Previous Post
Next Post

To Whom It May Concern at TTAG:

My name is Michael Picard, I am an entrepreneur and an activist. I hope you’re well. Per my lawyer’s request, I have kept quiet until now. Back on Friday, September 11th, 2015, in West Hartford, Connecticut, I was illegally detained, frisked and searched. My gun, permit and camera were seized. I was threatened with arrest for . . .

interfering (apparently, freedom of speech passes for interfering). The Connecticut State Police fabricated a story, on camera, to trump up the charges because they needed to charge me with something (“Let’s give him something.”) to cover their asses.

They charged me with “creating a public disturbance” for legally open carrying my firearm and “negligent pedestrian” for legally holding up a sign on public property, as well as being threatened with arrest (again) if I did not pay the fine.

My lawyer and I went to the first court appearance on Thursday, January 14th, 2016, where the prosecutor offered a $25 fine, in lieu of the original $300 fine, to make the case go away.

I rejected the deal because I did nothing wrong. As of now, the prosecutor has not dropped the case despite having video evidence of police misconduct. The trial date has been set for Monday, April 25th, 2016, at 9:30am, at the New Britain courthouse (20 Franklin Sq., New Britain, CT).

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Actually, trial delay is normally a defense lawyer tactic. Often the delay results in government boredom, conflicting priorities, police are not available to testify or have forgotten relevant information. Cases get old, and the machinery is attracted to the next bright object.

      Or, the Stasi are delaying in order to make life uncertain and uncomfortable as long as possible. Imagine the bureaucratic joy when, after a long delay regarding one’s future freedom, the Stasi finally come to court and say, “Just kidding.” The get to jack-up your life, then drop the matter after you have been emotionally ruined.

      • You are correct in identifying trial re-scheduling as a lawyer-initiated shenanigan. It has certainly happened to me on multiple occasions as a police officer. I had a hit and run case – where the suspect was guilty as sin – reschedule a good half dozen times. The final re-schedule was on Christmas eve, which is not considered a state holiday in CA. I played the game by not filing a court continuance, a form which indicates that you are not able to testify at a particular time, despite having no ability to make that particular court date. The defense was using the
        “lack of availability” of the primary witness as a tool to leverage a deal. Thankfully my suspect finally pled guilty.

        • The state uses delay tactics to exert pressure on defendants to much more effect, if not frequency, than it happens in reverse. Lost wages, attorney fees, and loss of reputation have incredible impacts on even innocent people. Over charging, delaying court dates, and then offering pleas at the last second is par for the course these days.

          @Accur81 I know you are a regular here, but you cannot possibly condone the borderline criminal behavior of these Troopers? This guy is a drip, and I don’t like the activist routine, but he is clearly within his rights. Cops really need to start outing the aholes and criminals within their ranks. For everyone’s benefit, but especially their own.

        • read too many police blotters (do they have “blotters” any more?), and trial transcripts (because i am a law geek), but seems to me the government uses delays as noted, always on the day of scheduled appearance (no prior notice), in an attempt to steamroll a defendant. there was one case, however, where an alleged theft at a business ended up ruining the prosecution (plaintiff almost went out of business). the business owner made theft accusations, cops arrested the suspect, DA tried to slow-walk the defendant into giving up. defendant’s attorney began to subpoena every employee of the business for depositions…on the same day. then cancelled the depositions. once at trial, defense lawyer did the same thing, asking for continuance because he was a small law firm and couldn’t adequately prepare a defense. because the DA used the same tactics, the judge granted the defense continuances. business owner finally dropped the charges because the loss of all his employees on deposition and trial dates almost destroyed the business.

          have no idea if charges were true or not.

        • Good luck to Mr. Picard and I applaud his actions. I’ve mentioned previously that I oppose DUI checkpoints – there’s no PC (probable cause) for the stop, hence the subsequent enforcement actions are not constitutional. I also oppose red light and speed cameras – I don’t want machines enforcing the law. I also know that it is perfectly legal to film police in the course of their enforcement activities, so long as that filming does not become so obnoxious that it interferes with a police investigation. The cops were just being jerks here.

          Cops need accountability for their actions just like government needs checks and balances, and for the same reason.

      • The easy cure: DO NOT GET EMOTIONAL(as hard as that might be)!
        I have been invovled as a witness in two such cases, both in which the defendant did nothing wrong, and refused to plea bargin because they were innocent. The state prosponed the trial three times, each time with only 24 hours notice. Finally, the fourth time, they dropped all charges, again only 24 hours before trial. It is a favorite tactic when they refuse to do the right thing, but yet understand that with zero evidence they will look like retards in front of a jury. Never waive a jury, judges are lawyers first, and are NOT your friend..

    • Speedy trial is typically something a defendant doesn’t press for until it’s too late to get one. As noted above, delay tends to benefit the defense more than the State.

  1. Sorry, “Activists” who intentionally provoke a police response make me tired. You got the response you were expecting and hoping for. Stop whining.

    The police may or may not have over-stepped their authority or violated his rights, but from the LEO perspective it is often difficult to tell the difference between someone with a legitimate political position and a smart-ass punk trying to make their job more difficult than it already is.

    YouTube martyrs also make me tired.

