View Poll Results: If the police want to see your ID because you are OCing, should you give it to them?

Voters
123. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 12.20%
  • No

    84 68.29%
  • Generally yes, but in some cases, no (please post and explain)

    6 4.88%
  • Generally no, but in some cases, yes (post and explain)

    18 14.63%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 136

Thread: Produce ID for the police?

  1. #51
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA, ,
    Posts
    7,957
    Where I live the police have the authority to request that I identify myself (name and name of locality where I reside, although some say it must include the street address) if they have RAS of a crime committed, being presently committed, or about to be committed.

    The question applies to a request for ID based on the mere act of OCing. Therefore, my answer is "no".

    I have in fact gone to jail because I would not display a government ID doccument when challenged for OCing - although the actual charge was "obstructing justice". Would I do it again? Absolutely, unequivocally "yes". Because it is that important.

    Am I some sort of "gun nut" looking for confrontations with cops? Not in the least. I really want nothing more than to be left alone and allowed to go about my lawful activity without interference or harassment by the government and its minions.

    For those who have answered that they would produce ID in order to avoid confrontation/harassment I can only say "Thank you for making my life that much more likely to include harassment and complication." When government monions believe they can get away with violating the rights of lawfully-behaving armed citizens because some of those citizens are more willing to surrender their rights than to stand up for them, those minions are more likely to try the same thing with other lawfully-behaving armed (and unarmed) citizens. I believe there is an old saying about either giving them an inch or about allowing the camel to put its nose under the edge of the tent. Both address the same thing - allow them to get away with "a little" and they will eventually think they can get away with anything unless someone hauls them up short. I know not what course others may take, but for me "there is no way you are going to get away with that, buddy!"

    I believe the end of the line I am standing somewhere in the middle of is located "over there" (points using index finger).

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 07-27-2012 at 02:37 PM. Reason: darned typos
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #52
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Where I live the police have the authority to request that I identify myself (name and name of locality where I reside, although some say it must include the street address) if they have RAS of a crime committed, being presently committed, or about to be committed.

    The question applies to a request for ID based on the mere act of OCing. Therefore, my answer is "no".

    I have in fact gone to jail because I would not display a government ID doccument when challenged for OCing - although the actual charge was "obstructing justice". Would I do it again? Absolutely, unequivocally "yes". Because it is that important.

    Am I some sort of "gun nut" looking for confrontations with cops? Not in the least. I really want nothing more than to be left alone and allowed to go about my lawful activity without interference or harassment by the government and its minions.

    For those who have answered that they would produce ID in order to avoid confrontation/harassment I can only say "Thank you for making my life that much more likely to include harassment and complication." When government monions believe they can get away with violating the rights of lawfully-behaving armed citizens because some of those citizens are more willing to surrender their rights than to stand up for them, those minions are more likely to try the same thing with other lawfully-behaving armed (and unarmed) citizens. I believe there is an old saying about either giving them an inch or about allowing the camel to put its nose under the edge of the tent. Both address the same thing - allow them to get away with "a little" and they will eventually think they can get away with anything unless someone hauls them up short. I know not what course others may take, but for me "there is no way you are going to get away with that, buddy!"

    I believe the end of the line I am standing somewhere in the middle of is located "over there" (points using index finger).

    stay safe.

    Hey! That's a great word. Sort of a contraction of moron minions. Or, moronions. I love it.

    Now, that you've opened the can of worms about how an OCer is supposed to know or figure out whether the cop has genuine RAS, and the liabilities of the OCer being wrong, I'll let you explain that. I've never been able to get it all explained in less than six or eight paragraphs.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-27-2012 at 04:34 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  3. #53
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850
    Skidmark jogged something for me.

    You will also want to check your state's court opinions and so forth to see if identity refusals come under the heading of obstruction--obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties, etc.

