Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: If you haven't read this or sent this...u should have

  1. #1
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    If you haven't read this or sent this...u should have

    Intro to Officer Adrian Alan,
    “Prior to beginning my law enforcement career, I was a student at UW, an avid sportsman and competition shooter. I was also a board member of the UW student gun club. I worked with groups and lobbied on behalf of the Personal Protection Act. Ironically, 10 years ago, I researched and advocated open carry marches long before anyone was willing to step up and do it...I also have prior law enforcement experience in a state where contacting law abiding, armed citizens was routine.”

    “They feel that their actions are equally protected under the first amendment as anyone who is protesting abortion, war, taxes, gay marriage, or any of the other issues we see people around here protesting. 99% of them are not looking to trip us up so they can sue us later. Their goal is to educate the public and the police. And clearly, we need to swallow our pride and realize our officers do need some education on this issue based on their performance in the last few incidents.”

    “While there are always exceptions, the people in these groups are law abiding citizens from all walks of life. While most are conservatives, there are many liberal gun owners too who are involved. Most are supportive of the police, though they also feel we have an arrogance or elitist sense of entitlement when it comes to firearms (cops always like to say that we have special training that makes us better/safer/more competent when it comes to guns, though in reality, that is probably not always true). They are not the typical gun toting, crack-dealing mopes we are used to dealing with, and they're not a bunch of right-wing, racist, militia members either. Most are the type who would be the first to help an officer in distress on the side of the road. They want to carry a firearm for the same reasons many police officers choose to do so off duty – to protect themselves and their families, and instead of dismissing them as weirdos – we need to keep open minds and understand they feel the same way about keeping their families safe as we do.”

    “They are educated about the law and their rights. They will carefully plan WHERE they are going to open carry to make sure 1) they are not breaking ANY laws (i.e not in bars, not next to a school, etc) 2) in a very public place where people will see them. They do not intend to scare people or intimidate anyone – but they want people to notice the. They will carefully unload and transport their firearm encased in their vehicles so they do not violate obscure DNR/hunting laws. “


    “Of course, we always have to be safe when contacting anyone, armed or not, but if we approach these people like law abiding citizens and engage them as we would any other citizen, most of them will be very cooperative. They are expecting police contact when they are open carrying. While they will believe they have done nothing wrong to warrant such contact, most understand in Madison it is pretty much inevitable and will be willing to cooperate and 'educate' us on their cause...”

    “People we contact open carrying will become upset if we start the contact assuming they are criminals. This doesn't mean we throw caution to the wind and assume they are good guys either. Our safety is of course, paramount. We are trained to assume EVERYONE we contact is a potential threat and may be armed. But we have to be reasonable...Obviously if we gun everyone who is open carrying, the city is going to be paying out some big settlements. I think officers have been trained that gun=bad guy, and that's not always the case now, and will be less so in the future. We will have to learn that we need to take into account a person's behavior and other circumstances as well.”

    If we approach in a heavy handed manner, demanding or making assumptions, they will go on the defensive – like other law abiding people we contact and suspect of doing wrong. They will refuse to answer questions, they will refuse consent to search, they will say things like 'am I under arrest or am I free to go?' You know the type of person I'm talking about. They will make our job tough and will be ready to make us look bad if we screw up. I don't want to defend anyone who refuses to cooperate or give us ID – I have a feeling if the guys at Culver's had simply given us ID and talked with us, they would have been able to go back to their dinner a lot quicker – but they have no obligation to provide ID, and we have no legal ground to essentially search their weapon and run the serial number. Perhaps if officers had begun with a different approach, things could have been handled more cordially without the unpleasant media attention that followed. I certainly wasn't there and don't want to criticize but the buzz I have heard from the gun-rights community since the Culver's incident, is the Madison police department is incompetent, and to an extent, a little heavy handed.”

    “These guys know their laws. They probably know the specific gun laws better than most of us. They know we can't arrest them for DC for open carry, and they know we can't arrest them for obstructing for not providing ID. Most of these guys know more about guns than the average police officer, and they're probably better pistol shooters too. They will be agitated if we disarm them and if we start trying to unload their $2000 custom handguns, especially if its a gun the officer isn't familiar with, and fiddles with it for 45 seconds trying to make it 'safe'. We'll also look like a bunch of clowns. They are going to be really upset if we start running the serial numbers of their guns to check if they are stolen when we have no basis to do so. I think most of us would be taken aback if another officer asked to run the serial number of our firearm, or search our car – and these guys feel the same way. We just can't assume that everyone carrying a gun is a felon with a stolen gun anymore. The times are changing.”

    “That doesn't mean we shouldn't disarm people if we feel it necessary, but if we do it as an across the board approach, its going to lead to conflict, bad press, and law suits...Just because we can, doesn't mean we always should.”

    Officer Adrian Alan
    City of Madison Police Department
    South District
    825 Hughes Place
    Madison, WI 53713
    608-266-5938 Ph
    608-266-4453 Fax

    "THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v*U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489. "
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Liberty is the result of fought for freedoms.
    Many fought and died to achieve it, we must defend it or it will be lost.
    mspgunner circa 2012
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  3. #3
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    zekester:

    I appreciate your taking the time to share this interesting and thought-provoking article with us.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  4. #4
    Regular Member WOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Onalaska WA
    Posts
    225
    Thanks for sharing this item. If more LEO's and their commanding officials would just understand this simple approach, everyone would be better off. LEO's could be more effective, and more time would be available for them to actively focus on the criminal elements, within their communities.

    As a side note, many here probably don't know the LEO's who patrol their streets, unless they live on the same street, and know them as neighbors. Back in the day, there used to be someone referred to as a 'Beat Cop'. These Peace Officers would spend a large portion of their career, in a certain area within their city. They would know every merchant, resident, and most of the people who were frequently in their assigned Beat area. They watched children grow up, they knew who the troublemakers were, and they saved taxpayers a lot of money by keeping simple disputes out of the courtroom. The adoption of patrol cars, and the incorporation of two way radios into the patrol cars, made Beat Cops obsolete. The City Officials who implemented this strategy, realized they didn't need as many Officers on the beat, because a car could patrol a larger area, with less manpower, but still respond faster, than a man on foot could. This strategy was a double edged sword though, as it turned out. The Patrol Officers were now removed from everyday contact with their citizens, and the citizens were removed from contact with their Peace Officers. Long story short, it isn't a big surprise to me how Peace Officers became Law Enforcement Officers, or how this adversarial relationship with the citizens evolved. Just some food for thought.....
    Be safe, be prepared, and carry on!

    Alle Ihre Basisstation jetzt zu uns gehören

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    zekester,

    Thanks. Do you have a link to this?

    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    Intro to Officer Adrian Alan,
    <snip>
    They feel that their actions are equally protected under the first amendment as anyone who is protesting abortion, war, taxes, gay marriage, or any of the other issues we see people around here protesting. 99% of them are not looking to trip us up so they can sue us later. Their goal is to educate the public and the police. And clearly, we need to swallow our pride and realize our officers do need some education on this issue based on their performance in the last few incidents.
    OK, just to get this out of the way.

    This Officer Alan and his 'viewpoint' is similar, erily so, to some of the LEOs that have visited OCDO to 'provide the LEO perspective.'

    While he readily admits that LEOs need some 'educating' he continues on down a different path. he fails to admit that he and his brethren are too lazy to read the overly simple 'unlawful use of weapons laws' in his state. No, he once again places the burden on the OCing citizen to do the educating, not on LE to train (educate) their own, before hand, to mitigate any 'misunderstandings'.

