Posted: 5/2/2009 2:51:38 PM EDT
|
Marietta pd is doing a fundraiser at the krispy kreme on 41, who's gonna OC? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Cops on Doughnut Shops
Krispy Kreme’s seventh annual “Cops on Doughnut Shops” is set for the first weekend in May in Atlanta.
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. will partner with Georgia police officers to raise money for the Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics Georgia. From 6 a.m. on May 1 to 6 p.m. on May 3, officers will collect donations from customers as they eat, sleep and play on the rooftops of 11 Georgia Krispy Kreme stores. Atlanta's 2008 Cops on Doughnut Shops event raised a record $90,000 for the Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics Georgia. The officers hope to raise $100,000 this year. Here are the Georgia Krispy Kreme stores participating in Cops on Doughnut Shops 2009: • Albany ––400 N. Slappey Blvd. • Athens –– 3703 Atlanta Highway • Atlanta –– 295 Ponce de Leon Avenue • Buford –– 3387 Buford Drive • Commerce –– 40103 Highway 441 South • Duluth –– 1550 Pleasant Hill Road • Lilburn –– 4129 Highway 78 • Marietta –– 299 Cobb Parkway • Roswell –– 791 Atlanta Street • Savannah –– 11506 Abercorn Street • Savannah –– 2749 Skidaway Road |
What's open carry got to do with donuts? I friggin' love donuts!  Does someone here have something against Krispy Kreme donuts!? 
I haven't seen one that I've had to shoot before I ate it. If I had to shoot it, don't think I'd eat it afterwards. I mean, deer and hogs taste great after I shoot 'em, but I'd be leery of a donut with that much life in it. Not sure how much donut would be left after I put a duty round of .357SIG GDHP into it, unless it went straight through the hole. Plus, I'd have to fill out all that paperwork for discharging my service weapon. Much better if I just find a donut that's lying there, non-ambulatory like. I was not aware that raising money for the Special Olympics was the forum for a political statement.  I mean, I'm as pro-2nd as the next guy. I'm part owner in a full-line firearms store that handles Class IIIl, and I own a Firearms/Tactics training school on the side where the vast majority of my students are civilians and non-LEO's. Let's not raise a ruckus at an event raising money for the Special Olympics, unless maybe folks think the retards have too much money and we need to show 'em who's boss! 
Of course, I have absolutely no problem with folks legally carrying a weapon (any weapon) at a Krispy Kreme, or anywhere else they go. Heck, I feel that things would be a lot safer and more civil if more responsible folks had firearms, and were proficient in their use. |
|
My post was written humorously, but was apparently a bit too dry. I never considered that someone would take me seriously when I wrote about shooting donuts with a .357SIG prior to ingesting them.
And, of course, if I am making a serious plea in support of the Special Olympics, I would use the word "retards"! Let's all lighten up! BTW, I can't stand jelly donuts! Hate 'em! Now, if the "HOT DONUTS" sign is on at the KK, I'll try and be there! 
|
|
I thought they gave my language the panache I was looking for! I need more smilies to work with! First I was too serious, now I can't use smilies correctly! I'm a goner!
Isn't one of the things that characterizes a dry wit being humorous without the guffaws and knee-slapping? |
|
I'm at a loss how something called a "smilie" can be serious. If I were to be drop dead serious, with an axe to grind, why would I want to add multi-colored little cartoon heads into my message?
I guess I could think to myself, "This baby-blue cartoon face will show folks how serious I am! I'll add a green one and a pink one as well, for added emphasis! Man, am I steamed!" I'll admit I was a bit puzzled at the beginning of this thread, but I assure you my reply was made in jest. I will try not to be as circumspect in my attempts at humor in the future; from now on it's balls-to-the-wall laughs and lots o' smilies! It's times like these that I realize why I never got into stand-up. Was I the one that was accused of being too serious earlier.........
(Did I use the correct smilie?) |
|
That shop is only a block or two from the major drug distribution center in the hood, so I guess OC would be appropriate.