    • “from the LEO perspective it is often difficult to tell the difference between someone with a legitimate political position and a smart-ass punk trying to make their job more difficult than it already is.”

      So what? Is it difficult to tell who is breaking a law and who is not? Then get a different job.

    • C’mon Cliff H! The activists don’t make you tired its all the boot licking you do.

      This is what winning looks like.

    • Whaaa – Cry a river. “LEO” is such nonsense (see also “sanitation engineer”). You don’t like Cop or policeman, find a new job,

    • How is any of that different than, say, your boss coming in to see if you’re doing your job correctly? The people need to make sure these power-abusing assholes are doing what they’re supposed to, and if they’re overstepping their bounds, the people need to know and demand reparations

    • I didn’t realize that being a “smart-ass punk” was all it took to invalidate your constitutionally-protected rights. I also didn’t know it was a cop’s job to be the arbiter of what is and isn’t a legitimate political position.

      I guess my high school Civics teacher really dropped the ball.

    • Yeah… Because someone standing on the side of the road with a sign is totally “pushing” you. Man up Francis. These cops need to get a Heinleinian punishment. I propose immediate termination, a felony conviction, and 100 lashes in the public square.

    • And it’s not law enforcements job to determine which it is. Both scenarios are covered by free speech and how one interprets the speaker often depends on which side of the issue you fall. Law enforcement too often tries to enact law rather than enforce it.

    • While i can agree with you regarding the fact you have to deal with the idiots who do these so called 1st amendment and/or 2nd amendment audits and then put the encounter on the web. It doesnt give the cops the right to lie about filming them (SCOTUS ruled you can) and then fabricate charges because the auditors are making their life harder. Guess what? The cops didnt have to approach them since the auditors were not doing anythinng wrong. They just wanted to abuse their authority because they didnt like what the auditors were doing. The cops wont even be given a slap on the weist for this abuse of authority. The worst they should have done was check the guy for his permit and then ask them to leave.

      And for that ahole cop who said “state property”. The state belongs to the public in this country. I hate watching people destroy cop cars and such. Because those are my cars. I bought them with my tax dollars. I want you cops to have those tools to help keep my family and I safe. I carry just in case your deterring presence doesnt stop someone intent on ignoring the law (and your presence in my area).

    • In response to all of the above – your opinions are concise and mostly correct (except the boot-licking part). My point was not to judge the actions of the police which I too find reprehensible, but to comment that YouTube martyrs who get the very response they were seeking should stop whining about it when the system crashes down on their heads. If he was not really prepared for the extra-legal shit storm that fell on him then perhaps he should re-think his strategy for fighting that system.

      I support open carry and as can be noted by my posts to this site I strongly support the First and Second Amendments, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights. I just happen to believe that there may be better ways to change the current system than getting yourself illegally busted and then crying about it on YouTube.

      • I would be shocked if you did judge the actions of others in your fraternity. I get that same line from friends of mine in LE (County Sherrif Deputy and a DEA agent) all the time.

      • “I just happen to believe that there may be better ways to change the current system…”

        Such as…? I’m not sure that these sorts of “YouTube activists” really move the needle much, but I’m at a loss to think of any other ways that a citizen can try to change a corrupt police culture from outside “the system”. At least shining a light on it might enlighten other people who may not realize that abuse of power is far more widespread than they think. The police clearly aren’t interested in cleaning their own house, or we’d hear about guys being fired or at least disciplined for things like what we see on this video. So what can an average person do?

      • >> I just happen to believe that there may be better ways to change the current system than getting yourself illegally busted and then crying about it on YouTube.

        Seriously? You know that’s a fairly weak argument when the cops on that record say “it’s legal” and “we’ve got to cover their ass”.

        As for better ways… people have been using other ways to draw attention to the problem and its magnitude for decades now. Yet it has really exploded in the press and in the court on public opinion only when recordings of said abuse became so prevalent that no-one who isn’t blind, deaf or biased by association can claim that “it’s just a few bad apples”. And because of that, we are actually seeing changes such as wearable cams, laws that put investigation of police officers outside of control of their own PDs etc – and conversation on doing more of that. Seems to me that this way works best.

      • May I suggest that perhaps you should be directing your anger on the perpetrators of the “extra-legal shit,” as opposed to the activist. Has it occurred to you that the police exists to enforce the LAW, not to make up their own extra-legal shit?

    • So, because certain people make you tired, you’re OK with fabricating charges against them? Have you watched the video? Seems to me that those “LEO’s” are engaged in criminal activities, wouldn’t you agree?

    • If they have difficulty tell the difference between those, perhaps law enforcement isn’t a good fit for their skill level

    • If a government employee can be “provoked” by a citizen, then that government employee needs to be relieved of his government employment and forced to find honest work.

    • Sorry, “Activists” who intentionally provoke a police response make me tired. You got the response you were expecting and hoping for. Stop whining.

      LEOs are law enforcement officers – not “make shit up on a ticket because I’m tired” officers. He is breaking the law or he isn’t. If you have a search for a charge because you don’t like them – you are part of the problem. If you are tired of that find something else to do. That horseshit about “provoking” a police response was ridiculous. If you are provoked by that – you need to find another line of work – law enforcement isn’t for you.