    The 'they feel', right out of the gate, places Officer Alan in the same category as the other LEOs who have visited OCDO and will never accept the reality or the responsibility, that it is LE that instigates these 'Culver 5' incidents, not the Culver 5. In Officer Alan's world, the Culver 5 bear the burden of making things right, because LE 'did it wrong' and the resultant brouhaha from those LEO's illegal and ignorant acts should be placed solely with the citizen for not cooperating instead of on LE for not knowing the law.

    The Culver 5 knew the law, those LEOs did not, and it is the Culver 5's fault for the inevitable outcome when LE breaks the law.

    While there are always exceptions, the people in these groups are law abiding citizens from all walks of life. While most are conservatives, there are many liberal gun owners too who are involved. Most are supportive of the police, though they also feel we have an arrogance or elitist sense of entitlement when it comes to firearms (cops always like to say that we have special training that makes us better/safer/more competent when it comes to guns, though in reality, that is probably not always true). They are not the typical gun toting, crack-dealing mopes we are used to dealing with, and they're not a bunch of right-wing, racist, militia members either. Most are the type who would be the first to help an officer in distress on the side of the road. They want to carry a firearm for the same reasons many police officers choose to do so off duty – to protect themselves and their families, and instead of dismissing them as weirdos – we need to keep open minds and understand they feel the same way about keeping their families safe as we do.
    Another statement on we OCing citizens and how we feel about LEOs. When it is likely that our 'feelings' are derived from the past 'actions' of LEOs. See the Culver 5 incident.

    They are educated about the law and their rights. They will carefully plan WHERE they are going to open carry to make sure 1) they are not breaking ANY laws (i.e not in bars, not next to a school, etc) 2) in a very public place where people will see them. They do not intend to scare people or intimidate anyone – but they want people to notice the. They will carefully unload and transport their firearm encased in their vehicles so they do not violate obscure DNR/hunting laws.
    I am not familiar with WI laws regarding carry. Is Officer Alan still commenting from a knowledgeable position?

    Also, he does not seem to appreciate that folks will OC in a 'very public place'.


    Of course, we always have to be safe when contacting anyone, armed or not, but if we approach these people like law abiding citizens and engage them as we would any other citizen, most of them will be very cooperative. They are expecting police contact when they are open carrying. While they will believe they have done nothing wrong to warrant such contact, most understand in Madison it is pretty much inevitable and will be willing to cooperate and 'educate' us on their cause...
    We OCers must cooperate, LE's job will be easier if the citizen cooperates, not that LE must know and follow the law.

    Oh, by the way, it is not a 'cause', it is the free exercise of a inalienable right, enumerated in our US and many state constitutions. You may not have sworn a oath to uphold the US and your state's constitution, but regardless, OC is every citizens right, this includes even you.

    Officer Alan, it is not my job, as a citizen, to educate you on the law. It is your job to know the laws that you enforce. The citizen is a potential victim of your ignorance and you do not seem to care for the citizen or else you would educate yourself.

    People we contact open carrying will become upset if we start the contact assuming they are criminals. This doesn't mean we throw caution to the wind and assume they are good guys either. Our safety is of course, paramount. We are trained to assume EVERYONE we contact is a potential threat and may be armed. But we have to be reasonable...Obviously if we gun everyone who is open carrying, the city is going to be paying out some big settlements. I think officers have been trained that gun=bad guy, and that's not always the case now, and will be less so in the future. We will have to learn that we need to take into account a person's behavior and other circumstances as well.
    The LEOs safety is paramount, to the detriment of the citizens rights and the rule of law.

    WHAT!!! LEOs do not use past experiences, professional training, proven investigative techniques, instinct, to determine if 'crime is afoot'? I'll betcha a dollar to a box of doughnuts that Officer Alan has been allowed to use, in a court room, his 'instincts', combined with 'time of day', the 'type of neighborhood', and other such 'intangibles' to detain a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity to 'just check the citizen out'. Because, we all know that any one thing may not indicate criminal activity, but if Officer Alan can string enough 'things' together, the citizen must be guilty of some thing, and the Officer Alan will not rest until he finds that something. If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet.

    If we approach in a heavy handed manner, demanding or making assumptions, they will go on the defensive – like other law abiding people we contact and suspect of doing wrong. They will refuse to answer questions, they will refuse consent to search, they will say things like 'am I under arrest or am I free to go?' You know the type of person I'm talking about. They will make our job tough and will be ready to make us look bad if we screw up. I don't want to defend anyone who refuses to cooperate or give us ID – I have a feeling if the guys at Culver's had simply given us ID and talked with us, they would have been able to go back to their dinner a lot quicker – but they have no obligation to provide ID, and we have no legal ground to essentially search their weapon and run the serial number. Perhaps if officers had begun with a different approach, things could have been handled more cordially without the unpleasant media attention that followed. I certainly wasn't there and don't want to criticize but the buzz I have heard from the gun-rights community since the Culver's incident, is the Madison police department is incompetent, and to an extent, a little heavy handed.
    Well, if you had any thoughts as to Officer Alan being one of the few LEOs who 'get it', I hope you have learned the folly of that line of thinking. Officer Alan is no friend of liberty or citizens exercising their 2A right.

    By the way, Officer Alan, you continue to 'blame' the Culver 5 for what LE instigated. The burden lies solely on LE for the Culver 5 incident. Instead of blaming the citizen, man-up, be a professional, and admit that it is you and your brethren that need traing and educating. It is LE job to train/educate their employees, not the citizenry's.

    These guys know their laws. They probably know the specific gun laws better than most of us. They know we can't arrest them for DC for open carry, and they know we can't arrest them for obstructing for not providing ID. Most of these guys know more about guns than the average police officer, and they're probably better pistol shooters too. They will be agitated if we disarm them and if we start trying to unload their $2000 custom handguns, especially if its a gun the officer isn't familiar with, and fiddles with it for 45 seconds trying to make it 'safe'. We'll also look like a bunch of clowns. They are going to be really upset if we start running the serial numbers of their guns to check if they are stolen when we have no basis to do so. I think most of us would be taken aback if another officer asked to run the serial number of our firearm, or search our car – and these guys feel the same way. We just can't assume that everyone carrying a gun is a felon with a stolen gun anymore. The times are changing.
    No, Officer Alan, you can arrest us for DC and/or obstruction, as was evidenced by the Culver 5. What you and prosecutors can not do is get a judge to go along with your illegal actions. Once again, you blame the Culver 5 for the actions of LE.

    That doesn't mean we shouldn't disarm people if we feel it necessary, but if we do it as an across the board approach, its going to lead to conflict, bad press, and law suits...Just because we can, doesn't mean we always should.
    Well, Officer Alan, it is obvious that any educating that was accomplished by the Culver 5 incident is completely lost on you and your brethren.

    How about this, take a weekend, use Google, and find your states unlawful use of weapons laws. Read them, heck, even print them out, and pass them around to your buddies. You may be surprised what the Interwebs is capable of. Remember, the majority of citizens only view a OCing citizen in the light or frame of mind that LE wants them to view OCing citizens. If LE wanted to 'make things right' then they would be promoting that OC is legal (where it is legal) and that citizens should understand that a gun, in a holster, staying in that holster, is not a criminal activity. But no, you and your fellow LEOs will never do that. Yet, you will continue to complain about how 'those OCers this and those OCers that', when LE gets slapped down by the courts for illegal acts.

    You, Officer Alan, and your brethren could 'fix' this virtually overnight.