If the hot donuts sign is on, I'm in. When I was young, a friend of mine and I stopped there around 3AM when the hot donuts were rolling out. I ate over a dozen donuts, and drank a quart of milk. I didn't $#!T for three days. |
| I had a PC hearing last year where I asked where in Cobb is not a high crime and drug traffic area and the guy just stared at me. Wasn't willing to list places in case I had other cases pending which would destroy PC. My guy left a QT after getting gas. The officer pulled him over because he was watching a black man in the QT parking lot too closely and observing a black male in a parking lot of a high crime and drug traffic area indicated in his experience the probability of drug possession and an impending drug deal. Held him on the side of the road for about 40 minutes where a drug dog alerted and a residue amount of a controlled substance was located. Judge at PC held that stop was reasonable and bound the case over. |
|
Quoted:
I had a PC hearing last year where I asked where in Cobb is not a high crime and drug traffic area and the guy just stared at me. Wasn't willing to list places in case I had other cases pending which would destroy PC. My guy left a QT after getting gas. The officer pulled him over because he was watching a black man in the QT parking lot too closely and observing a black male in a parking lot of a high crime and drug traffic area indicated in his experience the probability of drug possession and an impending drug deal. Held him on the side of the road for about 40 minutes where a drug dog alerted and a residue amount of a controlled substance was located. Judge at PC held that stop was reasonable and bound the case over. So basically your client had some controlled substance residue that the dog hit on in his vehicle, BUT it wasnt there because he was staring at the black guy in the parking lot? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I had a PC hearing last year where I asked where in Cobb is not a high crime and drug traffic area and the guy just stared at me. Wasn't willing to list places in case I had other cases pending which would destroy PC. My guy left a QT after getting gas. The officer pulled him over because he was watching a black man in the QT parking lot too closely and observing a black male in a parking lot of a high crime and drug traffic area indicated in his experience the probability of drug possession and an impending drug deal. Held him on the side of the road for about 40 minutes where a drug dog alerted and a residue amount of a controlled substance was located. Judge at PC held that stop was reasonable and bound the case over. So basically your client had some controlled substance residue that the dog hit on in his vehicle, BUT it wasnt there because he was staring at the black guy in the parking lot? Well the cops were at the QT the whole time. He never approached talked to or interacted with the black guy there. But looking at him was reason for a stop. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I had a PC hearing last year where I asked where in Cobb is not a high crime and drug traffic area and the guy just stared at me. Wasn't willing to list places in case I had other cases pending which would destroy PC. My guy left a QT after getting gas. The officer pulled him over because he was watching a black man in the QT parking lot too closely and observing a black male in a parking lot of a high crime and drug traffic area indicated in his experience the probability of drug possession and an impending drug deal. Held him on the side of the road for about 40 minutes where a drug dog alerted and a residue amount of a controlled substance was located. Judge at PC held that stop was reasonable and bound the case over. So basically your client had some controlled substance residue that the dog hit on in his vehicle, BUT it wasnt there because he was staring at the black guy in the parking lot? Well the cops were at the QT the whole time. He never approached talked to or interacted with the black guy there. But looking at him was reason for a stop. So he was said to have the controlled substance residue in his vehicle that the dog hit on and your client admits to that? BUT since your clinet was stopped for no apparent reason he should not be charged because they had no probable cause to stop him? And it basically boils down to an illegal search and seizure. Unfortunately I think this is one of those "technicalities" that we hear about .... and dont like ... but we want on our side when carrying a firearm and a LEO stops and asks for to see a GFL. |
|
Quoted:
So he was said to have the controlled substance residue in his vehicle that the dog hit on and your client admits to that? BUT since your client was stopped for no apparent reason he should not be charged because they had no probable cause to stop him? And it basically boils down to an illegal search and seizure. Unfortunately I think this is one of those "technicalities" that we hear about .... and dont like ... but we want on our side when carrying a firearm and a LEO stops and asks for to see a GFL. You got it. Except what you call a technicality, I call a fundamental right. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So he was said to have the controlled substance residue in his vehicle that the dog hit on and your client admits to that? BUT since your client was stopped for no apparent reason he should not be charged because they had no probable cause to stop him? And it basically boils down to an illegal search and seizure. Unfortunately I think this is one of those "technicalities" that we hear about .... and dont like ... but we want on our side when carrying a firearm and a LEO stops and asks for to see a GFL. You got it. Except what you call a technicality, I call a fundamental right. umm, now Doug, don't let the uninitiated go around ignorant of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion please. apparently the judge thought the officers properly articulated your client's suspicious drug-seeking behavior, lawfully stopped and detained him to investigate further, then had the dog indicate the probable cause for arrest. or i could be completely off-base and not have any idea what i'm talking about.
|
|
You are right I glossed over the difference in PC for arrest and RAS for the stop, but I did show there was valid PC for the arrest instead of leaving that part out.
I have a hard time believe that its reasonable to stop someone based on the articulation that they looked at a black man at the QT. The cop was reaching, the judge was reaching, all because something was found. But if nothing is found the judge doesn't hear about it so it's a catch 22. That's the way freedom is ultimately lost though. The basis is that it's a high crime and drug traffic area. Which might be ok if you can draw a map of the county and circle the areas. But if you can't say where and then suddenly everywhere is... it loses all meaning. I just wish judges would do their jobs in pushing to make sure some of the reasons thrown out in PC are solid and not just a catch phrase. You can spend a whole career trying to isolate and systematically attack where and where is not the "High crime and drug traffic areas". Problem is juries lose interest when you pour through old testimony by other officers about where crime is and isn't and judges just don't care. |
|
Yes, It appears, by your recount, that the PC for the arrest was the dog alerting on the controlled substance. The stop was based on the reasonable suspicion within the officers training and experience that criminal activity was afoot. Apparently he was right. No? Oh and I proclaim the perfect avatar for this thread!!!!!
|
|
reasonable suspicion my ass...