    • There is no difference between the two and you should be ashamed of yourself for your petty self-absorbed holier than thou attitude. You should experience it once or twice and see how you like it. Then let’s see who’s holier than thou. People like you make me sick.

  2. Good luck to you Micheal. If at all practical, I highly recommend you move out of CT. Don’t be anywhere under the state police jurisdiction if you can help it, and at the very least, make sure you are always with a respected member of society who can verify your comings and goings.

  3. Why do fellow sworn officers permit this to happen? This sort of occurrence causes the crack in the foundation of the trust and consent of the governed. Soon, there will be no trust and consent. Shortly thereafter, there will be no governed.

    • A lot of departments like that have the same core “values” so they don’t think their buddies are doing anything wrong.

      If I saw a co worker trying to pull that on a citizen I would foricibly remove him from the situation and turn his ass in.

      Police need to realize that we need to work with armed citizens and not against them.

      To the poster, I apologize on behalf of my profession that you were mistreated like that.

    • Why do fellow sworn officers permit this to happen?

      Because too many of them are sworn “to serve and protect” each other, their jobs, their pension and their union.

      And, in extreme cases, those who go against the grain end up like Frank Serpico.

      • Ralph,

        There are definitely a lot of departments left like that, and that needs to change.

        But there are also a lot of departments where officers are starting to wake up and realize that by police being jackasses to citizens, it rapidly degrades our relationship with the public and makes our jobs harder.

        Also, many departments, such as mine, will terminate you instantly if they discover you are being untruthful, so the general consensus is “don’t lie for the other guy.”

    • Because even though not every cop is bad, there are not any good ones. Those that cross the thin blue line do so at the peril of losing their chosen career path. Instead of actually protecting and serving the public, their first priority is to their fraternity.

      • Sounds like the mafia more so than law enforcement but I know you are correct. Sold police equipment for a number of years and I know plenty of good LEOs and a couple of jack asses. The stories I heard the jackasses tell I thought were bluster until I asked a close friend who confirmed it. I said that ain’t right. The response was in know but I wasn’t there and I can’t get involved. Justice does prevail [usually] and they got what was coming to them. BUT it does undermine the public trust.

        • and I know plenty of good LEOs

          No, you know plenty of good people who are LEOs.

          Here, I’ll let Bukowski explain: “…you never get a chance to explain to him that when a man puts that uniform on that he is the paid protector of things of the present time. he is here to see that things stay the way they are. if you like the way things are, then all cops are good cops. if you don’t like the way things are, then all cops are bad cops.”
          ~ ‘Notes on the Pest’

    • Because “good” cops, if there exists such a contradiction in nature, will be set up, harassed, and killed by the police criminals like Frank Serpico. Training Day baby. Cops are schemers and liars. For every way to do things right, they can figure out 100 ways do something wrong, because unlike the military, they like to dish out pain to others but generally can’t take it when things don’t instantly go their way.

      Hence the constant whining about how difficult their jobs are, when cop doesn’t even crack the top ten most dangerous occupations below fishermen and farmers, who at least produce wealth in society instead of being parasites who live of the bread and labor of others.

      Every notice how talking with a cop is like talking to a cross between the Drill Seargent in Full Metal Jacket and the demon in The Excorcist the way they twist everything you say?

    • We are so quick to point out 2nd amendment infringements but you dismiss 4th amendment infringements like they are perfectly fine. All of our rights are important and worthy of protection.

      • Quite so.

        We often say the 2nd Amendment protects all the rest; but sometimes I think people don’t always see the point.

        It’s simply this. We don’t need the Bill of Rights when everything’s going well. We need it as a light in the dark. That’s why it has to protect even the evil amongst us … because in the dark, sometimes good can be mistaken for evil.

  4. So… the case is still upcoming. If I were a lawyer I would want my client to stay quiet in public for a bit longer!

    • Hey, a fellow listener! Didn’t catch this one, but all the commenters saying things along the lines of, “You got what you deserve” …wait until it’s your turn. If one cop can get away with this, all cops can, and it’s not long before the word gets around.

  5. I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that the officers will be too busy to show up for the trial. Prosecutor will probably ask for a continuance. If judge is an ass it will be granted, and the game will go on until one party or the other gets tired of it and cries ‘uncle’. If judge is not an ass, continuance will be denied and case dismissed.

  6. I’m all for defending a cause in which I believe, but I always refer to something my grandfather told me to cover such matters….”Don’t start no $#!+ won’t be no $#!+”!

  7. CT must have the worst cops in the country. They’re constantly getting retrained, reprimanded, shut down, reorganized, paying out lawsuits, etc…. Locals and staties alike.

    It seems like all the reprimands, investigations and retraining just make them angrier and dumber.

    I say this as somebody with three childhood friends and two family members who became cops in CT.

    Retarded apes with machineguns.

    • In practice, they can, with regard to traffic offenses and the like; the “ticket” serves as the charging instrument. If it actually goes to trial, the prosecutor may prepare a more formal instrument and get the officer to sign it before everything starts. It least that’s how it works hereabouts.