    Officer Adrian Alan
    City of Madison Police Department
    South District
    825 Hughes Place
    Madison, WI 53713
    608-266-5938 Ph
    608-266-4453 Fax

    "THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v*U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.
    Officer Alan, you are no friend of liberty or the citizen. You refuse to shoulder the burden to educate your fellow LEOs. The burden is the citizens. You refuse to acknowledge that LE has the problem of ignorance of the law. Considering that you admit that 'we' know the laws better than most LEOs. You refuse to be held accountable or hold your fellow LEOs accountable for their illegal acts. No, it is always the citizen who causes these 'little brouhahas'. It is the citizen that needs to cooperate for the benefit of all concerned. It is the citizen that must relinquish their rights to make your job easier.

    Officer Alan, you are no different than the officers involved in the Culver 5 incident, in-spite of your quasi-citizen-centric rhetoric. I see you for what and who you are, and you are no friend of liberty or a valuable public servant. Officer Alan, who exactly are you talking about, LEOs or citizens? I have my doubts on whether or not you are in agreement with a citizens enumerated inalienable right to keep and bear arms, I really do have my doubts.

    Overly harsh? Maybe, but Officer Alan has not stated anything substantively different from some other LEOs have previously stated here on OCDO....nothing to see here....move along....move along.

    It is simply amazing, to me, that anyone would find Officer Alan's words as a sign that some in LE 'get it'. I find his words as more proof that we have a long way to go and that LE is not going to join the citizen on the journey unless forced to by court order.

    Ironic, citing Miller v*U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489, but the comments actually support what those LEOs did in the Culver 5 incident.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-06-2013 at 09:08 PM. Reason: Font color
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post

    snip
    +2. Well said!

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Thanks....it was either bloviate or "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10
    This is a rather old topic which I happened to just stumble across while doing some internet research, but given the fact I have had not had an opportunity to respond to some rather critical comments towards me, the author of the original email, I thought to set the record straight, I should respond.

    First, any opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect the official opinions or positions of my employer.

    Allow me explain the context of what is written here. This was an internal email I sent to another training officer as we were developing department-wide training after the incident you refer to as the "Culver's 5" - as the state was moving towards implementing the new concealed carry law and open carrying was becoming more prevalent in the Madison area. This was certainly NOT an article I wrote to have published. Thus, as I refer to OCers as "them" I am speaking to officers who are not familiar with those involved in this movement. I certainly make some generalizations, but they are based on the people I personally know who are involved in pro-2A groups. I think for the most part, I spoke highly of the people involved in groups such as this one.

    You seem to jump to a number of conclusions about me, my political views and my feelings towards the Second Amendment and our Constitution though you have never met me, spoken to me and frankly know nothing about me other than an email you read that you did not know the context to. Let me introduce myself.

    At the time of this writing, I have been a police officer for almost a decade. My interest in firearms began many years before that. I actually grew up in a very liberal, anti-gun family and was first exposed to firearms in college, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Like most "antis" - once someone got me on range, I was hooked. Shooting, hunting and collecting firearms has become a lifelong passion of mine.

    I served as Secretary of the UW-Madison student gun club (Student Alliance for Firearm Education and Responsiblity - SAFER) for two years. Those were the years when the PPA was passed by the legislature twice, vetoed by then Governor Doyle, and the veto over-ride failed each time by a vote or two. Members of our During this time, I researched and wrote a lengthy paper on the legality of open carry. I was a strong advocate of OC as a way to exercise one's first Amendment right about the Second Amendment. Years earlier, the WI Supreme Court had ruled in State v Hamdan that the prohibition on CCW was unconstitutional, though restricted the ruling to one's home and place of business based on the facts of the case. The WI SC gave the legislature a clear warning that it needed to address this law - which the legislature did - only to be vetoed by the Governor. Though at the time, I was a strong advocate for OC, neither the WRPA, GOA or anyone else I spoke with had any interest in OC. None of these organizations wanted to put their money where their mouth was, and people at the time were frankly too scared of being arrested for DC to try OC, certainly not in Madison.

    Fast forward a few years. I moved to South Dakota where I got my first CCW license, before I became a police officer. After I was hired in SD, I worked there for several years. I came into contact with legally armed, law abiding citizens frequently. In that state, such contacts were normal. During pheasant season, it was not uncommon to make a traffic stop (for moving or equipment violations) and find a hunter with a loaded shotgun on the front seat. No big deal, perfectly legal. Most of the time, I just asked them to remain in the car and not touch the gun.

    During this time, efforts to legalize CCW in Ohio were moving forward. Somehow the document I wrote about OC in college got around to someone in Ohio who contacted me. In a roundabout way, I was invited to be a guest on NRA News "Cam and Company" and I shared my experiences as a police officer with legally armed citizens. I was a guest on some other programs as well, and wrote an article that appeared in an Ohio pro 2A publication which I can't remember the name of.

    Currently, I am a life member of the NRA. I have a C&R FFL. I run three gun matches at Winnequah Gun Club, in Lodi, WI. I shoot USPSA and 3-gun competitively around the state. If you shoot these types of matches, you will know 90% of the people there are not cops, and many of them are politically active when it comes to the 2A. These people are some of my best friends. I have walked around the Capitol with them in support of Second Amendment rights. Last year, I was asked to be on the Joy Cardin show on WI Public Radio after the Sandy Hook shooting when there was a nation-wide push for banning "assault weapons." I went on the show to dispel the many myths that the mainstream media and certain political figures were then attempting to spread about semi-automatic firearms.

    I could continue on about how much I have done to fight for the individual right of citizens to keep and bear arms, but I'm getting long-winded so I will move on and dispel some of the other inflammatory accusations you make about my character and my professional conduct.

    I was not at the Culver's incident. I wish I had been because I believe it could have resulted in a different outcome. I will tell you this. PRIOR to the Culver's incident, I personally made contact with at least two OCers in Madison. None of my contacts with an OCer resulted in people being arrested or even disarmed. In at least one case, I did run someone's ID, which they provided voluntarily. We had nice conversations and went about our business.

    You suggested that officers like myself need to read our laws. I don't see anywhere in my email where you could get the impression that I don't understand firearms laws in the state of WI. In fact, the email above was sent specifically to other officers as our department was organizing training for our officers to get them up to speed on the OC issue, as well as concealed carry. You have to appreciate that Wisconsin has had a prohibition on CCW for years. Prior to our new CCW laws, the only people cops contacted in WI with concealed weapons were bad guys or other cops. Not only were there new laws to learn, to an extent, we had to change the mindset of our officers - we had to change how they had been thinking and behaving for decades. That's not something that happens over night, especially with a department of 400 officers.

    I don't see anywhere in my email where I place blame on the individuals at Culvers who were open carrying. They were doing something legal, something protected by the US and State Constitution and something personally, that I have been in full support for years. I cannot possibly comprehend where you get that idea from. It is totally absurd. The department paid out for the mistakes that were made at Culver's. My involvement was after the fact in organizing training so this would never happen again. Our department's track record since then, I believe, speaks to our efforts to educate and train our officers on the matter of OC, CCW and in general, rights guaranteed to the people in the US and WI Constitution.

    Let me respond to a few points specifically:


    The LEOs safety is paramount, to the detriment of the citizens rights and the rule of law.

    WHAT!!! LEOs do not use past experiences, professional training, proven investigative techniques, instinct, to determine if 'crime is afoot'? I'll betcha a dollar to a box of doughnuts that Officer Alan has been allowed to use, in a court room, his 'instincts', combined with 'time of day', the 'type of neighborhood', and other such 'intangibles' to detain a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity to 'just check the citizen out'. Because, we all know that any one thing may not indicate criminal activity, but if Officer Alan can string enough 'things' together, the citizen must be guilty of some thing, and the Officer Alan will not rest until he finds that something. If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet.
    You don't know anything about me, yet you are trying to lump me into the "jack-booted-thug" category. Part of my job requires me to investigate people who are acting suspiciously. To legally stop someone, I must be able to have specific articulable facts to support why I believed their behavior suggested they were engaged in criminal activity. Your suggestion that I simply make stuff up to stop whomever I want is insulting and offensive. Do you have any personal knowledge of me or how I conduct investigations? Have you ever seen me in court? Your statements are bordering on defamation.


