My very first MWAG call....HAHA

Bellum_Intus said:

In defense of LEO's for a minute..

Remember this.. too many of my friends almost never get the chance to take off the mourning bands on their badges..
It's a tough job..

In this case, what if the OP was a crazed lunatic and the LEO didn't respond to the callers 911 to PD.. and he ended up shooting up the place?
It's a fine line on both sides folks.. thin blue line?

All LEO's are not bad, and not all of them act like the CSPD did (that was REALLY ******* me off) on the video at the park..

As far as the OP's choice to provide the LEO his DL, well.. that was his choice, I'm not sure flaming him is productive..

Anywhoo.. my 2 cents..

--Rob

Click to expand...

Yes it's a tough job... And yes he could have shot up the place. Is your point that you believe carrying a firearm should be RAS to detain and "run" someone?

The problem is... it is not. What if you decide to shoot up some place? Since you've posted pictures of your self with uber-deadly, high-powered, high capacity, military style assault weapons of war, and videos of your "tactical training" with the obvious goal of killing, perhaps it would be prudent to check you out. Perhaps a little surviellence would be prudent. After all, what if....


As far as the OP is concerned no one is flaming him. He made, what some here consider, a mistake in the way he dealt with the popo. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone makes mistakes we can learn from. However he defended the mistake....even going so far to say "What have I got to hide? Besides, I've always been the suspicious type when asking for something and not getting it..."
I hope he sticks around, I hope he comes to realize that being indignant about our loss of rights is not "a bunch of paranoia talking".

I completely agree with the OP here. I think you did a great job, handled a situation without causing any problems, didn't take up much of your own time or a LEO's time, and what a shocker, you showed her your ID and didn't get arrested! Holy cow, mark that one on the wall! (sarcasm directed at the other idiots on here that ARE flaming you).

So what if he decided to show his ID. If he wants to give up his 4A right for one simple request, SO WHAT! That's his RIGHT, if you don't want to give up YOUR 4A right for a simple request because you think every cop is "out to get you" that's YOUR right. I've watched the "don't talk to cops" video, both parts. I agree, there are times when you shouldn't talk to cops, but I don't agree that it means that you should NEVER talk to cops. And trying to conclude that just because he knows he doesn't have anything on his record and therefore has nothing to hide, means that he would consent to any search of his house, car, person, whatever, is just down right dumb. So he was comfortable giving his ID, that doesn't mean he will be comfortable with ANYTHING else. I'm comfortable shaking hands with a person I just met, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be comfortable giving that same person a hug, both common forms of greetings, similar to the difference between asking for an ID and searching a car.

Just ignore the people on here who think that their opinions are fact, if they have a problem with the way you handled it, they can piss off.

mtmanchris83 said:

So he was comfortable giving his ID, that doesn't mean he will be comfortable with ANYTHING else. I'm comfortable shaking hands with a person I just met, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be comfortable giving that same person a hug, both common forms of greetings, similar to the difference between asking for an ID and searching a car.

Click to expand...

I won't argue with you about the right to choose how you would react. Each person can react however they choose. Feel free to do as you please, no issues.

I do have issue with your analogy however. It's not exactly accurate. Asking for ID and searching your car is more like the difference between kissing and having sex if you want to use physical contact as an analogy. I can wave at you without your permission. I can even generally shake your hand "against your desires" in the realm of societal norms. Obviously you can refuse to shake, but we all know societal pressure to be friendly dictates that you will likely shake my hand to be polite. However, I'm not going to kiss you without your complete a total consent. (Don't worry, I'm not gonna kiss you no matter what! LOL! Just an analogy.) That's the way the ID is. You are more than welcome to refuse to allow anyone to kiss you and it is well withing the accepted norms to do so. An LEO is well aware that you don't have to show ID. You have that right. But they will ask every time as a matter of course. You can choose to consent or not. All I would warn is that you think very carefully about whether you really want to consent. But I won't judge anyone for doing it. I don't care what you choose to do.

I think one of the things that people are fighting here is that societal norm that it's ok for the police to ask and you "have" to give them ID. Going back to the physical contact thing, people don't want the pressure that we now have in shaking hands to be applied to kissing. People don't want the pressure of giving up ID to become a defacto law. Even when no law exists. Hope that makes sense.

mtmanchris83 said:

I completely agree with the OP here. I think you did a great job, handled a situation without causing any problems, didn't take up much of your own time or a LEO's time, and what a shocker, you showed her your ID and didn't get arrested! Holy cow, mark that one on the wall! (sarcasm directed at the other idiots on here that ARE flaming you).