    I vaguely recall that some states have no stop-and-identify statutes compelling giving identity, but court opinions support charging an identity refusal as obstruction.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  4. #54
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA, ,
    Posts
    7,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Hey! That's a great word. Sort of a contraction of moron minions. Or, moronions. I love it.

    Now, that you've opened the can of worms about how an OCer is supposed to know or figure out whether the cop has genuine RAS, and the liabilities of the OCer being wrong, I'll let you explain that. I've never been able to get it all explained in less than six or eight paragraphs.
    "Monions" - another typo that if I shut my mouth about will look like I actually intended to create a new word. Let's see if I can get away with it.

    As for determining if the cop has "gen-you-wine RAS" -- easy peasey. Listen for these words: "Put your hands behind your back," followed by the feel of steel bracelets being put on. In other words, if the cop has RAS he's not going to Richard around playing games with you. Of course, the cop may not in fact have RAS that a judge (or three) would agree was genuine but you still might win everything behind Door #1 - which will give you a chance at some lovely parting gifts later on.

    The liabilities of the OCer being wrong about whether or not the cop has RAS? An all-expenses-paid vacation, American plan (meals included) and the opportunity to meet new and exciting people. A set of commerative portraits suitable for being framed. The opportunity to tell everyone how it felt to sit on the "Group W" bench with mother-stabbers and the rest of the guys.


    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Skidmark jogged something for me.

    You will also want to check your state's court opinions and so forth to see if identity refusals come under the heading of obstruction--obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties, etc.

    I vaguely recall that some states have no stop-and-identify statutes compelling giving identity, but court opinions support charging an identity refusal as obstruction.

    Can you give a citation or three?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #55
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,681
    I recommend reading Police Chief Magazine, Stop-and-Identify Laws and Trooper News, "Demanding ID." Both give good insight on what is required, and what isn't. Although Trooper News refers to Georgia court cases, the information presented is likely to be applicable outside that jurisdiction.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 07-28-2012 at 07:00 AM.

  6. #56
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post

    Can you give a citation or three?

    stay safe.
    I can provide something slightly relevant from WV

    (STATE v. SRNSKY http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-suprem...s/1482046.html) where the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned a conviction of Obstruction (among other irrelevant charges) where the conviction of Obstruction was gained because of the defendants refusal to identify himself to LEO. Here a snip from the reversal:

    "Consequently, we hold that refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer does not, standing alone, form the basis for a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer in performing official duties.   However, the charge of obstructing an officer may be substantiated when a citizen does not supply identification when required to do so by express statutory direction or when the refusal occurs after a law enforcement officer has communicated the reason why the citizen's name is being sought in relation to the officer's official duties."
    Last edited by twoskinsonemanns; 07-28-2012 at 07:25 AM.
    Gun Control:
    Obama-
    “I just want you to know we’re working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

    Romney-
    "I would have supported the original assault weapon ban"
    In 2004, Gov. Romney signed a firearms reform bill that made permanent the ban on assault weapons and steeply increased fees on gun owners by 400%

    Gary Johnson-
    "I don't believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None."
    "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

  7. #57
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,438
    Voted generally no, it depends on the law in the state you are in.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  8. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    46
    I said Yes.


    Who saw that coming? Typically the only people that say No and walk away are dirtbags. Now, as soon as you jump on your bandwagon of ITS MY RIGHT how about you just say "No Officer, It is my 2nd admendment right to have this firearm and I can refuse you're request. Are you demanding?:


    Have you checked if your a dirtbag today?
    Last edited by QilvinLEO; 08-02-2012 at 06:13 PM. Reason: Fixed for the English Instructor.
    I, as a law enforcement officer, fully support Open Carrying.


    The comments contained herein and above are solely made by QilvinLEO and are his personal opinion. They do not reflect the views of his department or his jurisdiciton. You will never get him to discuss a current case that is under investigation nor will he comment on any event that has happened in his jurisdiction. Furthermore, You will never know where he works.