    Well, if you had any thoughts as to Officer Alan being one of the few LEOs who 'get it', I hope you have learned the folly of that line of thinking. Officer Alan is no friend of liberty or citizens exercising their 2A right.

    By the way, Officer Alan, you continue to 'blame' the Culver 5 for what LE instigated. The burden lies solely on LE for the Culver 5 incident. Instead of blaming the citizen, man-up, be a professional, and admit that it is you and your brethren that need traing and educating. It is LE job to train/educate their employees, not the citizenry's.

    No, Officer Alan, you can arrest us for DC and/or obstruction, as was evidenced by the Culver 5. What you and prosecutors can not do is get a judge to go along with your illegal actions. Once again, you blame the Culver 5 for the actions of LE.
    Again, I have no idea where you get this idea from that I am blaming the guys at Culver's for what happened. I never said or implied that.

    Well, Officer Alan, it is obvious that any educating that was accomplished by the Culver 5 incident is completely lost on you and your brethren.

    How about this, take a weekend, use Google, and find your states unlawful use of weapons laws. Read them, heck, even print them out, and pass them around to your buddies. You may be surprised what the Interwebs is capable of. Remember, the majority of citizens only view a OCing citizen in the light or frame of mind that LE wants them to view OCing citizens. If LE wanted to 'make things right' then they would be promoting that OC is legal (where it is legal) and that citizens should understand that a gun, in a holster, staying in that holster, is not a criminal activity. But no, you and your fellow LEOs will never do that. Yet, you will continue to complain about how 'those OCers this and those OCers that', when LE gets slapped down by the courts for illegal acts.

    You, Officer Alan, and your brethren could 'fix' this virtually overnight.
    I covered this above. I was involved in training our officers on OC and the WI CCW laws. The 911 center has also changed how OC calls are dispatched. They are not dispatched as "man with a gun" calls anymore. Officers have responded to dozens of OC calls since Culver's, and I am pleased to say the encounters have been positive.


    Officer Alan, you are no friend of liberty or the citizen. You refuse to shoulder the burden to educate your fellow LEOs. The burden is the citizens. You refuse to acknowledge that LE has the problem of ignorance of the law. Considering that you admit that 'we' know the laws better than most LEOs. You refuse to be held accountable or hold your fellow LEOs accountable for their illegal acts. No, it is always the citizen who causes these 'little brouhahas'. It is the citizen that needs to cooperate for the benefit of all concerned. It is the citizen that must relinquish their rights to make your job easier.

    Officer Alan, you are no different than the officers involved in the Culver 5 incident, in-spite of your quasi-citizen-centric rhetoric. I see you for what and who you are, and you are no friend of liberty or a valuable public servant. Officer Alan, who exactly are you talking about, LEOs or citizens? I have my doubts on whether or not you are in agreement with a citizens enumerated inalienable right to keep and bear arms, I really do have my doubts.

    Overly harsh? Maybe, but Officer Alan has not stated anything substantively different from some other LEOs have previously stated here on OCDO....nothing to see here....move along....move along.

    It is simply amazing, to me, that anyone would find Officer Alan's words as a sign that some in LE 'get it'. I find his words as more proof that we have a long way to go and that LE is not going to join the citizen on the journey unless forced to by court order.

    Ironic, citing Miller v*U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489, but the comments actually support what those LEOs did in the Culver 5 incident.
    So, I did shoulder the burden to re-train our officers. I acknowledged in my original email that our officers were lacking in legal knowledge when it came to gun laws. Your two sentences there contradict each other. You say I refuse to acknowledge that LE has a problem of ignorance of the law, and the next sentence you say that I admit that "you" know the laws better than LEOs.

    I am not the problem here. 99% of the people on this board or people who OC ARE NOT the problem. I think most people will figure out what the problem is here. I am a citizen first, and a police officer second. My job exists to protect the rights of citizens of this country. Here I am, attempting to bridge the gap between police officers, many of whom know nothing about firearms outside of law enforcement, and non-sworn citizen gun owners who are fighting to protect their God-given right to keep and bear arms. Using my experience, and my passion for firearms, I am working to educate those I can influence in law enforcement so we don't have incidents like Culver's again - so citizens, including myself and my family, can exercised their 2A rights, and officers - like myself, can do their jobs and go home safely to their families at the end of the night.

    You however, offer inflammatory, sweeping generalizations and personal attacks on me without any knowledge of who I am, what I believe, how I operate, my experiences or past work. You get exposure, "street cred," whatever by inciting confrontation, provoking misunderstanding and perhaps even hate towards law enforcement. You could have called me to speak with me about this email, you could have asked clarifying questions about it's context and we could have engaged in a meaningful discussion that would have built trust between gun owners and cops. But you didn't, and it's pretty clear now why.

    I think most people are smart enough to figure out what approach is right and what approach is productive in securing all of our God given rights now and into the future.

    For anyone who is interested in discussing these types of things in a productive, honest and open dialogue, I invite you contact me by PM or email. Regards,

    -A Alan
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-06-2013 at 09:12 PM. Reason: Formatting

  9. #9
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    I am not the problem here. 99% of the people on this board or people who OC are the problem.
    Riiiight. Thanks officer for your elitist attitude.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Riiiight. Thanks officer for your elitist attitude.

    Apologies for the typo. 99% ARE NOT the problem. I think I made that clear in everything else I wrote. The problem are the folks who make sweeping assumptions about cops and cops who make sweeping assumptions about gun owners. In the email and in my post I address this perceived, and often truthful elitist attitude some in law enforcement have about firearms and that it needs to change.
    Last edited by Dakota663; 11-13-2013 at 11:30 PM.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota663 View Post

    I think most people are smart enough to figure out what approach is right and what approach is productive in securing all of our God given rights now and into the future.

    For anyone who is interested in discussing these types of things in a productive, honest and open dialogue, I invite you contact me by PM or email. Regards,

    -A Alan
    That would have been the part where you explain that not only is it absolutely false that you respond to a MWG call, until you observe something that gives you RAS, detainment is illegal and stupid.

    I did not see that part, perhaps I missed it or you forgot it.

    BTW would you like to tell us how many criminals you have encountered open carrying vs hiding their guns?

    Evaluation of your email and response to that email, better than a LOT, still somewhat defines a difference. I would wager you are one of the really good LEO's and would at least tip my hat for the attempt at communicating and being some what open.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  12. #12
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    Officer Adrian Alan
    City of Madison Police Department
    South District
    825 Hughes Place
    Madison, WI 53713
    608-266-5938 Ph
    608-266-4453 Fax
    Hired 5/27/08. http://www.cityofmadison.com/police/...Report2008.pdf
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10
    Thanks LMTD. To some extent, we have to go by the information provided to us by dispatch - but enroute and upon arrival on scene, we are always re-evaluating. I have been called to what was reported as a run of the mill verbal disturbance only to find out someone had been shot. I have been dispatched to shots fired, people down to find absolutely nothing.

    Officers have become very good at prompting dispatch for more information on the MWG calls that are vague and on several occasions officers have realized it was likely an OC situation and de-escalated to a simple contact - say hello and leave.

    To answer your question - most criminals conceal their weapons. That said, we have encountered thugs who were criminals, without a felony record, who took advantage of OC or CCW to be armed. One guy was recently arrested for dealing heroin I believe and moving stolen guns. They are the RARE cases of this however.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Well the job is one with a great many rules and virtually no absolutes, a near impossible task.