    • The police can charge virtually any infraction level crime with no input from any attorneys whatsoever, such as seatbelt, speed, and red light tickets. Further, traffic attorneys can do little to fight an infraction case by an officer with a reasonably good knowledge of the law who has written a reasonable citation. Misdemeanor violations like DUI typically go to a city attorney who determines the suitability of the case based mostly on the arrest report. Felony violations go to the district attorney (DA) who also determines the suitability of the case for prosecution based upon the police report, police liaison from the relevant department, evidence, follow up and the input of the arresting officer.

  8. When I used to work for the Sheriff’s office we had POP charges…wait for it…. Pissing off the Police. There are plenty of laws on the books, enough to charge ANYBODY with anything.

  9. The cop said something I agree with–something to the effect of being considerate of those around you. (I am not discounting the fact that he lied which cops are allowed to do even though it’s wrong.)

    As 2A supporters, we love to talk about our founders intentions. Let’s apply that same logic here. Open carry was not intended to allow dimwitted, albeit well-intentioned, souls to make monkeys out of the police or go armed to the terror of the public. Mr. Picard excuses his behavior by claiming he’s educating the public. Most normal, sane people see his behavior as nuts. Respect the police, follow the law, and be the best example of a model citizen that anyone can ask for. That’s how you educate the public.

    • A badge does not give you respect. You have to EARN it. These clowns blatantly falsified charges and are caught ON CAMERA conspiring to violate someone’s civil rights under the color of law. That’s a transgression far worse than some dude standing on the side of the road with a sign.

      • I agree. They should have their leo certification (or whatever CT has that is similar) revoked for breaking the public trust. Unfortunately, that isnt going to happen. Ever.

    • “being considerate of those around you.”

      Being inconsiderate is not a crime. If it were, entire cities, millions, would be charged every day.

      • No, but it reveals your character. Harassing the cops while they are trying to get DUI’s off the road is stupidity. Being a jerk by OC at the park with a bunch worried moms watching you is stupidity. Stupid people shouldn’t own guns. Gun owners have a responsibility to be responsible.

        • >> Harassing the cops while they are trying to get DUI’s off the road is stupidity.

          Standing with a sign is harassing now?

        • You’re absolutely right. And Rosa Parks deserved to be arrested. After all, she intentionally harassed the bus driver and good, honest passengers, and some of them may have been with children…

        • *wiping tears of laughter from eyes*
          You win the funniest, most irrational, illogical comparison award!

        • Yup. Sure is. Especially when they are doing the Lord’s work of getting murdering, loaded drunks off the street.
          If you drive drunk, you no better than a terrorist.

        • So what you’re saying that he was aiding and abetting terrorism? Should we put him on the no-fly list and take away his guns?

        • You are changing the subject and muddling the waters of reason. He was obviously treated better than a terrorist and was, in fact, given back his weapon.
          Mr. Picard, the “educating entrepreneur”, was assisting potential drunk drivers to wreck the lives of innocent people. He is lucky he got off with a ticket for his ill-advised stunt.

        • >> Mr. Picard, the “educating entrepreneur”, was assisting potential drunk drivers to wreck the lives of innocent people.

          “Potential drunk drivers” are just drivers. Of course, if you prefer, I can refer to you as “potential gun criminal” from here on, on account of you being a gun owner.

          So, no. What he was doing was assisting fellow citizens in avoiding an infringement of their Fourth Amendment rights.

        • Ok, so let me get this straight. Man protests blanket wide DUI checkpoint for searching with no probable cause, gets detained and charged with ridiculous charges, and “he” was harassing the cops?? Got it.

          At great risk he protested and you guys think he got what he wanted? Well congratulations, he wanted to prove the system was corrupt and he got it.

          This statement in the video was ridiculous:
          Man: This is public property.
          Cop: This is state property!

    • Standing on a street corner with a sign and a holstered handgun is “going armed to the terror of the public” now? If that’s the case, maybe the public is the problem in that equation.

      • Actually, in my conclave, anything that causes the vapors on the part of another person is considered “menacing”, which is a felony. Thus “printing”, momentary, incidental or unintentional uncovering of a firearm on the person can be charged as “menacing”. Just telling someone you are armed (or being overheard talking about guns) can justify the menacing charge. Open carry is legal, but very risky as this is a left-coast liberal community. I expect any day to find someone has been charged for brandishing an empty holster because that person just might have a gun on them, causing fear and panic among the public.

        Fortunately, I can remain here and watch the eternal clown show with no fear…I don’t own any firearms, they just fascinate me, along with firearms law and politics. Got out of the legal profession because I could no longer keep a straight face at trial. Boisterous laughter facing a judge is considered uncouth.

        • I respect your decision not to own a firearm. My finances wish I had had the same resolve. I bought my first gun less than 5 years ago just because I thought I ought to know how to use one. Now I have over a dozen. Sarah McLaughlin is going to make a commercial about my plight.

          Once you pop, you can’t stop.

        • Might be interesting to be a gun-owner (or maybe just a money pit), but I would be too easy a target for accusations of giving someone the vapors. There are people with incredible memories around here.

    • “Most normal, sane people see his behavior as nuts.” In the former Soviet Union, those that opposed the tyrannical system were called dissidents, committed to mental institutions and forcibly fed drugs to make them “normal.” Is this the society that you want – “normal”?