Does staring at a women in short skirt provide an LEO with reasonable suspicion to stop me for solicitation of prostitution.* He was unlawful detained. Sheez this war on drugs is so much bullsh*t Monk *Mrs Monk doesn't need RAS or PC to slap me upside the head. |
I'm not rendering an opinion one way or the other on the stop, it always turns into a shit storm around here and there are two sides to every story. The arrest was based on the dog alert and subsequent discovery of a controlled substance according to what DKing said. Anyway, Not going to post anything more, no time to defend the police right now.  BTW I still have the best avatar for this thread.
|
|
Quoted:
You are right I glossed over the difference in PC for arrest and RAS for the stop, but I did show there was valid PC for the arrest instead of leaving that part out. I have a hard time believe that its reasonable to stop someone based on the articulation that they looked at a black man at the QT. The cop was reaching, the judge was reaching, all because something was found. But if nothing is found the judge doesn't hear about it so it's a catch 22. That's the way freedom is ultimately lost though. The basis is that it's a high crime and drug traffic area. Which might be ok if you can draw a map of the county and circle the areas. But if you can't say where and then suddenly everywhere is... it loses all meaning. I just wish judges would do their jobs in pushing to make sure some of the reasons thrown out in PC are solid and not just a catch phrase. You can spend a whole career trying to isolate and systematically attack where and where is not the "High crime and drug traffic areas". Problem is juries lose interest when you pour through old testimony by other officers about where crime is and isn't and judges just don't care. yes, i hear what you are saying about "high crime and drug traffic areas" being articulated. in my AO, i can articulate VERY specific areas and history of first-hand experience in the "high crime and drug traffic area" to support my assertions. was your line of questioning something like, "Could you tell me where in the county is not a "high crime and drug traffic area"? or was there more to it? i probably would have answered that the block in front of the courthouse was not. 
which QT are we talking about anyway? also, i wish i had a doughnut right now.
|
|
Quoted:
reasonable suspicion my ass... Does staring at a women in short skirt provide an LEO with reasonable suspicion to stop me for solicitation of prostitution.* He was unlawful detained. Sheez this war on drugs is so much bullsh*t Monk *Mrs Monk doesn't need RAS or PC to slap me upside the head. please tell me you are not falling for the Defense tactic of reducing the situation to a bare statement of fact. "he looked at a black man in the parking lot." a crim defense atty loves people that hear that and stop listening right there. it makes his/her job so easy. unfortunately for them, life is much more rich and detailed. people have knowledge and experience that comes into play. when you spend a LOT of time watching things and pulling long surveillance details, you learn things. it should be expected. he was lawfully detained apparently, and the dog found him out to be a drug user in possession of "residue amounts". all that being said, i prefer the control that initial PC affords but this criminal jurisprudence is very established. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
reasonable suspicion my ass... Does staring at a women in short skirt provide an LEO with reasonable suspicion to stop me for solicitation of prostitution.* He was unlawful detained. Sheez this war on drugs is so much bullsh*t Monk *Mrs Monk doesn't need RAS or PC to slap me upside the head. please tell me you are not falling for the Defense tactic of reducing the situation to a bare statement of fact. "he looked at a black man in the parking lot." a crim defense atty loves people that hear that and stop listening right there. it makes his/her job so easy. unfortunately for them, life is much more rich and detailed. people have knowledge and experience that comes into play. when you spend a LOT of time watching things and pulling long surveillance details, you learn things. it should be expected. he was lawfully detained apparently, and the dog found him out to be a drug user in possession of "residue amounts". all that being said, i prefer the control that initial PC affords but this criminal jurisprudence is very established. Umm that's exactly what the officer testified to. He man in the truck looked at a black man in the parking lot. When he left we initiated a traffic stop based on his behavior and being in a high crime and drug traffic area. Did he approach him...no did he speak to him...no did he communicate with him...no did he get out of his vehicle...no Whole time I'm thinking I'd have been staring him down too... 
I think I might have a transcript of the public hearing around here somewhere if it hasn't been moved to storage yet... |
|
Quoted:
reasonable suspicion my ass... Does staring at a women in short skirt provide an LEO with reasonable suspicion to stop me for solicitation of prostitution.* He was unlawful detained. Sheez this war on drugs is so much bullsh*t Monk *Mrs Monk doesn't need RAS or PC to slap me upside the head. Reasonable suspicion does not use the "reasonable man" standard, it uses "reasonable peace officer" as the standard. Based on the officers knowledge training and experience. What may seem reasonable or unreasonale to someone not in the profession, may not appear to a peace officer the same way. |