    If you really want to get at the meat of the problem, it is a lot more than what you have described.

    A lot of it surrounds the hours of training employed to get officers well schooled in obtaining consent through polite interaction. A great many of the cases that have come about occur because officers are also trained to remain in control of the situation. When they seek voluntary consent through polite request, they are completely used to near immediate compliance when they do not get it, things often change rapidly. If an officer goes into a power struggle with the citizen at that point which happens often, the officer completely fails and crosses the line by detaining the citizen illegally because HE or SHE indeed change it from a casual contact to formal and begins to scramble for RAS which may or may not exist at all. Too often as witnessed by several law suits and videos, the officers think they can develop RAS after the line is crossed.

    Now I am not going to attack your letter, but I would like you to note, you mentioned handling or running a serial number, and while Terry is indeed clear, when an officer is involved in a casual contact it NEVER applies and you should not be touching anyone's property or person and doing so under authority is indeed a clear and simple case of violating citizens rights. Even under the totality of a situation, refusing to comply with a request for consent and being visibly armed does not make RAS and Terry does not apply, nor does it apply when an officer scrambles for RAS after making an illegal detainment, it is simply a continued and repeated clear violation.

    I believe for the most part, the feed back you would get from OC'ers is quite simple just as it is with other citizens. We want you to address criminal behavior and put the bad guys away. We also do not want you to bother legal citizens who are not involved in criminal behavior at all. The firearm does NOT warrant contact, it does not require identification, it does not require anything at all in fact and absent of any criminal behavior no contact at all should be made, not even casual because frankly, most officers react poorly if ignored which also is not illegal.

    No contact is likely the best choice every department could make, a MWG call is not describing criminal behavior, and unless as much is observed, doing more than looking is flirting with disaster.

    All just opinion, yours may vary.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota663 View Post
    <snip>

    I was not at the Culver's incident. I wish I had been because I believe it could have resulted in a different outcome. I will tell you this. PRIOR to the Culver's incident, I personally made contact with at least two OCers in Madison. None of my contacts with an OCer resulted in people being arrested or even disarmed. In at least one case, I did run someone's ID, which they provided voluntarily. We had nice conversations and went about our business.
    Good to know, but irrelevant. The cops in the Culver 5 incident did what they did and it is unlikely that you would have stopped any or all of those cops from doing what they did. There are countless videos of a second cop merely watching a rights abusing thugs' back and doing nothing to stop the thuggery being displayed right in front of him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota663 View Post
    You suggested that officers like myself need to read our laws. I don't see anywhere in my email where you could get the impression that I don't understand firearms laws in the state of WI. In fact, the email above was sent specifically to other officers as our department was organizing training for our officers to get them up to speed on the OC issue, as well as concealed carry. You have to appreciate that Wisconsin has had a prohibition on CCW for years. Prior to our new CCW laws, the only people cops contacted in WI with concealed weapons were bad guys or other cops. Not only were there new laws to learn, to an extent, we had to change the mindset of our officers - we had to change how they had been thinking and behaving for decades. That's not something that happens over night, especially with a department of 400 officers.
    your appeal to emotion is noted. The unlawful use of weapons laws in Missouri are easy to find, relatively short and almost devoid of political legalese. I suspect that WI has similar laws and are not too hard to find, read, and understand. It is your job to know them and understand them. There is another thread here that demonstrates what WI cops continue to do to citizens they know are not breaking the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota663 View Post
    I don't see anywhere in my email where I place blame on the individuals at Culvers who were open carrying. They were doing something legal, something protected by the US and State Constitution and something personally, that I have been in full support for years. I cannot possibly comprehend where you get that idea from. It is totally absurd. The department paid out for the mistakes that were made at Culver's. My involvement was after the fact in organizing training so this would never happen again. Our department's track record since then, I believe, speaks to our efforts to educate and train our officers on the matter of OC, CCW and in general, rights guaranteed to the people in the US and WI Constitution.
    Let me refresh your memory.

    I don't want to defend anyone who refuses to cooperate or give us ID – I have a feeling if the guys at Culver's had simply given us ID and talked with us, they would have been able to go back to their dinner a lot quicker – but they have no obligation to provide ID, and we have no legal ground to essentially search their weapon and run the serial number.
    The above is from the OP. Specifically, that is overly entitled cop talk. You said it yourself, if you would have been there things might have been different, yet how could they be different based on what the Culver 5 did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota663 View Post
    Let me respond to a few points specifically:

    <snip.

    For anyone who is interested in discussing these types of things in a productive, honest and open dialogue, I invite you contact me by PM or email. Regards,

    -A Alan
    Anyway. You clearly do not recall any of the words you claim to have typed in the e-mail posted in the OP. I cited you words and then responded to those words. Officer Alan, no amount of obfuscation is going to change what you wrote. You may hold a different view now than when you wrote that e-mail. If so simply state that some of those views were wrong. No big deal. But trying to push your making wrong headed and anti-liberty statements on to me is further proof that you clearly do not hold the rights of the citizenry in the highest regard.

    I don't know you, I only know what you wrote and those words are often repeated by cops. Unfortunately you refuse to see what you wrote even though I clearly point out the anti-liberty sentiment in your words.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10
    I think your assessment is fair. A consensual contact is a two-way street. When one party decides it's over - then continuing on is no longer consensual. For officers, they have to make a determination as to whether it's time to politely part ways, or if reasonable suspicion exists to temporarily detain someone for purposes of conducting an investigation - the Terry stop as you correctly refer. Again, I'm not defending any actions in any specific cases.

    I also agree with what you said about running serial numbers. It should not be done unless the officer has reason to believe it is stolen or consent is given. I will tell you this: officers at our department do not run serial numbers as a general practice when contact is made with people in daily, non-criminal situations. This includes traffic stops, OC situations, etc.

    I perhaps should have mentioned this email was sent prior to the adoption of the final CCW law in WI. That means the language WI Stat 947.01 that specifically addressed OC was not in place at the time. Now, it is perfectly clear and officers in my jurisdiction have thus changed their approach to this issue.

    While I personally agree with your statement that an OC situation should be a non-contact, the reality of life makes things a little more murky. As I mentioned, often the information we get from dispatch does not match the situation when we arrive. Madison is a very liberal community where there are a lot of people who are afraid of guns. I'm not at all defending their ignorance - but the reality is we get people calling in who have no idea OC is legal and may tend to exaggerate things. It is not right, but until we sort things out ourselves, we have to respond. The other thing to consider is the officers on the street don't make the call as to what they respond to. Those SOPs are created by people with much higher rank than the basic patrol officer. With time, as both the public and LE gets used to contacting legally armed citizens, I believe these may GENERALLY turn into no-contact calls - but every single situation is different and has to be considered based on the circumstances involved.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10
    OC for ME - I see what you are saying how the one sentence in the email that had the Culver's 5 provided ID, this could have been avoided - could be interpreted as blaming them for the situation. I will counter, however, that if you read the rest of the email, it is pretty clear from everything else I said that the change that needed to be made was in LE because this one was handled incorrectly.

    I would like to hear your response to your direct accusations that I simply stop people on the street and make up facts as I go to be able to drag them in front of a judge. I would like to hear how you determined it was appropriate to make such an allegation when you have never met me and have no knowledge of me or my professional conduct. I don't think you figured someone would show up here to defend themselves against such slanderous accusations which is why you made them in the first place.

    While I can appreciate your disagreement with the content of my email, the personal attacks in a public forum are completely uncalled for. They are damaging to my reputation, both as an officer and as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I have a strong reputation both in WI law enforcement as well as among WI gunowners. I am proud of that reputation and I have worked hard to earn it. I don't need someone from Missouri to tell me how WI gun owners - friends of mine who fight to protect their RKBA feel about me or the work I have done for gunowners in this state.