So what if he decided to show his ID. If he wants to give up his 4A right for one simple request, SO WHAT! That's his RIGHT, if you don't want to give up YOUR 4A right for a simple request because you think every cop is "out to get you" that's YOUR right. I've watched the "don't talk to cops" video, both parts. I agree, there are times when you shouldn't talk to cops, but I don't agree that it means that you should NEVER talk to cops. And trying to conclude that just because he knows he doesn't have anything on his record and therefore has nothing to hide, means that he would consent to any search of his house, car, person, whatever, is just down right dumb. So he was comfortable giving his ID, that doesn't mean he will be comfortable with ANYTHING else. I'm comfortable shaking hands with a person I just met, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be comfortable giving that same person a hug, both common forms of greetings, similar to the difference between asking for an ID and searching a car.

Just ignore the people on here who think that their opinions are fact, if they have a problem with the way you handled it, they can piss off.

Click to expand...

Please be civil. We are sharing opinions and discussing laws. No one is attacking. We're all on the same team

I think Torq did fine. Look at another point... The person who called the PD was out there watching thinking he did some good, when to his disapointment, the cop took off after 5 min and Torq was left to continue his task. Any longer and the caller would be all kinds of smiles waiting to see an arrest. The scared sheep that made the call is the one that should be looked down upon. Knowing that you did nothing wrong and that your not a BG after running your ID, fishing or not, there was nothing for the LEO to catch. So on she went. By showing your ID you quickly resovled the situation and put up a silent middle finger to the caller guy. As far as the LEO parking behind you... well... wouldn't that be a defensve position. Its harder for a MAWG to turn 180 degrees and get a shot off. You can see him make that movement and have time to react.
You saw it comming and you did well. No one got bent except the caller guy. Bravo Zulu sir!

twoskinsonemanns said:

Yes it's a tough job... And yes he could have shot up the place. Is your point that you believe carrying a firearm should be RAS to detain and "run" someone?

The problem is... it is not. What if you decide to shoot up some place? Since you've posted pictures of your self with uber-deadly, high-powered, high capacity, military style assault weapons of war, and videos of your "tactical training" with the obvious goal of killing, perhaps it would be prudent to check you out. Perhaps a little surviellence would be prudent. After all, what if....


As far as the OP is concerned no one is flaming him. He made, what some here consider, a mistake in the way he dealt with the popo. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone makes mistakes we can learn from. However he defended the mistake....even going so far to say "What have I got to hide? Besides, I've always been the suspicious type when asking for something and not getting it..."
I hope he sticks around, I hope he comes to realize that being indignant about our loss of rights is not "a bunch of paranoia talking".

Click to expand...

I don't think there was RAS, was just throwing it out there. No my point isn't that simply possessing a firearm is RAS.. personally ..but I wasn't there and have no idea what the call was.. anyway..

I'm an open book, I've been BG checked so many times in the last few months I'm used to it (CMR check, CHP check, ATF app etc.. ) .. but yes, I get your point (PS, the video was Defensive shooting not 'tacticool' and the other one was to dispel myths that the mini-14 is not an accurate firearm heh.. )

They seem to know I spent way too long in the Army, have way too many firearms, and I teach too many classes.. !cares tbh...

I hope he sticks around too..

--Rob

twoskinsonemanns said:

Please be civil. We are sharing opinions and discussing laws. No one is attacking. We're all on the same team

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

Now look what y'all conspiracy theorists have done. You've hurt his feelings. Meanies. Stop writing uncomfortable things on the internet.

Click to expand...

Flame

Fallschirmjäger said:

But...BUT...they HAVE to!!!

Click to expand...

Flame

twoskinsonemanns said:

Sorry that was an assumption on my part. I suppose you would have and answered questions and produced ID for any non-LEO out there to make them go away fast. I guess the lady cops badge and gun had nothing to do with it. My bad.

Click to expand...

Flame

Let me rephrase a little bit, I think comments that flame people for not following their opinion are idiotic. And I don't know about Torque, but if someone told me I was willing to open my house or car to any LEO who wanted to search it just because I offered my ID when it was requested, I would be pretty pissed off about that, in my opinion, that's a pretty dumb idea. As for the last comment you bolded, I may have gone a little overboard with that one, I was a little hot about watching someone who did nothing wrong get thrashed. I'm not trying to be uncivil, but if I am, its just because I'm following suit.

Howdy Folks!
Well Torquemaster says he ain't coming back. Thanks to folks who aren't even in Colorado, and the basting he got for speaking an opinion, got him flamed right off the board.
A brand new member, just starting out, and he's not coming back.