  9. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,780
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    Typically the only people that say No are dirtbags.

  10. #60
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,681
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    I said Yes.

    Who saw that coming? Typically the only people that say No and walk away are dirtbags. Now, as soon as you jump on your bandwagon of ITS MY RIGHT how about you just say "No Officer, It is my 2nd admendment right to have this firearm and I can refuse your request. Are you demanding?:

    Have you checked if your a dirtbag today?
    I don't need to check, I know I'm not. Typically the only people that want to demand ID are pushy, authoritarian, cops who are looking to put someone in jail because what they are witnessing isn't sufficient, they want to check for background wants&warrants. Since I have no need to be there and no desire to assist Officer Friendly in his pursuits, I'll refrain, thank-you-very-much.


    I also went to school long enough to realize the difference between "your" and "you're."


    Apparently, by this particular LEO's way of thinking, 70% of us are what he would typically consider "dirt bags". Way to go, Sparky.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-02-2012 at 06:18 PM.

  11. #61
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    I don't need to check, I know I'm not. Typically the only people that want to demand ID are pushy, authoritarian, cops who are looking to put someone in jail because what they are witnessing isn't sufficient, they want to check for background wants&warrants. Since I have no need to be there and no desire to assist Officer Friendly in his pursuits, I'll refrain, thank-you-very-much.


    I also went to school long enough to realize the difference between "your" and "you're."


    That is your right. I know how a fragmented sentence looks as well. But I will continue to have a good debate while you are attacking people for grammer. Maybe you should use your education to read the forum rules? Grow up.
    I, as a law enforcement officer, fully support Open Carrying.


    The comments contained herein and above are solely made by QilvinLEO and are his personal opinion. They do not reflect the views of his department or his jurisdiciton. You will never get him to discuss a current case that is under investigation nor will he comment on any event that has happened in his jurisdiction. Furthermore, You will never know where he works.

  12. #62
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    I said Yes.


    Who saw that coming? Typically the only people that say No and walk away are dirtbags. Now, as soon as you jump on your bandwagon of ITS MY RIGHT how about you just say "No Officer, It is my 2nd admendment right to have this firearm and I can refuse you're request. Are you demanding?:


    Have you checked if your a dirtbag today?
    Do you apply the same reasoning if your not OCing?

    How about we just pass a law that cops can stop people at random on the street and run their papers for warrants? This would be a great way to round up the riffraff
    Gun Control:
    Obama-
    “I just want you to know we’re working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

    Romney-
    "I would have supported the original assault weapon ban"
    In 2004, Gov. Romney signed a firearms reform bill that made permanent the ban on assault weapons and steeply increased fees on gun owners by 400%

    Gary Johnson-
    "I don't believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None."
    "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

  13. #63
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    10,382
    Just don't carry ID with you ... problem solved.

  14. #64
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    But I will continue to have a good debate while you are attacking people for grammer.


    Typically, debate implies we engage in argument by discussing opposing points. Based on your sentence slaughter and lack of basic spelling skill, [grammer vs proper spelling, grammar], I doubt it would be a stretch to surmise your actual intent is to antagonize, rather than engage in debate. I offer your quip of "Typically the only people that say No and walk away are dirtbags" as an example of antagonistic participation. Nothing you've contributed in this thread indicates a desire on your part to debate.

    There. My debt to society has had a bit of it chipped away though tutelage of the communicatively handicapped. I may have, however, violated the second directive found in Matthew 7:6.
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 08-02-2012 at 10:35 PM.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  15. #65
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,681
    Oh, ye of the "REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID" thread.
    We all realize that being able to go up to someone and demand they answer your questions, would make your job easier.
    We all realize that being able to go up to someone with inchoate hunches and being able to demand they identify themselves to you would make your job easier.
    There are lots of things that would make your life easier. We get it, really we do.