    It's pretty clear you lump all cops into the "enemy" group. That is unfortunate, because even in our liberal city, officers do not lump gunowners into the "enemy" category. Most of the cops I work with actually are fairly strong supporters of the RKBA. As someone who is clearly a leader on the OC forum, it's disappointing that instead of working with me to understand each other's points of views, you turn to personal attacks to slander my character.

    I think you are terribly misinformed about the typical police officer. It's actually kind of humorous, because if you were looking for a WI LE officer to pick on because of their "anti-liberty" or "anti-gun" views, you probably picked the very last officer in the entire state who would fall into that category.

    I will assure anyone else who may be reading this thread that I, and 99% of the cops I work with believe most gun owners and OCers are very supportive of law enforcement and are not "the enemy" as 'OC for ME' would like you to believe. I hope the rest of you will continue to fight to protect our 2A rights, and I hope that gun owners and police officers will work together to protect these rights rather than in opposition.

    I would still like to hear your explanation for the completely baseless and false accusations you make about me and how I conduct investigations or treat citizens I meet in my community.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota663 View Post
    ... LE gets used to contacting legally armed citizens, I believe these may GENERALLY turn into no-contact calls - but every single situation is different and has to be considered based on the circumstances involved.
    I'd truly like to know why LE bothers to contact OC-ers that are just doing ordinary things. Shopping, walking dogs, eating lunch.

    I think it's because there's a payoff for LE. An emotional payoff. They know the contactee will be a LAC, they know it will be a chance to practice their 'verbal judo', perhaps they hope a veiled confrontational approach, seemingly polite, might cause the OC-er to 'trip up'. It's like 'catching fish in a barrel' for LE.

    In truth LE could use its experience, maybe observe and then go look for actual criminals.

    Bear in mind while you're catching an 'easy fish' there are crimes being committed elsewhere. While you're looking at the MWAG, there are concealed carriers all around you, watching.

    I think you could offer insight even if YOU don't do this behavior.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    I'd truly like to know why LE bothers to contact OC-ers that are just doing ordinary things. Shopping, walking dogs, eating lunch.

    I think it's because there's a payoff for LE. An emotional payoff. They know the contactee will be a LAC, they know it will be a chance to practice their 'verbal judo', perhaps they hope a veiled confrontational approach, seemingly polite, might cause the OC-er to 'trip up'. It's like 'catching fish in a barrel' for LE.

    In truth LE could use its experience, maybe observe and then go look for actual criminals.

    Bear in mind while you're catching an 'easy fish' there are crimes being committed elsewhere. While you're looking at the MWAG, there are concealed carriers all around you, watching.

    I think you could offer insight even if YOU don't do this behavior.
    Sure, let me share my perspective. We (as in LE in general) contacts OCers because our bosses tell us to. Our bosses tell us too because the lawyers tell them to. It's the same reason why officers have to go check every single 911 disconnect or pocket dial - because if we don't, and the one time something bad happens - we get sued.

    For most of us, these are "BS calls." They are somewhere in line with barking dogs. "Don't you have something more important to do officer?" Yep - sure do, but unfortunately my job entails dealing with this stuff too. Cops don't like responding to OC calls. For one, as we've all seen there is the potential for things to go south. Because of a misunderstanding, or a mistake or misstatement by one party or the other - now I'm getting complaints called into my supervisor or I'm getting dragged into court and sued.

    I have actual criminals in the neighborhoods I patrol who are selling heroin and killing people off in our city en masse. We have real criminals who are robbing innocent people, abusing children, breaking into people's homes, driving around drunk and high, shooting up night clubs, fighting, and in general acting like fools. You think I get a kick out of pinching some guy for a muni citation because he "slips up" and say, carries his gun in the wrong place? Not me and not where I work. Most of us see the big picture, guys. Frankly, unless I can nail a convicted felon with a gun, who is in possession of at least 5 grams of hard dope, it's hardly worth my time - because state cases don't go anywhere these days and to actually put a bad guy away, you need federal charges.

    That said, there are places in this country where the politicians push LE into enforcing their BS laws. I see the same stuff online you guys do - usually Massachussets or NY or somewhere where some poor guy gets pulled over and they seize his "arsenal" of a whopping three guns because he had a couple of magazines with 15 round capacities. That's a bunch of BS. I could not work in a state where I would be expected to enforce laws like that. I know cops who work in those states too, and I know many of them use their discretion when they can to make those things go away.

    When someone is in accidental violation of a weapons ordinance or law where I work - and they are a law-abiding citizen, we much prefer education in lieu of enforcement action. Again I can't speak for Mass, NYC, Cali, etc. Myself, and other officers have stopped people on routine traffic (speeding, etc) who have CCW permits that were not valid in WI who informed us they were carrying. You think we want to arrest someone like that, in front of their family on their vacation? Of course not. We explain the law, thank them for their cooperation and have them case it up (or now, carry in plain view) so they are in compliance. It's happened more than once.

    Again, I can only speak about myself and the people I work with, but none of us here are looking for "easy fish." No one here wants to bust a law abiding citizen for some administrative violation. You know what makes my boss the happiest? When I make traffic stops. Doesn't really matter if I even write tickets. Why? Because the #1 complaint citizens have is traffic - speeding, stop sign violations, etc. No one cares about a guy grocery shopping who is OC. But, we still have to go when we are called. It's the nature of the beast.

    Anyways, I think that's how most cops see the matter, at least in the 80% of the states. We honestly hate going to calls like these, and would rather be doing something else, but we work for other people who dictate to an extent what we will respond to and how we will respond. We have bosses, just like you.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10
    Actually I have a good example of one from last year or maybe two years ago - we had emergency alert tones for people in camouflage with long guns walking into a park on the outskirts of town. What the caller and dispatcher didn't know is it was the opening day of squirrel season, and this was one of our parks where hunting with a firearm is permitted. Fortunately, officers did know this.

    We still have to make contact with the people for the same reasons I explained above (bosses and lawyers). It's also a park where some of our local gang members like to use for their meetings. So, though we probably know what the case is, we have to check. Now instead of a negative contact, we send two officers to go talk with the hunters in a friendly manner, explain why we got called, explain we realized they were probably hunting, check their hunting license, have a friendly conversation, shake hands and go on our way. MOST IMPORTANTLY we call the complainant back and advise them that the people were going into the park to hunt, which is perfectly legal and nothing they should be alarmed about. This way we educate the public, we have a positive contact with community members and everyone is happy at the end of the day.

    With OC cases, we try to do the same thing. We try to educate complainants who may have called an OCer in because most of them don't know the behavior they observed was perfectly legal. Sometimes we have anonymous 911 callers - "there is a man with a gun at Copps and he's acting weird. CLICK!" Is that a caller who doesn't like guns with an ulterior motive? Could be.... but we can't leave that to chance. That's going to be a contact, and hopefully a quick and friendly conversation so we can get back to work and they can get back to shopping. Most people we talk to under those circumstances are friendly, understanding of why we had to talk with them and wish us well. I've repeated this to other cops throughout my career - people like that will be the first ones to stop and help one of us if we are on the side of the road in a fight for our life. They are generally good guys and people who are supportive of law enforcement.
    Last edited by Dakota663; 11-14-2013 at 12:49 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. However, I don't buy two of your comments.

    If you were to just go observe an OC-er and not contact them you would be just as effective and would not invoke any issues with your 'boss'.

    Second, you are immune from being sued in all but the most egregious situations and even then it just doesn't happen. So, your defense that you must make contact does not cut it.