      • You are confusing political and religious persecution with police serving the public by getting drunks off the road. As people become more and more irresponsible whether through drinking or even the legalization of drugs, expect to see greater and greater police involvement. The idea that a libertarian approach to any immoral choice produces or creates Liberty is false. Our Republic is based upon people being good and responsible. As our society ceases to be good, we cease to be great whether in our liberties or the freedoms we enjoy. A greater police enforcement is required, even, necessary to constrain the worse passions of man.
        History is littered with once great nations and states that no longer exist. Our country changed for the worse with the sexual revolution of the 60’s (the ‘why’ it happened is a book in itself), abortion on demand, the acceptance of homosexuality, the religion of environmentalism, and other man-centric philosophies. As our morals have declined, so have our rights, freedoms, and liberties.
        Gun rights, notwithstanding the recent surge in popularity, are also on the chopping block. Irresponsible people cannot be trusted by morally reprehensible people who are in positions of authority. It’s a vicious cycle.
        How do you get freedoms back? I doubt you want to hear my view, but I’m interested in yours.
        And, yes, I know ‘dissidents’ and ‘political prisoners’ of the former CCCP. They are my family.

        • >> Our Republic is based upon people being good and responsible.

          No, it is based upon people being free.

          >> As our society ceases to be good, we cease to be great whether in our liberties or the freedoms we enjoy. A greater police enforcement is required, even, necessary to constrain the worse passions of man.

          So what you’re basically saying that people should be free so long as they don’t do any of the things that you don’t like (drugs, homosexuality etc). If they do, “corrective measures” are required to ensure that freedom doesn’t “get out of control”.

          Be honest with yourself, and just admit that you’re basically authoritarian, and your model society is something like Spain under Franco, where morals were rigorously enforced by the government through law and indoctrination. Why bother with sham “freedom” in the first place, if an attempt to actually exercise it is rebuked? Just replace Constitution with Bible, president with a properly anointed godly king, and who needs a parliament anyway? all the laws you need are in the Bible.

        • Funny, I didn’t mention God or the Bible yet Christianity was the first thing you attacked….much like the totalitarians you deride.

        • The only people who blame “low morals” on all social woes in this country, and specifically mention homosexuality and abortion in that context, are Christians.

          But whatever. If you’re actually a Muslim, my apologies, and you can replace Bible with Koran in my comment. If you’re a Jew, do that with Torah. Etc.

        • Yet you still attacked Christianity first. Perhaps you find the very idea anathema that you are responsible for your actions both in this world and the next. Why do you find it appealing to allow every man to do as he sees fit? You must believe that man is basically good. I believe that man is basically evil. History is on my side.

        • >> Yet you still attacked Christianity first.

          Simply because it was most likely by far. It seems that I haven’t been mistaken, so what’s your problem?

          And BTW, I didn’t attack Christianity. Believe whatever you like. I attacked your Dominionist tendencies to push your moral beliefs on other people for the “greater good”.

          >> Perhaps you find the very idea anathema that you are responsible for your actions both in this world

          I don’t need gods or religion for that. I am responsible for my actions before my conscience and before other people.

          >> and the next

          There is no “next”.

          But people who believe that there is, seem to use it as a cop-out more often than not. I remember that discussion I had with a bunch of people on whether it is moral to torture terrorists, and several avowed Christians said, “sure, we can always confess and ask God for forgiveness afterwards, so why not?”. I don’t think I’ve ever been disgusted with religion more before that moment.

          >> Why do you find it appealing to allow every man to do as he sees fit?

          Why do you find it appealing to dictate others what they should do, when their actions do not involve you nor concern you?

          >> You must believe that man is basically good.

          I don’t believe there’s such a thing as “basically good” or “basically evil”. Each of us is unique in that respect.

          >> I believe that man is basically evil. History is on my side.

          History of humanity has been the history of reduction of overall suffering, so if anything, it’s on the “basically good” side of things. Of course, if you equate good with lack of suffering – if it’s something else (and who knows? Mother Theresa was pretty fond of suffering, to give one example), I can’t really say.

        • “Yet you still attacked Christianity first.” — Well, perhaps because I don’t see lying and dishonest, scheming and conspiratorial, abusive and acting anti-Constitutionally cops as “doing the Lord’s work.”

        • “dissidents’ and ‘political prisoners’ of the former CCCP. They are my family.” – My condolences. And yet you feel that we should suspend the Constitution (4th A in this case), while the wrongs that you perceive are corrected? I suppose that you were also OK with Bloomberg’s search and frisk policy? – after all, the cops were searching and frisking young black men – statistically many of whom are criminals. Certainly, disarming the criminals is Lord’s work, isn’t it? This is all good, of course, for the end justifies the means… especially in the name of law, order and security!

          Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — BF

        • Why is it that Ben Franklin is quoted as gospel truth? He was quick to speak of liberty and men being equal yet he held slaves for 40 years. Consider that some of his adages and proverbs might be pregnant with a little hyperbole.

        • Don’t be so quick to jump to judgement of people that lived in different times and under different rules. In Franklin’s time, slavery was a progressive state for some societies. If Africa, for example, slavery was preferred to the two alternatives practiced before it – death or dinner. The people that were brought as slaves to America would otherwise most likely ended up as one or the other. And whatever you currently do, thinking that it is the Holy Grail, may someday be viewed as barbaric as cannibalism.

  10. See this is what happens when try to go all “James T Kirk” at Starfleet Acadamy and get booted out. What will your father say??? Shame.

  11. The sheepdogs turning into wolves.
    They need to be reeducated in the constitution and stop treating good Americans with disrespect.
    Good for this kid.
    Keep these thugs in uniform in check and hold them accountable to a civil society they are supposed to work for.
    Putrid scum is putrid scum no matter what walk of life or job title.
    No matter what uniform is worn.
    When this crap passes for authority and no one rises to stop it then we have all failed to live up to what it means to be American.

      • Interesting you mention TSA. After a full career working to pay the government, not to mention two advanced degrees and being a combat vet, I applied for a part-time position with TSA, just for something to do in retirement. TSA quickly rejected my application because I lacked the basic skills required to be a security screener. Found a way to request a review of that decision, but no one seemed to know why I would have been rejected. However….since I had been rejected, it must have been for a good reason so the decision was final.

  12. The police are the only people in the entire world who can take your civil rights away on the spot. fuc the police for abusing that – and fuc the federal government for encouraging it.

    • The police are not constitutional. Law enforcement was a function of the militia under the county sherrif. However ppl didnt want to do that job and like the rest of the militia’s responsibilities, we allowed them to be ceded to others to do. So much for the whole not trusting standing armies and posse comitatus.

        • I know semantics. I did not say they were unconstitutional. Just that they are not constitutional. The constitution provides that the militia were to act as law enforcement under the control of the local county sherrif. There is nothing in the constitution that gives state police and local police their authority. But nothing in the constitution forbids their use either. Not to mention that the first police forces in the US came into existence in the 1800s.

        • >> I did not say they were unconstitutional. Just that they are not constitutional.

          You might want to use less confusing terms, then. The accepted meaning of “not constitutional” is “contrary to the constitution”, rather than “not specifically allowed by the constitution”.

          >> The constitution provides that the militia were to act as law enforcement under the control of the local county sherrif.

          Where exactly does it provide that? Cite, please.

        • Correct word usages sometimes confuses the heck out of the general population. Common slang often degrades the language such that words lose unique meaning and begin to mean everything. Kinda like the word F—.

        • It is in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The part that says “to execute the laws of the union”. It was based on the english model of Posse Comitatus. (Not the legislative Act). You know, its what spagetti westerns called “posse”. And inteiterate that police forces did not exist in the US until the 1800s. After the ratification of the constitution.

        • It says that Congress has the power to “provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union”.

          Where does it say anything about counties or sheriffs?

          Congress is a federal-level institution.

        • Read up on posse comitatus in english law that i said the founding fathers based our militia system on. It involves the Sheriff calling on the armed local population to help with law enforcement. And that part of the constitution provided the roles of the militia. Article 1 Section 8 lists the roles of the militia. law enforcement was among those enumerated roles. Along with repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections.

        • What the common law says, or what the Founders intended, doesn’t matter if we’re talking about issues of constitutionality. What the Constitution plainly said does, and it’s the only thing that does.

          Article 1, Section 8, lists the powers given to the Congress.

          It does not say anything about posse comitatus, sheriffs, counties etc.

          It does not enumerate the roles of militia itself. It only enumerates what the Congress can require (by passing laws) militia to do. It does not grant militia the authority to fulfill those roles without authorization of the Congress.

          And it does not preclude other agents vested with requisite powers (such as state governments) from instituting other organizations and granting them such authority, or from denying militia such authority within their jurisdiction (in the latter case, again, so long as Congress doesn’t explicitly override them by legislation).

        • What english common law does say and the intent of the founders is paramount to understanding the constitution and by extension the Bill of Rights. There were no professional law enforcement in the colonies. That role was typically handled by county sheriffs who relies on the local militia to help keep law and order. On additon to that, the crown had used professional soldiers (red coats) to impose its will. Which was a really big sore point of the revolution. Lexington and Concord, the british soldiers were performing law enforcement duties (arrest Sam Addams and Johm Hancock as well as disarm the militia there). That is why the comstitution under Art 1 Sec 8 gives law enforcement to the militia and NOT the standing army that Art 1 Sec 8 authorises congress to create. One can argue that professional police forces are in fact a standing army and they did not exist in this countrynat its founding. It took 50 years for Boston and New York City to deploy the countries first professional law enforcement. Up until then, it was primarily a county sheriff calling on members of the militia to enforce the laws. The founding fathers wanted it that way. It kept it local to the community. Today sheriffs are still part of the community and we vote on them. Not with professional police forces.
          So my original statement of the local pd not being constitutional is accurate and that it was because we the ppl ceded the militia’s role of law enforcement to them is likewise an accurate statement and historical fact. We the ppl dont even like being pressed into service for jury duty!!!

        • If you prefer to only see the application on a federal level. The exec branch is reaponsible with federal law enforcement. The constitution does not provide the army with the power to enforce federal laws. It does enumerate that role to the militia (for the reason stated in the comment above).

      • Mess with the Sheriff and you won’t get RR’d, just double-F’d.

        That’s how I remember the right way to spell it.

  13. I have been hard pressed to have an experience with an LEO that was worth a damn. I’m sure there are good ones out there but I have not seen them. I have only called on the police a few times in my life and none of the experiences were good or productive. Once I called because there was a dog nipping at joggers, cyclists, and kids in my neighborhood (animal control was on holiday). I knew what house the dog belonged to. The LEO showed up and refused to do anything or make a report because I wouldn’t show him my identification. Another time my house was broken into while I was at work. My neighbors called the police who showed up, went in my house, looked around and left. They didn’t even bother to close the doors. Just left them open.

  14. If the case is still pending why are you talking about it?

    I mean I want to know more and I hope you win because from the little bit I read it sounds like they are in the wrong. But the case is still pending, isn’t you talking about it putting the final decision in jeopardy?

  15. Get a good lawyer and make them pay. Those cops should lose their jobs too.
    It should be a felony to fabricate charges, even if they are misdemeanors.

    Those cops are an absolute insult to the good and honest cops out in the field.

    • In most states even when caught and exposed it WON’T be the cops that pay, it WILL be US, the taxpayers who foot the bill for the officers obvious criminal conduct.

      The infamous “Abner Louima Case (an illegal alien who was drunk & assaulted NYPD officers then got a free proctological exam) set a “precedent”, in a landmark ruling the judge allowed the criminal to sue not only the department (which is typical) but also the officers “personally”. Louima, an illegal alien, who didn’t have a “right” to be in OUR country, got the cop’s pensions in addition to the millions of dollars from the City of New York AND the NYPD. Louima later claimed that since he now had so much money that his entire extended family was being threatened with and subject to “kidnapping” in their native land. The U.S. government let them ALL into the USA when what should’ve happened was that Abner Louima should’ve been deported.

      • If the guy was wronged by the law, he does deserve compensation. It doesn’t matter if he was an illegal immigrant, drunk etc. Rule of law means law is the same for everyone; it’s not just there for the benefit of model citizens of the day.

        (The part where they didn’t deport him – yeah, that’s ridiculous.)

      • Notwithstanding the part about illegal aliens, there is quite a bit going on here. One important element is that the Judge did not “allow” the defendant to sue police separately and independently. That approach is at the heart of the law of agency. An agent (private agent or government agent) is completely and solely liable for actions taken that exceed the terms of the established “agency” (not meaning government agency, here). If one creates a relationship where another is authorized to act as an agent in place of the principal, the terms of the agency (responsibilities and privileges of the agent) must be specifically spelled-out, and be legal in the jurisdiction wherein the agent operates. So, if one appoints another as agent to move business receipts and cash to the bank, and deposit them, should the agent then decide to rob that same bank, the principal cannot be held liable for actions committed outside the terms of agency (presuming there is no evidence the principal communicated any other way the requirement to rob the bank). Therefore, policing agents have defined authorities (as do non-police government agents) that establish their “agency”. When police (or non-police agents) take action not authorized as part of their agent duties, those police (or non-police agents) can be sued directly for their actions, and cannot be shielded by their “agent” appointments. It is this element of law that permitted the police and department to be sued….they both exceeded their agent authorities. This is not a gracious offering by the trial Judge.

      • Certain rights are universal and should be extended to anyone on american soil. Other rights are not. Citizens should be the only ones allowed to vote. Citizens, resident aliens, and those on temporary visas have the 2A rights for self defense. Illegal immigrants are criminals that broke federal law and are therefore disqualified from owning guns. So they forfieted that right by being here.

  16. These cops are rip$hit that this guy was legally armed while pissing on their un-Constitutional check point party. Not surprising for CT. It is really disappointing that 3 or 4 Troopers stand there and deliberate the best trumped up charges. Go to court and put each of these aholes on the stand to see if they perjure themselves even in light of the video tape.

    I used to be a rah rah police dude. My best friend is a cop. I don’t want to see them hurt, but their jobs are not about “serving and protecting” the community or truth and justice anymore. They are simple cogs in the massive CJ apparatus that’s primary purpose is as a revenue generating agent and jobs program at every level of government.

  17. I’m as pro-LE as they come BUT in THIS case THESE officers were way out of line and in MORE than one instance acted “criminally”.

    The saddest part of this travesty of “justice” will be if/when the “activist” sues it will be US, the taxpayers, that foot the bill for the officers criminal conduct NOT the cops themselves.

    I will suggest from prior experience on BOTH sides of cases that if this goes to trial and the officers testify, that the “activist” not only order a typed transcript of the proceedings but also a copy of the audio as well. Almost ALL court staff/clerks these days use audio ie. cassette, CD, etc. and later the testimony is “transcribed”. There have been multiple instances including one in which I was involved where what was provided to those requesting it was NOT accurate and changed the whole tenor of a witness’ testimony.

    Furthermore this case is a perfect example of “the state” engaging in “lawfare” against a private citizen. The fact is the prosecutor wants the “activist” to plead to a lesser charge to cover BOTH his and the officers asses as once the defendant admits ANY level of “guilt” suing later on for violation of his rights will be difficult. Additionally this is just further proof some officers are vindictive bastards and not above using “the system” to not only act as “tax collectors” but also to cover-up their misdeeds and punish someone who was acting “legally” because they didn’t agree with his position.