Way to grow a movement folks! Well done! You know who you are; so I ain't going to point out those who accomplish so much for our movement that newcomers leave almost immediately after arrivine.
Nicely done!

This is why civility is important, and I've said often enough, we have enough to concern ourselves with from enemies to our 2a rights without submitting to divide and conquer tactics made popular by Communist Russia, the good ol' USSR!

Why is it some 2a advocates don't appreciate the first amendment half as much?
He had a right to share his story, and to follow his own decision making process.
Evidently some think that his expressing the experience was license to flame the guy.

Notice how it wasn't Colorado folk who abused him either.
That speaks volumes to character.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Citizen said:

Now look what y'all conspiracy theorists have done. You've hurt his feelings. Meanies. Stop writing uncomfortable things on the internet.

Click to expand...

Howdy Citizen!
Thank you so much for running off another newcomer to the movement here in Colorado! What a credit to the movement!
Run 'em off, so you can be the only one left standing to defend your 2a rights, because you evidently don't much care for another person's 1a rights.
Your remark was un-called for, and inappropriate; not to mention completely unnecessary.

Do you feel proud of yourself, all big burly manly sort of guy who can beat down a newcomer until they leave the forum?
That's a terrific way to win hearts and minds!
No wonder the Anti's have a gripe!
When we eat our own young, who can really blame them.

Nice going!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

M-Taliesin said:

Howdy Citizen!
Thank you so much for running off another newcomer to the movement here in Colorado! What a credit to the movement!
Run 'em off, so you can be the only one left standing to defend your 2a rights, because you evidently don't much care for another person's 1a rights.
Your remark was un-called for, and inappropriate; not to mention completely unnecessary.

Do you feel proud of yourself, all big burly manly sort of guy who can beat down a newcomer until they leave the forum?
That's a terrific way to win hearts and minds!
No wonder the Anti's have a gripe!
When we eat our own young, who can really blame them.

Nice going!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Click to expand...

You seem to have a real knack for not following a straight line in thinking or conversation. This is not the first time you've gone sideways in your thinking.

He was already gone by the time I wrote that.

And, my only other post on this forum was not a criticism of him.

So, I'm all set to receive your explanation of how I drove him off the forum.


And, his little accusation works both ways. All the critics did was criticize. He's the one who blew up and left. I don't recall anybody here blowing up on him and demanding he get off "our" forum. This is the internet and he's over-sensitive. And, he's not a newcomer. Why don't you pay attention to his post count and join date. He's been around long enough to know this ain't necessarily a genteel forum. And, notice his generalization about this place being anti-cop. Yeah. He criticized most of the forum and its founders on the feedback in one thread. Out of some 25,000 members. Oh, yeah. Bright boy there.

And, your little accusation about the 1A works both ways, too. He's allowed to give his opinion. But we aren't allowed to give ours of his? Hahahahahahahahahahhaaaa! Good joke, bucko.


He gave it away in the first post. He justified giving his ID since the cop was nice. Its not what the justification is. Its that there is a justification at all. If he was solidly in the right, and knew it, he wouldn't have bothered with the justification. He wrote that to salve his own conscience, I'm betting. That, or deep down he new there would be a bit of fuss over the ID hand-over and wanted to support himself--which immediately shows he knew what he was possibly getting into by writing that OP.

I will put my own free speech in here. There's a fine line between free speech and harasment etc. people often take their 1a right as meaning they can talk to any one person any way they want. They are both right and wrong. Sure you can but then you hit that nice area we call harasment aka flamming aka trolling etc.

I can sit here on my lunch brake and come up with all sorts of names I want and direct them at nobody but aim it at all who read then claim I was using my 1a rights? Would I be right in doing so? Sure I would but I'm pretty sure somebody will report me because they felt I harrased them by using my 1a rights resulting in me getting banned or suspended. So basically he can report you posts under the same logic and because his complaint has the weight of feeling harassed it will have more attention than "My 1a rights say I can."


Trolls will be trolls. They are worthless nay they are worse than worthless because worthlessness has room to improve while trolls have nothing to improv because by their nature they are not there to improve anything they are there for their own gain. They have no community binds other than "hey man look who I just made quit forums." if you play video games at all you will see this mentality. They get a joy out of it. They ruin a community they are a part of then they move on.

But hey what do I know I'm an idiot.