    I'd just like to have you discuss the REAL reason you guys do it not some 'he made me' excuse. But if you don't feel comfortable looking at motivation (especially among others in your profession who are not so 'nice') then that's your prerogative.

    And the example of going out and contacting hunters because it's the start of squirrel season and they are perfectly legal is silly. You're not a game warden. In fact I'd say that if that happened and you had reasonable suspicion they were without permits you'd contact the local ranger and have him do it.

    It's all about 'reasonable and articulable suspicion'. If you don't have it you shouldn't be stopping people doing perfectly legal things.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota663 View Post
    OC for ME - I see what you are saying how the one sentence in the email that had the Culver's 5 provided ID, this could have been avoided - could be interpreted as blaming them for the situation. I will counter, however, that if you read the rest of the email, it is pretty clear from everything else I said that the change that needed to be made was in LE because this one was handled incorrectly.
    <snip>
    I was in the midst of a lengthy reply and figured it was not worth it. You refuse to read what I wrote in the initial response to your e-mail. You refuse to accept responsibility for what you wrote in your e-mail as your views then, and possibly your views now on OCers.

    This is the Missouri sub-forum. Your e-mail was posted almost 20 months ago, and you didn't post it. I figured that you would not come here to defend your position because you didn't post the e-mail. I responded to the e-mail for the benefit of the readers of this thread back then, and I stand by every word I wrote. Your words back then were anti-liberty and anti-citizen. Respond on point and I will engage in a lively debate. Resort to false claims and innuendo and I will chalk you up as another cop who claims to be one of the good guys but whose words tell a different story.

    You don't know me either and I have a record here on OCDO regarding my views of LE and the citizens who join that profession. If you are a good cop, great, but I cannot afford to take you at your word. Even folks in WI, and Madison I suspect, hold the same view as I in-spite of your claims. All I know is that good cops and bad cops look the same. Even nice sounding, polite cops, will violate a OCer's rights. Too many videos to link to prove this is true, you will just have to take my word on this point.

    Example of a "nice cop": Find the thread regarding a WI cop (not MPD)telling a law abiding citizen that he will shoot him in the head if. There are few folks around here who think the OCer deserved his treatment, maybe you will too.

    The LEOs safety is paramount, to the detriment of the citizens rights and the rule of law.

    WHAT!!! LEOs do not use past experiences, professional training, proven investigative techniques, instinct, to determine if 'crime is afoot'? I'll betcha a dollar to a box of doughnuts that Officer Alan has been allowed to use, in a court room, his 'instincts', combined with 'time of day', the 'type of neighborhood', and other such 'intangibles' to detain a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity to 'just check the citizen out'. Because, we all know that any one thing may not indicate criminal activity, but if Officer Alan can string enough 'things' together, the citizen must be guilty of some thing, and the Officer Alan will not rest until he finds that something. If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet.
    I did not state that you "simply stop." You may have read that, that is on you, but you are a cop and cops use the bolded to justify a stop and the courts have held that you can simply stop because of you stringing together intangibles. No observed criminal act is required depending on the situation. If you state that you have never done the above then I will retract and apologize. You would be the very very rare cop indeed.

    Welcome to OCDO and be safe.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-06-2013 at 09:16 PM. Reason: Font color & formatting

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. However, I don't buy two of your comments.

    If you were to just go observe an OC-er and not contact them you would be just as effective and would not invoke any issues with your 'boss'.
    Given that I have a clear set of facts ahead of time, I would agree 100%. In fact, if I knew the information was correct that I was receiving through the radio was true, I wouldn't have to respond at all. I would even go as far to say that in probably 75% of the OC calls we get (and we don't get many anymore) the person is GOA (gone on arrival) so we don't make contact anyways. The problem is the information provided to us or dispatch is usually not that clear.

    Consider the people who call in OC complaints: They fall into one of three categories: 1) they are ignorant of the law 2) they want to screw with gun owners because they don't like guns 3) they don't see the entire picture and fill in the rest themselves. How accurate do you think the information is that we get from people like this? Usually #1 is pretty easy for the dispatcher to deal with and connect the dots for us that is is PROBABLY an OC case. #2 and #3 you won't get good information from, period so in those cases you have to verify. I mentioned before - I've been to calls dispatched as noise complaints only to arrive on the scene of a shooting, and vice versa. My job is a circus, on the best of days.

    I agree that a no-contact could often be the best approach. We use it for other calls. Right now, our SOP is to contact people. I think part of that comes from the fact that there is a known weapon involved. Is it right? Probably not. I think that will loosen up as LE gets used to WI citizens legally carrying firearms. I think it has loosened tremendously already. The reality is when CCW came around in WI, everyone cried "the sky is falling, there will be blood in the streets!" The same thing happened in MN, OH, and everywhere else when they lifted CCW prohibitions. Of course, everything went swimmingly. Well, after a while the community, politicians and police officers see that the sky isn't going to fall, then they adapt and what was once thought of as new and bizarre becomes normal and no big deal.


    Second, you are immune from being sued in all but the most egregious situations and even then it just doesn't happen. So, your defense that you must make contact does not cut it.

    I'd just like to have you discuss the REAL reason you guys do it not some 'he made me' excuse. But if you don't feel comfortable looking at motivation (especially among others in your profession who are not so 'nice') then that's your prerogative.

    And the example of going out and contacting hunters because it's the start of squirrel season and they are perfectly legal is silly. You're not a game warden. In fact I'd say that if that happened and you had reasonable suspicion they were without permits you'd contact the local ranger and have him do it.

    It's all about 'reasonable and articulable suspicion'. If you don't have it you shouldn't be stopping people doing perfectly legal things.
    We have qualified immunity if we follow department policy and procedure. If we deviate from this, we are flying solo. If I don't contact someone my department expected me to and they go and do something bad - I face discipline or termination - and rightfully so. I can tell you my motivation - that is to do my job, protect people's rights, not get in trouble so my family can eat and protect the people of the community. If you want me to say that cops get a kick out of busting legal gun owners, I will tell you in my experience, that is not true. I have heard horror stories elsewhere - again usually NJ, Mass, NYC. Heck - COPS used to get arrested at JFK just switching planes because they had a legal, duty pistol checked in their luggage, but didn't have an NYC pistol permit. Cop or not that is absurd and a terrible infringement on our (yours and mine) rights.

    As for the squirrel hunters, I do have authority to enforce DNR laws and write those violations, and it is my job to ensure people are following the law within our city parks. Did I KNOW they were perfectly legal? No. I was 90% sure. I told you we also have gang members who hold their meetings in that park. We have had people walk out there and commit suicide. Tell me one thing in life that is 100% sure. Tell me if you would trust your life to someone on the phone you don't know who called someone in a dispatch center you've never met who told you something over the radio. While many may just carry guns to exercise their 2A right, I would wager most of us also carry a firearm because we don't 100% trust all the people we may encounter on a day to day basis.

    Anyways, I appreciate your sentiment that we shouldn't be contacting people at all without reasonable suspicion - but I guess what I am trying to say is when we get called to something, it is almost never black and white and usually we can't figure out what is going on until we actually show up and talk with someone. We serve the people and if our citizens determine some day determine they don't want police officers actively looking for criminals and responding to potential crimes in progress - then I'm ok with that. We can sit in the station and wait until people come in to report crimes after the fact. To date, that is not what the vast majority of the community wants however and recognizes our job requires we go out and interact with people.

    The best thing you could do to understand our perspective is go on a ride along sometime or attend a citizen's academy. If you guys were in my state, I would invite you out with me but I don't think you want to drive 14 hours to spend another 8 hours being relatively bored in another car. It wouldn't take long for you to see that what information dispatch gets and then relays to us is rarely the 100% truth. That's why we verify, whether it's our call or the boss'. I don't know how else to explain it - there isn't some ulterior motive, that's the simple truth of the matter and it is one of the basic things we must do to do our jobs.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10
    The LEOs safety is paramount, to the detriment of the citizens rights and the rule of law.