    Now I want to know if ANY of the callers who dialed 911 have been charged with making false reports to police.

  18. RICO charges are pending against the government employees, right? After all they were taking part in a criminal conspiracy.

  19. Michael Picard

    It’s been many years since I lived in the “Constitution State” but on the 2 occasions that I needed strong legal representation I was helped by one Charles Karanian and not really knowing his legal sway until I was at the court house where the 2 opposing Lawyers would consult I saw the opposition Lawyer visibly sigh when he saw my Attorney in a desperate “Oh no I am cooked” kind of way. This firm is in New Britain although Charlie has since passed but worth looking into.

  20. I finally got to watch this video. I found the actions of the young man admirable. DUI choke I mean check points are nothing but government practicing control. They were ruled unlawful here in Oregon decades ago.
    Those troopers should be brought up on charges of official misconduct, harassment (offensive physical contact), first degree theft (for taking his gun, a felony), and criminal mischief (returning his property in an altered state).
    Those would be applicable charges here in Oregon. Now, add in the same charges prefaced with “Conspiracy to commit” based on the conversations.
    I would look into a citizens arrest on those jackbooted thugs. Granted, it takes balls, and you need to have your ducks lined up, but that would be possible here.

    Watch those uniformed crooks try to work out a plea deal. Then have their union fight the firings.
    Then follow it up with a multi- million dollar tort claim/ law suit. A guy would have lawyers lined up to take that case.

    Good luck young man.

  21. Mr. Picard,

    There is a portion of video missing at the 3:10 mark. It is not clear how much was edited out. I would like to see it, no matter how insignificant you think it is. Also, be aware that the checkpointers usually have body cams; you could very well be walking into a trap, where the prosecution will play film after film of indignant CT yankees wondering out loud why they are getting breathylized while the gun nut is allowed to just stand there with his thang out.

  22. If you are going to do something like this, be smart about it and produce effective video and audio.

    First of all, have a videographer set up discretely at your location BEFORE you arrive. Discretely means that no one will see the videographer in action. Then have the videographer record your arrival as well as your activity of holding up your sign. Of course make sure that your videographer records any interaction with police. And for the sake of all that is good and right, have enough battery and memory capacity to record the entire event! If you only have enough battery and memory capacity to record 60 minutes, then get a different camera with more capacity or have a second camera set up to extend your capacity.

    You should also note that most video cameras, using default settings, will record worthless video at night. Test your equipment at night before depending on it. Get a camera that is capable of recording useful video at night — even if that means the video is a little bit grainy — and make sure you use optimum settings for recording in the dark.

    For bonus points, have two videographers recording from different angles. And if you really want to hit a home run, use wireless microphones on the demonstrators so that the videographers get clear, useful audio of any interaction from their distant, discrete location. Alternatively, consider having the videographer or another helper use a long-range directional microphone (a.k.a. a parabolic microphone) to get clear, useful audio of any interaction.

    Finally, the demonstrators should use their “command voice” with police. Ask police why they are there and what crime that police suspect the demonstrators have committed. Tell police that the demonstrators do not consent to any searches or seizures. Tell police to stay back and keep their hands to themselves. If police somehow discover the location of the videographers, make sure to tell police that the videographers streamed the video to external storage or the Internet … thus any attempts to damage the cameras or their recording would NOT successfully eliminate the recording. And the videographers can remind them that tampering with the camera or destroying it would be a crime.

  23. CT resident here. Good luck in court Michael. The officers appear to have been caught red handed; I hope they are disciplined adequately as a result. Their actions betray the public trust IMO.

    I also saw the state police memorandum at the beginning of your video explaining that open carry is not illegal, a fact the police obviously were aware of. If I recall correctly, the memo also explains that open carrying in and of itself is not a reason to be charged with causing a public disturbance, menacing, etc, a fact that also seems known to the officers based on the claim someone saw you handling your firearm, something that would push you into the realm of a public disturbance etc charge.

  24. Mecha is correct about the militia and it’s use prior to the creation of professional police forces. The County Sheriff is elected directly by the people so that the legitimate use of police powers in society are exercised under the authority of a person who can be voted out of office if his employees violate the rights of citizens or commit crimes.

    There is NO constitutional basis for a state police force, as that role should be undertaken by the militia. I believe the first state police force was created in Pennsylvania, and the purpose was so the Governor had a private army to union bust the coal miners. That’s how state police forces started and it should tell you a lot.

    Mecha also made a very important observation that the police forces in America (which are constantly combining and expanding their jurisdictions through mutual aid pacts) now practically constitute a standing army designed to be used to control society through terror.

    That’s why police unions are constantly promoting legislation to curtail the rights of concealed and open carriers. The System understands that many armed citizens, (with the exception of the cowardly secret Klansmen cop wanna-be types here), are many times politically active and involved people who they wish to control and watch.

  25. You should file a complaint with the FBI and the United States Justice Department. This is outrageous. These cops should be indicted and sent to trial. They are fabricating evidence by saying other witnesses were there and this is a criminal conspiracy to deprive you of your rights and fabricate charge against you.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here