DBMA Martial Arts Forum > Martial Arts Topics
Knife Law
JDN:
--- Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 24, 2008, 07:07:02 AM ---"Another interesting question might have been, if I was stopped by the officer in LA and he noticed my 6" screwdriver on the seat next to me; what would he do? Probably nothing, but IF he asked, "what is the screwdriver for?" and I said, "self defense", he would be entitled to arrest me for having a dagger longer than 3" (LA City Limit).
"But the issue still is not "intent". The issue is whether the instrument is legal to carry or not."
Disagree. By your own words it is precisely the intent that turns it into a dagger.
As for the right to not answer, I suppose so-- but I submit that an answer the equivalent of "I don't have to tell you" is likely to heighten the LEO's propensity to make all the negative inferences he can and act upon them. Yes?
--- End quote ---
Actually no; it was not my words that turned it into a dagger; it already by definition was a dagger, i.e. a sharp pointy thing; however it is up to the officer's judgment whether he was looking at an illegal weapon; i.e. a dagger longer than 3" in LA jurisdiction. I understand your point, and perhaps I am splitting hairs; BUT if I has said nothing, or if I had said, "I am fixing my front door" he still would have the right to arrest me for having an illegal weapon (dagger longer than 3"). It is the item itself, the dagger, that is illegal, not my intent.
And yes, it is likely to heighten the LEO's propensity to make negative inferences if I am vague or refuse to answer. So? If I am carrying nothing illegal, i.e. only a baseball bat he can huff and puff, and maybe waste some of my time, but what else can he do?
Let me give you an example. As a hobby/business I really like photography. I usually shoot people; individuals. I was at the Van Nuys Courthouse last week for court business, but I brought my camera; I like watching people outside court. But maybe I should have brought a gun, it would have been easier to explain. As I entered, the rent a cop said, "No cameras allowed" to me. I said, "No, the sign says, "no taking pictures, I don't intend to take a picture inside the Courthouse and the camera/lens cost over 10k so you can't have it." The Sheriff came, we discussed it, and it was agreed I could keep the camera. I testified at a trial, did my job, and went outside the courthouse, had a nice cigar and cup of coffee. I then began shooting (camera, I forget this is a martial art forum) individuals.
Sheriff comes up to me and yells, "Stop". "Why" I say? He said, "it's illegal to take pictures". I said, "No, it's illegal to take pictures inside the courthouse, but outside is fair game.". He huffed and he puffed. We argued, I asked for his supervisor, and the Senior Deputy, while not very happy (we were both polite and courteous) agreed that I have every right to take pictures of people outside the courthouse. My long (sorry) point? The law is the law; obey it, but if you are within your rights and are obeying the law and have nothing to hide, do not fear or be concerned about the erroneous opinion or negative inferences of a police officer.
Bandolero:
The different states have a multitude of views on this overall topic.
Virginia, for example, has no length of blade law except for on school grounds (then it is 3").
Maryland, has no length law but it is up to the individual officer to decide whether he/she thinks you are up to no good, at which point you can be arrested. So one cop might not have a problem with you carrying a 6" Bowie on you, and another might lock you up for a 3 1/2" folder. This is one of the reasons I generally recommend people reconsider packing an all black military looking throat slitter.
In NY carrying a screwdriver can also be considered carrying burglar's tools if the overall situation crosses into that articulable threshold. If you are caught by the police peering into the back windows of a house at night, with a screwdriver, that could be enough for possession of burglar's tools.
I think JDN's response to Crafty on a couple of issues is basically a solid one. However...
--- Quote ---Let me give you an example. As a hobby/business I really like photography. I usually shoot people; individuals. I was at the Van Nuys Courthouse last week for court business, but I brought my camera; I like watching people outside court. But maybe I should have brought a gun, it would have been easier to explain. As I entered, the rent a cop said, "No cameras allowed" to me. I said, "No, the sign says, "no taking pictures, I don't intend to take a picture inside the Courthouse and the camera/lens cost over 10k so you can't have it."
--- End quote ---
Having had to help draft these types of polices, I can attest to the importance of absolute specificity and clarity. I suspect the prevailing courthouse rules are "no taking of pictures", not "no possession of cameras."
--- Quote ---The law is the law; obey it, but if you are within your rights and are obeying the law and have nothing to hide, do not fear or be concerned about the erroneous opinion or negative inferences of a police officer.
--- End quote ---
Certainly not a personal policy I would encourage but to each his own. There are ways to deal with people who want to get all Donkey Kong. From the moment somebody takes that attitude, they have to be right every time. The cop only has to be right once. I won't go into tactics and techniques, but I have personally dealt with people wanting to show their ass in a most satisfactory and very satisfying manner (as in I left the courthouse that Friday night and had a beer, and they got to go to the Baltimore city Jail).
JDN:
I think JDN's response to Crafty on a couple of issues is basically a solid one. However...