    WHAT!!! LEOs do not use past experiences, professional training, proven investigative techniques, instinct, to determine if 'crime is afoot'? I'll betcha a dollar to a box of doughnuts that Officer Alan has been allowed to use, in a court room, his 'instincts', combined with 'time of day', the 'type of neighborhood', and other such 'intangibles' to detain a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity to 'just check the citizen out'.


    Articulable and reasonable suspicion takes into account the totality of the circumstances. Neighborhood, time of day, etc can be a factor. You are right that an observed criminal act is not necessarily required to conduct a Terry stop - an observed criminal act would provide probable cause to effect an arrest and we wouldn't be dinking around with stops at that point. If you disagree with the precedent set by SCOTUS as to Terry stops, then I can appreciate but then your problem shouldn't be with me, it should be with the courts and the law.

    The reality is I have plenty of people I can stop who are engaging in actual criminal behavior without having to go snooping around looking for folks who aren't breaking any laws.

    Because, we all know that any one thing may not indicate criminal activity, but if Officer Alan can string enough 'things' together, the citizen must be guilty of some thing, and the Officer Alan will not rest until he finds that something.

    Speak for yourself. You don't speak for me, and I doubt you speak everyone on this board. At least not based on the PMs I have gotten since I responded to this topic. Have I detained someone on a Terry stop to learn they were not involved in the commission of a crime? Of course. I've had plenty of calls where the caller says "6/02 medium build male white with blue jeans, black shirt and brown hair just did XYZ." Or "blue Pontiac Grand Am 4dr just drove off without paying for gas." Sometimes, an innocent person is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and as soon I, or any other officer I work with determine this person was not involved in the crime they are released. Most are very understanding and cooperative throughout the process, though I can totally understand when people get upset for being stopped. The more time I spend on the wrong guy, the less time I have to go find the guy who actually committed the crime. I care about getting the right person because I actually care about the community in which I live and work.

    I appreciate if you disagree with how US law enforcement does their job or how the SCOTUS has ruled we can do our job - but to state that I will take a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity, and "not rest until I find something" is ridiculous.

    If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet.

    Here, you are directly accusing me of lying to support arrests. I have never done such a thing and I never will. You are making assumptions about my behavior and character based solely on the fact that I am a police officer, based on videos or incidents you have seen or heard about involving other officers. If you think I would jeopardize my family, my career, my reputation and my honor by lying to support an arrest, then you are gravely mistaken.

    It is clear we will not see eye to eye and I think we can agree to disagree on how we feel about the statements I have made in the original email or in this thread. I don't think we will be able to resolve the disagreement we have about my character or your allegations on how I conduct myself professionally. That's fine with me too. I think if this is how you discuss these matters in the future, you will alienate potential allies within law enforcement, at the detriment to our Second Amendment rights. But in the end of the day, if we all do what we feel is right then we can be confident in our decisions and our conduct.

    I think I have explained my position clearly, I hope that I have clarified some things, and have defended myself against baseless allegations. I have also learned some things myself through the conversations I have had with others on this board and in this thread. You are free to respond of course, but I don't think the back and forth between you and I will result in any progress and I think I have said everything to you I have to say. If anyone else wants to carry on the conversation in a respectful and mutually open-minded manner to better understand my job as a law enforcement officer, or so I can better understand your sentiments or concerns as a legally armed citizen, as several others have, I will be happy to participate.
    Last edited by Dakota663; 11-14-2013 at 03:45 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota663 View Post
    The LEOs safety is paramount, to the detriment of the citizens rights and the rule of law.

    WHAT!!! LEOs do not use past experiences, professional training, proven investigative techniques, instinct, to determine if 'crime is afoot'? I'll betcha a dollar to a box of doughnuts that Officer Alan has been allowed to use, in a court room, his 'instincts', combined with 'time of day', the 'type of neighborhood', and other such 'intangibles' to detain a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity to 'just check the citizen out'.
    Articulable and reasonable suspicion takes into account the totality of the circumstances. Neighborhood, time of day, etc can be a factor. You are right that an observed criminal act is not necessarily required to conduct a Terry stop - an observed criminal act would provide probable cause to effect an arrest and we wouldn't be dinking around with stops at that point. If you disagree with the precedent set by SCOTUS as to Terry stops, then I can appreciate but then your problem shouldn't be with me, it should be with the courts and the law.

    The reality is I have plenty of people I can stop who are engaging in actual criminal behavior without having to go snooping around looking for folks who aren't breaking any laws.

    Because, we all know that any one thing may not indicate criminal activity, but if Officer Alan can string enough 'things' together, the citizen must be guilty of some thing, and the Officer Alan will not rest until he finds that something.


    Speak for yourself. You don't speak for me, and I doubt you speak everyone on this board. At least not based on the PMs I have gotten since I responded to this topic. Have I detained someone on a Terry stop to learn they were not involved in the commission of a crime? Of course. I've had plenty of calls where the caller says "6/02 medium build male white with blue jeans, black shirt and brown hair just did XYZ." Or "blue Pontiac Grand Am 4dr just drove off without paying for gas." Sometimes, an innocent person is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and as soon I, or any other officer I work with determine this person was not involved in the crime they are released. Most are very understanding and cooperative throughout the process, though I can totally understand when people get upset for being stopped. The more time I spend on the wrong guy, the less time I have to go find the guy who actually committed the crime. I care about getting the right person because I actually care about the community in which I live and work.

    I appreciate if you disagree with how US law enforcement does their job or how the SCOTUS has ruled we can do our job - but to state that I will take a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity, and "not rest until I find something" is ridiculous.

    If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet.


    Here, you are directly accusing me of lying to support arrests. I have never done such a thing and I never will. You are making assumptions about my behavior and character based solely on the fact that I am a police officer, based on videos or incidents you have seen or heard about involving other officers. If you think I would jeopardize my family, my career, my reputation and my honor by lying to support an arrest, then you are gravely mistaken.

    It is clear we will not see eye to eye and I think we can agree to disagree on how we feel about the statements I have made in the original email or in this thread. I don't think we will be able to resolve the disagreement we have about my character or your allegations on how I conduct myself professionally. That's fine with me too. I think if this is how you discuss these matters in the future, you will alienate potential allies within law enforcement, at the detriment to our Second Amendment rights. But in the end of the day, if we all do what we feel is right then we can be confident in our decisions and our conduct.

    I think I have explained my position clearly, I hope that I have clarified some things, and have defended myself against baseless allegations. I have also learned some things myself through the conversations I have had with others on this board and in this thread. You are free to respond of course, but I don't think the back and forth between you and I will result in any progress and I think I have said everything to you I have to say. If anyone else wants to carry on the conversation in a respectful and mutually open-minded manner to better understand my job as a law enforcement officer, or so I can better understand your sentiments or concerns as a legally armed citizen, as several others have, I will be happy to participate.[/QUOTE]I respectfully retract the "If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet." You have stated that would not and have not. I will not dispute your assertion. Thank you for information that I did not warrant.

    OC in WI is not a crime when not conducted in a prohibited place. Thus a Terry stop could not reasonable be articulated to be justified under current WI law for a MWG call. If I am wrong please correct me. You have alluded to a department policy that directs you to make contact because of the weapon.

    I will no longer bother you with any further commentary. You are correct we shall agree to disagree. Please be safe.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-06-2013 at 09:20 PM. Reason: Font color & formatting

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •