the police officers influenced the security guard's decision to pursue the trespass charges. It wasn't until the end of the 50+ minute time line that he, the guard, provided the written statement and said he wanted Proescher arrested.
Now, you want the cops to talk the complainant out of his decision. That is, as someone said, above and beyond their duties, and Proescher had used up all the 'above and beyond' in the prior 50 minutes.
Most all, if not all cops here in CI and CT have cut people breaks even when the voice in their head said not to. There was a thread about that over in Cop Talk. It happens, but it requires positive input on the part of the individual under scrutiny. Proescher did not offer and positive inpu into the situation.
I know, like kwikrnu, he did nothing illegal. He was completely within his Rights. That is maybe true, but ONLY IF the guard lied about asking him multiple times to leave and he refused. It also depends on what he was doing while talking on his phone in the parking lot, which is still within the boundaries of the park.
We'll see when you receive your sign-in info from Pacer and post the complaint. Thanks in advance for doing that.
you'd be mistaken...you'd be mistaken again on the second comment too....
Do yourself a favor. Go back and re-read the reports.
One officer states he was evasive in giving his DOB. The other officer states he gave his DOB when asked. One officers statement directly conflicts that of his partner officer.
So which was it? Was he being evasive, or did he answer? Who do we believe?
So, you are saying that all reports written by different officers who were doing different tasks during an encounter, who may not be in close proximity to a suspect 100% of the time, that all their reports should say the very same thing?
You did notice in the reports that the officers were moving to and from their own patrol cars, not always in contact with Proescher, didn't you?
You did notice that different officers attempted to get information from Proescher at different times, didn't you?
Oh, and the officers, they arrived at different times, too.
Did you glean any of that information from the reports?
Oh, yeah, and are you saying that Proescher was never evasive? If so, why did it take 50+ minutes to get the information from him.
50+ mins was from the initial encounter with the security guard is it not???
Yes, I did. I noticed a lot. Quit dodging the issue, as you accused me of doing.
Did one officer state that he was evasive in giving DOB?
Did the other officer not state that when asked, he gave his DOB?
Every person on here has stated that he was evasive in giving DOB, and has pointed out that the police reports back this up. Yet every time I point out that they actually conflict on this, suddenly someone brings up another subject and dodges the question.
So now I'm playing by your rules.
Answer the question!
Giving "a" DOB isn't the same as giving "the" DOB.
Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2
Officer A's interaction could have been that the subject was evasive.
Officer B's interaction could have been that the subject was cooperative with him.
It's fairly obvious you've never done this type of thing, else you might recognize the following as true, and why real live officers don't see a discrepancy:
Time frames involved in different officers speaking to subject
Subject may have responded better to one officer, than the other (quite common)
Subject may have gotten tired of his games, and gave his info quicker to the other officer.
Of course, none of those play into the "cops are bad, they lie, and much like H&K, hate me) view of life....so, I can understand why you'd not see it like that.
I'm still waiting for an answer. It's yes or no. Nothing else.
YOu know what, don't bother.
I'm banning myself.
I live in an open carry state that is very gun friendly - maybe the most gun friendly state there is (more than Texas or Alaska). Due to my job, I know plenty of "well dressed professional people." I',m also around shooters quite a bit. Even on the rare occasion I see an OCer, I have never...NEVER,,,seen a "well dressed professional" who was either an OC activist or OCIng for any reason.
I find your claim very hard to believe.
The most recent OCers I have seen - in about 2010 there was a biker at the parts counter of my nearest Harley dealership wearing a gun in the open, but unless standard biker doo rag, dirty jeans, leather vest, etc., is well dressed, he wasn't. A few years fbefore that, I saw a guy in the hunting section of Walmart wearing a Glock in a OWB kydex holster in the open. He was wearing ordinary jeans and T shirt. The last OCer I can recall before them was a somewhat "mentally challenged" (literally - drew a disability check for it - not making fun) man in a small town in eastern KY who asked the sheriff if it was legal for him to carry a gun and then started wearing a revolver in an old school holster, slung way down around his hips, every day. I doubt he could read and he wasn't that well dressed.
That will save you a lot of trouble repeating the same thing over and over and ignoring the answers.
Yep, according to Proescher, the recording that he neither confirms nor denies exists...
However, in this post, Proescher says:
inferring that the encounter with the officers, "...on their part...", lasted nearly an hour.
You will sometimes see people OC'ing here, myself included. I cannot claim to be a "well-dressed" individual most times when OC'ing since I am typically riding a bike when I carry in that manner or I'm either about to go hunting or returning from hunting. However I have OC'd at other times in just business casual clothing. And I've seen people here & there that are dressed in a similar manner.
Point being, I don't think your observations there apply in other locations...certainly not in mine.
Here is the complaint (all public document, available to anybody) - no answers have been filed yet:
Not a bad complaint, but it is one side of the story, told in the way considered most beneficial to that side, after having days or weeks to think about it. Unfortunately, it could be months or years before summary judgment brings out both sides in detail.
I may have missed this in the thread, but reading the complaint makes me think...is elandil actually Proescher? The argument elandil was clinging to, for no good reason, sounds like something he read and partially misunderstood, from the complaint his lawyer wrote.
As has been pointed out to you, all three officers had interaction with Proescher. Officer Bell was lead. Officer Dantzler was first backup. Cpl Kimsey was another backup.
Officer Bell wrote about his interaction with Proescher. He said, "I then asked what his date of birth was and he stated that it was 05-12-1958."
Officer Dantsler wrote, "I returned and asked the subject what state issued his driver's license and he said, "I'm not driving." I told him I wasn't asking if he was driving, but if he had an issued driver's license and he again told me that he was not driving. I asked the subject...I asked him for his date of birth again and he said, "What does it say on my permit?" I told him that his information from his permit did not return during the NCIC/GCIC check. I asked him for his date of birth again and he said that it could be December 5th or May 12th. The date of birth on Mr. [redacted on report] permit was 12/05/1958. Mr. [redacted on report] asked if we had a fingerprint rapid ID scanner..."
Reading the two reports, it is clear that Officer Dantzler had the most interaction with Mr. Proescher regarding his birth date. Wouldn't you agree?
Consider this, elandil. After Officer Dantzler went back to his car, after Proescher said it could be December 5th or May 12th, that Officer Bell asked him which one is it, to which Proescher gave his direct answer 05-12-1958. Isn't that a possibility?
Now, of course, if Proescher did indeed record everything, and the unedited recording shows a different sequence over the "nearly hour-long discussion," well, that changes things.
But, then, if this happened as rapidly as you would like us to believe by simply relying on Officer Bell's report and totally ignoring Officer Dantzler's report, why the nearly hour-long discussion? Oh, Proescher said the discussion was "discussion of firearms (or at least questions on their part)" Huh?
So, there's my answer.
Reading through the complaint number 35 sticks out to me... "Am I being detained?"