Wow! I'm pretty ashamed of you guys for disrespecting Tourge! I had the opportunity to meet this wonderful young man at a M&G and he is a great guy and a new member to this forum! He is an asset to the OC movement! It really is a shame that some people had to disrespect him and really put him down when you guys could be supportive instead. So much for moving the cause forward...wow, criticizing rather than helping out and being supportive...I just don't know what to tell ya, other than people do screw up when it comes to rights and OC and all that, but it's a learning experience for all of us and there's no need to be a richard about it. Instead, help those of us who are new to OC, and help advance the cause!

Blessings,

Keens

well hello folks.

been a lurker for a long time, and registered to chime in on this one.

It was naive for OP in sharing his experience to expect only positive feedback.

Don't go out on a boat to fish, then get mad when you get a little water splashed on you.

Elhuero said:

well hello folks.

been a lurker for a long time, and registered to chime in on this one.

It was naive for OP in sharing his experience to expect only positive feedback.

Don't go out on a boat to fish, then get mad when you get a little water splashed on you.

Click to expand...

Howdy Elhuero!
There is a whole bunch of difference between getting negative feedback and being flamed for his opinion.
He certainly didn't expect to be flamed, and that nonsense is also prohibited by the rules of the forum.
I am surprised you'd compare his post to fishing for snide, cutting and unwarranted remarks.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

There's at least one whole thread dedicated to the discussion of whether or not to produce ID on the demand of a random LEO.
The topic arises all too often in threads like this, where a new person says "I handled this well!" and more experienced people (who have seen &/or experienced harassment) point out that while yes, he didn't get a ticket & the cop left fairly quickly, it could have gone much better or worse, & there's no way to know which because all cops look alike.
There's no way to tell the good ones (who respect the laws) from the bad ones (who are on a power trip).

lockman said:

If the request was not for an ID but for a drivers license would it be different?

Click to expand...

I think so.
It's my understanding that if you're behind the wheel, even if the car is parked, they can demand a DL if they have RAS. Not simply for suspicion of driving, but if they have RAS of a crime.

Torquemaster69 said:

She KNEW I was carrying.

Click to expand...

She also knew or should have known that it's a competely legal activity & requires no attention on her part.
Shame on the calltaker & dispatcher for wasting an officer's time on a call which basically told them "there's a guy here who's not doing anything wrong".
Seriously, would they send an officer to detain someone who was wearing a cross or playing basketball or talking on a cell phone? (Absent other evidence of a crime in progress.)
No.

What could she POSSIBLY do with my ID to arrest me with no previous record

Click to expand...

"build a case" against me? On what grounds?

Click to expand...

Ask some of the people here on OCDO who have been wrongfully arrested for lawfully carrying, then come back & answer your own question.

for all she knows, I am a felon

Click to expand...

Did she also demand ID & run a check on everyone who was there with children, to make sure they're not kidnappers or have a court order prohibiting them from being around children?
She has to have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) of a crime before interfering in your day.

I CHOSE to to get her out of my hair faster

Click to expand...

And you'll probably do the same thing again, so nothing anyone here says explaining why you might want to consider changing your thinking will have any effect.
Maybe someday you'll run into a LEO who decides that since she has your identity document she'll just hang onto it as a way to pressure you into allowing a search of your car.
Or once they know who you are they'll make up a completely BS charge & you can spend a couple days in jail + thousands of $$ in legal fees before a jury declares you innocent.
BTDT

"Complied to every request made"? she had only ONE request... "can I see your ID?"

Click to expand...

And you complied with it, right?
Q.E.D.

is it really that hard to hand over a piece of plastic so they can check to see if you have any warrants

Click to expand...

Not hard at all.
It's much harder to stand up for your right to be free from unwarranted searches & seizures.

They HAVE to come out and investigate on a gun call

Click to expand...

No, they don't.
SCOTUS has ruled (as have many lower courts) that police have no duty to protect any individual who's not in custody. Police can ignore multiple calls saying "come quick! my roommate is downstairs screaming that 2 men are raping her!" and there will be no legal repercussion.
[Yes, that happened. Warren v. DC]

This wasn't a "No reason" situation.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was.
"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
WI v. Kiekhefer

"Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse

"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley

The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles

The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King

metronumic said:

I don't understand why everyone is piling on about the OP providing his ID. The cop asked him for it, and he made HIS choice. Just because a large majority here don't feel that you should provide your ID to a cop, doesn't mean its the wrong choice.

Click to expand...

We've explained why giving into unlawful demands is a bad choice, both for that person & for everyone who comes after.
It's interesting that the relative newcomers still think that it's a good idea to give into demands, while the members who have been here longer understand why it's not.

Citizen said:

You seem to have a real knack for not following a straight line in thinking or conversation. This is not the first time you've gone sideways in your thinking.

Click to expand...

Howdy Again!
And you have a real problem being civil to another member of the forum. That was made clear in the following condescending, inappropriate and insulting remark.

>Now look what y'all conspiracy theorists have done. You've hurt his feelings. Meanies. Stop writing uncomfortable things on the internet.

Please cite where he said his feelings were hurt. He never made any such statement.
He did say that he posted a positive experience and all he got was slammed for complying with a request for I.D. from an officer.
Did it ever occur to you that an officer that doesn't have RAS when approaching a citizen might view their refusal to provide identification as RAS?
And I'd bet it could stand up in most courts too.

There have been calls for civility on the Colorado board many times. We never seem to have trouble with Colorado folks, just with people from elsewhere who don't feel obliged to accord civility to another member. Look back through the thread, and you'll see other people calling for civility.

Guess that's just too darn much to ask from people who feel it is their right to belittle another member.

That a straight enough line?

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

The OP did not get criticized/flamed for his opinion, he got criticized/flamed for his actions. The OP has the liberty to "give up" his liberty.

Lawfully refuse to comply with a request for ID then leads to RAS? Can this happen in Colorado? Does Colorado have a "stop and ID" law?

My disappointment in the OP's actions is that that cop will continue to request ID when no lawful authority exists for her to request ID. The encounter resulted in a "good" outcome from the OP's perspective. I hold a different perspective focused on the cop not the OP. It was a less than good encounter.

The focus of we OCers is to, or should be to, set a example of normalcy to/for our fellow unarmed citizens, while educating LE, where possible, without resorting to that education being mandated by a judge.

M-T, I suspect that you deal with LE more so than the average citizen as a result of your profession. You have the advantage of knowing, and being know by, cops more so than the average citizen. Your experiences and perspectives are not the norm for the average lawfully armed citizen.

Elhuero said:

well hello folks.

been a lurker for a long time, and registered to chime in on this one.

It was naive for OP in sharing his experience to expect only positive feedback.

Don't go out on a boat to fish, then get mad when you get a little water splashed on you.

Click to expand...

Of course you're right Elhuero. People that post their experiences on any forum know those experiences will be criticized. It's the nature of things. It's the main reason we post them. Here's what I did. Give me confirmation it was the right thing. However when confronted with a majority of disagreement some people can't handle it and get angry. He called us paranoid and said he wasn't coming back. Well that's sad but this site doesn't really attract too many people who are of the "give up rights for convenience" crowd. On this site people like MKEgal (and many others) are heroes....people that would purposely give up rights for convenience and argue it's the right thing to do probably will feel uncomfortable here.

M-Taliesin said:

Did it ever occur to you that an officer that doesn't have RAS when approaching a citizen might view their refusal to provide identification as RAS?
And I'd bet it could stand up in most courts too.

Click to expand...

Can you provide any instance, or any back up to this theory whatsoever? Anything, at all that could be seen to indicate that, absent any RAS, a denial to a voluntary request for ID can be viewed as RAS?

Been following this thread and I think something kind of obvious is being overlooked. One of the complaints several people have mentioned is that the officer could have, had she chosen too, decided to "build a case" against the OP. While we as average citizens may choose to avoid that and brush it off, there is certainly a point to be made there. Take the recent case in Colorado Springs. The guy was unlawfully detained as a direct result of a mistake by LEOs. Rather than let the incident go, they (the LEOs) escalated the issue and then through the course of the video you can see them building the case. The problem is, often when people in authority make mistakes, they see admission of that mistake as a challenge to their authority.

Personal example: I'm a USA hockey referee. I've worked hundreds of ice hockey games in various levels and age groups. I've been the referee and the linesman. One thing is pretty much guaranteed. There are refs who even when they make a mistake will not back down on a call. They proceed to justify the call and even more so if they are confronted. In the heat of the moment when a coach is yelling at you and calling you every foul name he was taught to use, it's not uncommon for a ref to escalate the problem more than the coach did. But as a ref, you want to justify your call and see any question as a threat to your authority on the ice.

I'm not saying it would have happened in this case. Probably not because the OP was nice and that goes a LONG way in dealing with LEOs. I'm also not criticizing the OP at all btw. It's just that once the corner has been turned, the LEO will more than likely rationalize his actions and see your attempts to explain as a direct threat to their authority. At that point, they will "build the case." It's not as uncommon as you might think. Just something to think about.