--- Quote ---Let me give you an example. As a hobby/business I really like photography. I usually shoot people; individuals. I was at the Van Nuys Courthouse last week for court business, but I brought my camera; I like watching people outside court. But maybe I should have brought a gun, it would have been easier to explain. As I entered, the rent a cop said, "No cameras allowed" to me. I said, "No, the sign says, "no taking pictures, I don't intend to take a picture inside the Courthouse and the camera/lens cost over 10k so you can't have it."
--- End quote ---
Having had to help draft these types of polices, I can attest to the importance of absolute specificity and clarity. I suspect the prevailing courthouse rules are "no taking of pictures", not "no possession of cameras."
--- Quote ---The law is the law; obey it, but if you are within your rights and are obeying the law and have nothing to hide, do not fear or be concerned about the erroneous opinion or negative inferences of a police officer.
--- End quote ---
Certainly not a personal policy I would encourage but to each his own. There are ways to deal with people who want to get all Donkey Kong. From the moment somebody takes that attitude, they have to be right every time. The cop only has to be right once. I won't go into tactics and techniques, but I have personally dealt with people wanting to show their ass in a most satisfactory and very satisfying manner (as in I left the courthouse that Friday night and had a beer, and they got to go to the Baltimore city Jail).
[/quote]
Cold War Scout,
Maybe I misinterpreted your comment, but...
"Donkey Kong"? "show their ass"? hmmmm I think in the above post I mentioned that I was polite as was the Senior Deputy. And I broke no law; I just pointed out my legal rights. Actually, the only "ass" in the story was the initial Sheriff who huffed and puffed but didn't know his own "ass" about the law. I just listened to him and asked for his Supervisor. Maybe that's why he was the Supervisor...
So assuming similar legal circumstances in your example, "they went to Baltimore City Jail" on what bogus fictitious charge??? I don't know Baltimore Laws, but in LA, if you arrested and booked someone (who knows the law and has a few dollars) given the above scenario, before you finished your beers, he would be out of jail, also, most likely your personnel file would be negatively noted and you might even be suspended on Monday, plus the civil suit against the City/County would be for more than an LA Police/Sheriff makes in a year. Not good.
Police/Sheriff's are not above the law; their duty is to know and enforce the law; Police/Sheriff's don't make the Law. And it is the Public's responsibility to obey the law.
Bandolero:
--- Quote ---Police/Sheriff's don't make the Law.
--- End quote ---
No. But they get to interpret it.
Personally I never worried about getting sued. I could articulate and justify every single thing I ever did. And I did the things I thought needed doing without the slightest hesitation.
I did get sued one time (and only once) in the early 80s. For a million dollars! Man that was like badge of honor. The case was thrown out at the first hearing. Because when you bogusly claim you have been beaten to within an inch of your life at the time of arrest, then your booking photos should not show that you did not have a single scratch on you.
I did go major hands on a bandit once. Under your theory I should have been quivering in my shoes from his lawsuit. To him it was a badge of honor. Two days after the event, when he was in a cell in the facility and saw me, he started bragging to the others in the cell about the the ass whooping he got, and asked me to verify it to the others.
JDN:
--- Quote from: Cold War Scout on May 25, 2008, 07:49:26 AM ---
--- Quote ---Police/Sheriff's don't make the Law.
--- End quote ---
No. But they get to interpret it.
Personally I never worried about getting sued. I could articulate and justify every single thing I ever did. And I did the things I thought needed doing without the slightest hesitation.
I did get sued one time (and only once) in the early 80s. For a million dollars! Man that was like badge of honor. The case was thrown out at the first hearing. Because when you bogusly claim you have been beaten to within an inch of your life at the time of arrest, then your booking photos should not show that you did not have a single scratch on you.
I did go major hands on a bandit once. Under your theory I should have been quivering in my shoes from his lawsuit. To him it was a badge of honor. Two days after the event, when he was in a cell in the facility and saw me, he started bragging to the others in the cell about the the ass whooping he got, and asked me to verify it to the others.
--- End quote ---
Cold War Scout,
Ahhhh actually they (Police/Sheriff) DON'T get to interpret the Law; that's why we have Judges and maybe the DA's Office. But the Police/Sheriff? They simply enforce the law - it is NOT their prerogative to interpret it.
As for the lawsuit, I agree, don't worry, not your problem; here in LA the City pays with taxpayer's money. Frankly, I think the money really should come out of the Officer's personal assets. His mistake, it should be his "ass".
As for the "major hands on a bandit once", don't know about that, but maybe that is why LA Police Department still has the Feds looking over their shoulder and LA is spending millions on Federal Mandated Police Oversight and has awarded millions to citizens falsely manhandled and falsely arrested. Wasted taxpayer's dollars at work all because of a few rogue and publically vilified cops.
Kind of gives Police/Sheriff's a bad name, don't you think? I kind of feel sorry for the many outstanding ones like the Senior Deputy I mentioned.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version