    -But-

    We make the laws. We hire people to enforce them.
    That we don't have a law demanding we carry identification 24/7; that we don't have laws mandating that we talk to the police; don't have laws mandating that the guilty confess when interviewed might just tell you something. At least we hope so.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-03-2012 at 09:27 AM.

  16. #66
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,681
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    But I will continue to have a good debate while you are attacking people for grammer. Maybe you should use your education to read the forum rules? Grow up.
    I think you'd be best served by leaving my grandmother out of this.
    She was a really nice person and .......... wait, did you mean grammar???
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-03-2012 at 09:28 AM.

  17. #67
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    SNIPHow about we just pass a law that cops can stop people at random on the street and run their papers for warrants? This would be a great way to round up the riffraff
    This will never work. Politicians don't usually have warrants out for them.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  18. #68
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    14,094
    I refused to show ID on several occasions, my city settled with me not to take them to Federal court, but then they decided to harass MSGLagae. Officer Bass doesn't understand the limited scope of his authority and feels he has the right to break the Settlement agreement I had with the City.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #69
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    10,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine Expat View Post
    I'm one of the Generally yes, votes.
    .
    We get it, we get it ... anything a cop wants to do is OK with you. You'll be one of the first assimilated ...

  20. #70
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    I said Yes.


    Who saw that coming? Typically the only people that say No and walk away are dirtbags. Now, as soon as you jump on your bandwagon of ITS MY RIGHT how about you just say "No Officer, It is my 2nd admendment right to have this firearm and I can refuse you're request. Are you demanding?:


    Have you checked if your a dirtbag today?
    How did I miss this gem earlier?

    This has the same specious underpinnings as StarGateRancher's comment to the effect that criminals exercise their rights and innocent sheeple don't. And, deserves a similar reply.

    What utter hogwash! Lets first only briefly address the fact that QuilvinLEO just associated patriotic citizens who exercise their rights with criminals. What a way to win friends and persuade people.

    Basically what this boils down to is that this cop's understanding and respect for rights is based on the people he's seen exercise them. Essentially, he's totally upside down. Rights are for the good guys for the most part; it is thoroughly understood that protecting bad guys is incidental*, and it is thoroughly understood that letting some crime go undetected and unpunished is part of the price we pay to keep government in check. Basically, he's saying that if lots more people exercised their rights, then police would be less suspicious of those who did. The problem being that rights are not subject to the subjective reality of cops.

    *Not counting a few points like protections against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-06-2012 at 01:30 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  21. #71
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    West virginia
    Posts
    7

    I voted yes

    If the cop is being polite and understanding, I would because I have nothing to hide and I think we need some positive PR. It would help with future relations with my small town officers. I am new to OC and still learning before I attempt it haha

  22. #72
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,780
    It's a personal choice, so if you want to produce ID when you've committed no crime, okay. But understand, we don't refuse because we have something to hide; we do it because we value our rights, and if we don't, the cops won't. When you comply with a request/unlawful demand, you not only risk being subjected to further fishing, but you also train the cop to expect compliance and cooperation from future stopped citizens.

    Here's an excellent video that provides an alternative view point that you may want to consider.




    If you still want to cooperate with police after watching this video, then go for it. I just want you to hear the reasons from the other side of the fence, regarding why some of us do not comply with requests or unlawful demands.

  23. #73
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    10,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Cten85 View Post
    If the cop is being polite and understanding, I would because I have nothing to hide and I think we need some positive PR. It would help with future relations with my small town officers. I am new to OC and still learning before I attempt it haha
    "future relations"? I get along excellently with my local police ... they leave me alone and I leave them alone. I don't want "relations". I lobby hard to reduce the size of our local PD force and to lower the compensation of the police; all to lower my tax burden. I pay $300/yr for police who are overpaid, to numerous, and really provide no services. We could do with three or four but we have 17...for a town with no crime (and this relates to the people, not # of cops).

