[ray9898]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

Georgia only has trespass in structures but no trespass on property???

No....you can be trespassed from either. He is apparently just interpreting that statement wrong.

[RussP]

Posted on GPDO at 7:49 pm:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger

My walk at Pirkle Park this AM was refreshing, the weather cool, and the people I met were friendly.

In response to the question "I'm curious if you carried or not?" he posted

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger

I have not been banned from the park, or at least I've received no notice of such.

[RussP]

Could someone in LE please confirm that with NCIC 2000, the required date format for DOB changed to YYYYMMDD.

Other than the military, is anyone using DDMMYYYY?

Let me edit my post.

Other than the military using the dd Month yy format, is anyone else using a date format placing the day first, then a numerical month and then the year?

Okay, the first question was rhetorical... NCIC 2000 did establish the yyymmdd format.

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by Bren

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.

He left off some things that some judges may not allow and make him redo the Complaint. But I have found that the courts in many areas have become more tolerant to errors in the past ten years or so. I wish him luck.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by RussP

After reading them, do you still hold that "anything anyone did to him after that was wrong?"

Hard to read but as best I can, yes.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by RussP

Could someone in LE please confirm that with NCIC 2000, the required date format for DOB changed to YYYYMMDD.

Other than the military, is anyone using DDMMYYYY?

Well, it seems Fallschirmjäger wants to respond to posts here on GT, but only on GPDO.

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger

I don't know about the first question but as to the second...

Countries using MM/DD/YY
United States, Belize, Micronesia, Palau


Countries using DD/MM/YY
Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Hong Kong, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg, Macau, Macedonia, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States military (dd Month yy, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen.

So, ... pretty much the rest of the Civilized World with the exception of most Asian countries that use the YY/MM/DD format (but even that has month before day.)

Since you do not live in any of those other countries, wouldn't you want to adhere to the standards used here in The United States of America?

Also, you said earlier that you still use the military format for dates placing the day first, month second then year. That's good, however in your list of countries using DD/MM/YY, when you get to the entry for United States military, it says "dd Month yy", "Month" meaning spell out the month - 12 May 1958. Is that how you entered your DOB on your application, dd Month yy, or did you enter dd/mm/yy? If you entered dd Month yy, then you have a beef with the issuing County, too.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Hard to read but as best I can, yes.

What about the fact that when his name and DOB on the license was entered into NCIC and GCIC, there was no such person with that name and that DOB?

Are you saying that confirming the existence of that person with that DOB was wrong, too?

[G23Gen4TX]

The guy didn't know the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody. He should go to Jail for that.

[RussP]

Okay, it appears the more vocal participants in this thread have left the GT thread in favor of the GPDO thread I mentioned earlier.

While not participating in the GT thread, they started quoting GT posts there at Page 25 - http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/...1909&start=480

Or, you can start at the end and read forward... or backwards...whatever.http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/...1909&start=720

If you come over and choose to join the discussion. please, post with the civility just as you would here on GT.

AND, remember, GT Rules prohibit demeaning posts about other forums and absolutely forbids inter-site flame wars. DO NOT DO IT.

Thanks!!

[RustyS]

The reason a Cop wants ID is to run you for outstanding warrants.

Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge

I'm a career firefighter for a Big "West Coast 7" City up here in the NorthWest, and I work in the south "culturally diverse" side of that city... so I get to see you guys and gals in blue on alot of the same runs (I've pulled many taser darts out of your "customers"). I have seen the kind of people you have to deal with... Basically I "get it", just judging from the photo, I'm not inviting Christopher Proescher to my back yard BBQ either.

What I don't get is why these OC confrontations always wind up in a @!$$!#& contest to get the OCer to show ID.

I don't personally OC, but I have several friends who do (one of whom has actually had one of these "Papers Please" encounters). With minor variations, it's always the same story -

• · Nervous Nellie citizen calls 911 to report OC'er

• · Cop shows up, knows OC is perfectly legal but wants to see ID - "To ensure the scene is safe" (like that will prove anything).

• · OC'er just happens to be a Ron Paul libertarian who knows his rights (go figure!). He says something like : "Given the fact that I'm not driving, and am not required to carry my Drivers License when I'm a pedestrian, what kind of ID would you like to see officer?"

• · Situation either escalates into an arrest for some creative infraction ('cause the initial reason for contact - OC, is legal) OR either OC'er or cop capitulates.

The basic point is that the OC'er isn't breaking the law, so I'll just ask; "Why the need to ID?...What will it prove?" I don't want to get into a big discussion about social psychology and the need to establish Alpha dominance, so I'll circumvent that issue and simply ask - Wouldn't it be pretty easy to articulate the rationale for complete inaction in this case?

You arrive on scene to investigate an OC complaint and witness an adult male carrying an expensive firearm in a quality holster openly on his belt... he's clearly not a "banger", or a 220 nutjob. He's just "That Guy", the passionate gun enthusiast making his statement (one I know drives a minivan... sheesh). If we input the details of this scenario into the critical thinking - Street Smart section of our grey matter, the output would clearly be..... 'This Person Is Not a Threat'... and as an added bonus they weren't even breaking the law in the 1st place! They could win the prize of NOT even being contacted by Law Enforcement today!

Feel free to stop by the station and use the restroom, just don't raid the fridge!

My .02

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by RustyS

The reason a Cop wants ID is to run you for outstanding warrants.

I fully agree. How many times have we seen killers get away from leo because the computers were down or the cops didn't wait 'til the checks came back. It makes sense to check people for warrants even if it is intrusive.

[OlliesRevenge]

Originally Posted by RustyS

The reason a Cop wants ID is to run you for outstanding warrants.

Uh... yeah, I'm aware of that.

This debate just got flogged in over 300 posts to date. Knowledgeable people on both sides made some very lucid arguments... and you felt the need to add this? Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but based solely on what you wrote here I cannot even tell which side you are on.

[OlliesRevenge]

Originally Posted by JuneyBooney

I fully agree. ...It makes sense to check people for warrants even if it is intrusive.

ID checks and searches in the absense of RAS? It doesn't make sense in this country. I'll take freedom over safety... safety is just an illusion anyway.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by RustyS

The reason a Cop wants ID is to run you for outstanding warrants.

Partially. There's also the need to accurately report what happened. "On this date, I investigated a complaint and made contact with some guy" is considered bad form.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by RussP

I'm curious, what does that have to do with an arrest for trespassing?

Same question for a different portion of the incident. While I understand the debate / discussion on the DOB issues, what is the relevance to the arrest itself?

I understand that it may have resulted in him being detained for 12 hours (IIRC). And I'm not sure that anyone is claiming that it is related to the arrest itself. However since it was so heavily discussed, just curious whether there is any relevance to the arrest itself.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Same question for a different portion of the incident. While I understand the debate / discussion on the DOB issues, what is the relevance to the arrest itself?

He provided his GFL as ID.

Originally Posted by jdavionic

I understand that it may have resulted in him being detained for 12 hours (IIRC).

The trepassing complaint by the security guard resulted in his arrest.

Originally Posted by jdavionic

And I'm not sure that anyone is claiming that it is related to the arrest itself.

Not yet...

Originally Posted by jdavionic

However since it was so heavily discussed, just curious whether there is any relevance to the arrest itself.

That would have to, and should, come directly from the arresting officer.

Right now, absent additional information, arrest followed the guard submitting a written statement about the incident and advising "Cpl. Kimsey that he wanted to press charges for criminal trespass," according to Officer Bell's report.

[rmodel65]

911 call to the police dept from the security officer

911 call to the police dept from the security officer

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by rmodel65

911 call to the police dept from the security officer

Well that was certainly interesting. So the reason given for calling the police was NOT because he approached the guy and he refused to leave. In fact at the time he called the police, he had not even attempted to make contact. He was calling the police because the guy had a gun in a park and he wanted to know -
1. whether that is legal to have a gun in the park
2. if so, whether the guy had a permit to carry the guy

However the report cites that the security guard had asked him to leave on a number of occassions and that he was being evasive. Perhaps these were past references; however this was likely a key factor in him being arrested this time...for trespassing. Kind of hard to make those assessments on the day of the incident when the guard clearly states that he has not attempted to make contact before calling the police.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Well that was certainly interesting. So the reason given for calling the police was NOT because he approached the guy and he refused to leave. In fact at the time he called the police, he had not even attempted to make contact. He was calling the police because the guy had a gun in a park and he wanted to know -
1. whether that is legal to have a gun in the park
2. if so, whether the guy had a permit to carry the guy

However the report cites that the security guard had asked him to leave on a number of occassions and that he was being evasive. Perhaps these were past references; however this was likely a key factor in him being arrested this time...for trespassing. Kind of hard to make those assessments on the day of the incident when the guard clearly states that he has not attempted to make contact before calling the police.

Did you understand from the police report that the reason for the call was "because he approached the guy and he refused to leave."

Officer Bell: "On 04-20-2012 at 1117 HRS I was dispatched to 6195 Austin Garner Road in reference to a suspicious person carrying a pistol. The complainant (Paul Hanna) who is a security guard for Plaza Security had called in reference to a suspicious person."

Ahhhh, "2. if so, whether the guy had a permit to carry the guy"...

I thought we carried firearms because the guy was too heavy to carry.

Sorry, but I had to...

[RussP]

So, I Google Paul Hanna and found a Paul Reid Hanna referenced in the Private Detectives & Security Agencies Meeting Minutes – July 29, 2010.

A meeting of The Georgia Board of Private Detective and Security Agencies was held on July 29, 2010 at 237 Coliseum Drive, Macon, Georgia John Villines, Chairman; called the meeting to order at 9:17 a.m.

[snip]

the Board voted to ratify the following licenses issued since the May 27, 2010 meeting:

56. PDSG044243 Hanna, Paul Reid Employee - Private Det/Security Guard Atlanta GA

Anyone else find more on Mr. Hanna, if in fact this is the same Paul Hanna...

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by RussP

Did you understand from the police report that the reason for the call was "because he approached the guy and he refused to leave."

My point is that the reason for the arrest is that the security guard claims he attempted to ask the guy to leave on a number of occassions (somewhere around line 35 of the report, IIRC) and that he was "being evasive". This discussion is the security guard's side of the story of events prior to the police arriving. The officer recorded the input from the security.

So how did the security guard ask him to leave and discover that he was being evasive when he had not even spoken with him prior to calling the police? That's my point.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

My point is that the reason for the arrest is that the security guard claims he attempted to ask the guy to leave on a number of occassions (somewhere around line 35 of the report, IIRC) and that he was "being evasive". This discussion is the security guard's side of the story of events prior to the police arriving. The officer recorded the input from the security.

So how did the security guard ask him to leave and discover that he was being evasive when he had not even spoken with him prior to calling the police? That's my point.

He spoke to him after he called the police and before they arrived.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by RussP

He spoke to him after he called the police and before they arrived.

Got it...thanks.

[RussP]

There will be more information forthcoming that will clarify even more of the details.

[glockfan2327]

after hearing the phone call , that security guard don't got any training or knowledge , he made a big mistake now taxpayer have to pay the price