    I have also lived in a town without police ! What?? Yes, no police. And crime? None..because everyone was armed..criminals went to places that had police departments and to steal from their communities and their stupid people who did not arm themselves and felt that they pay a lot of money for a police force to protect themselves from criminals and then believed that they would be safe.

    A cop is not going to keep me safe. A .357 on my hip will.

    The government should be pushing people to get guns not trying to restrict gun ownership. But, of course, if we all had guns, crime would be low and the need for police almost eliminated...then how would the government control us?

  24. #74
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    We get it, we get it ... anything a cop wants to do is OK with you. You'll be one of the first assimilated ...
    Slow day Dave? You had to go looking for a week+ old post to dig on?

    And after all the numerous times I've posted what MY motivation is you still don't get it.

    AGAIN

    I'll type a little slower for you this time.

    -I belong to Oath Keepers
    -My FIRST mission is to the Oath Keepers mission.
    -The Oath Keepers' mission is Reach out, Teach & Inspire (RTI) any and all oath takers (LEOs, Military, retirees, vets, etc) to remember their oaths to protect the constitution and KEEP that oath.
    -I cannot fulfill my PRIMARY OK mission if I act like a shade tree lawyer and slam the door on a potential OK brother or sister.
    -I will NOT turn away an opportunity to talk with an O.T.
    -It takes an open door to communicate.

    Okay? Got it now Dave?

    Sorry for getting snippy, but really. Let a guy do his work the way it works for him and stop assuming he's just a spineless twit who rolls over at the drop of a hat. I will choose when & where to stand, not you.
    Last edited by Maine Expat; 08-06-2012 at 10:02 AM.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  25. #75
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Cten85 View Post
    If the cop is being polite and understanding, I would because I have nothing to hide and I think we need some positive PR. It would help with future relations with my small town officers. I am new to OC and still learning before I attempt it haha
    Just something to mull around....

    Police have only one reason for requesting your ID...

    It's the first step of building a prosecution against you. The first step in finding reason, with little effort, of removing your freedom or your money. A no-risk fishing expedition. I feel no obligation, morally or legally, in assisting in that effort. None.

    A more candid view point......


    Rolling over on your back like a cowed dog is not improving the "PR" of open carry in the eyes of the cop intent on manipulating you into forfeiting our rights. It reinforces the behavior that needs to be changed.

    I have trained horses and dogs most of my life. It's frustrating when someone enters the picture and un-does all the efforts put into correcting a behavior problem. Firm, consistent discipline is required to break a dog of jumping on people, for example. It can change having an animal you resent and distrust into having a useful trusted companion. It all hinges on the discipline you apply, and when. I don't tolerate a dog jumping on me. One of the main reasons why dogs will jump up on people is a way of dominating. They want to show that they are the tough one and by acting aggressive and even playful they can achieve what they want, which is dominance. When a dog jumps on a human of its own free will, it is not "greeting" the human, it is asserting its dominance over the human; it is the dog communicating that it is alpha and/or wishes to own/control the human. A subordinate would never dream of running over and jumping on the alpha dog of the pack. Space is respect and lower members of the pack respect the higher members. If your dog jumps on humans, it does not respect them. Dogs like and need consistency, so if you are not allowing your dog to jump on you, everyone in the family and everyone who greets the dog must do the same. It will only confuse a dog if you allow them to jump on some people who say they do not mind, and tell him not to jump on others. Having a confused, aggressive dog around is not safe or comforting. While the dog is viewed as the problem, the truth is the responsibility lies on who allowed the behavior to build to the point it becomes a problem.

    No small amount of effort, trial, error, disappointment and triumph goes into training a dog. I hope you don't find it unreasonable if I ask that you don't undo all that by using the same firm and consistent discipline we use.

    At least consider this: You're setting someone else up to be jumped on by ignoring this basic handling information. Nobody deserves that, and you're instilling confusion in the beast that will require some harsh discipline to correct.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •