First stop Canton

LESGTINCT said:

Yes, the video is a consensual or casual encounter. A LEO with or even without RAS can not force you to respond, yes, it's called the 5th Amend. The OCer did make a mistake and he stopped on his own. The problem with just ignoring the police is that you really don't know why they are there. Yes, OCing is legal in of itself and in most cases people call for invalid reasons giving the LEO no RAS so all he is left with is a consensual encounter. The risk the OCer takes is that if a citizen makes a complaint (or the LEO observes on his own) that a person is OCing AND is doing something else illegal. So, now the OCer is met by the police thinking I am just going to ignore this cop and walk by. Now the OCer puts himself at risk of being arrested because he assumes that the LEO has no RAS. The unknown is what could get you in trouble and this unknown is probably why an OCer would stop instead of just ignoring the LEO and walk by.

Click to expand...

Living in Canton,...this thread was of particular interest to me.
Lots of people stated in this thread that there are no circumstances, they're legal and that's that type of thing, and in fact they may be and probably are, but....
The Sgt said something that caught my attention,...the circumstances...
People always stretch the truth, we all know that, right?
If a person calls the police seeing someone has a gun, they are likely to stretch the truth (so the cops take their call seriously), like he was yelling at someone or he was waving it around in the air, etc.

Does that not give the LEO immediate RAS upon his arrival?
Yelling is certainly Disorderly Contact and certainly waving a gun is certainly something.
Because, if he THINKS he has RAS, and I ignore him thinkin' he doesn't....I'm thinkin' it might not be pretty, I may get tackled at the potato chips rack!

P.S. What's the update on Canton Police knowing the law that we CAN openly carry a sidearm?

For example, I OC'ed across the street from the CPD for a couple hours while protesting the arrest of William Bartlett. They might of been ignoring us, but thats my experience..

JSlack7851 said:

For example, I OC'ed across the street from the CPD for a couple hours while protesting the arrest of William Bartlett. They might of been ignoring us, but thats my experience..

Click to expand...

Across the street from the CPD is one thing, and at a time that they knew what you were up to.
I'm thinking about the results of the responding officer that responds to the who-knows-what-kinda-call he may have gotton about me, when all I am really doing is pickin' up the sour cream for the tacos we forgot earlier.

The only people I'm used to ignoring are the guys outside Walgreens in Florida asking me if I'm straight...that means, "Would you care for any crack today?"
When I was young it meant what was my gender preference? LOL So, ignoring the question came easy naturally to me.

I don't like giving up any rights that we have, but including the one that allows me to sleep in my own bed, not on a cot.
I'm new to having a gun, and I really like the protection it provides me, especially in my home. I sure don't want to leave my gun at home when I leave the house and risk it being stolen nor do I want to be out without it now. I don't want hassles with cops, or criminals, let alone be arrested, so I am trying to find a happy medium that keeps me both feeling safe and protected and also out of trouble with the police.

The best video I've seen for handling being stopped for OC

This guy has great videos on youtube

Here's the link, I think you will enjoy it,...calm, cool and collect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7UMdniHWkI

For those that don't like clicking links.. go to youtube and search for
stopped for open carry in eugene oregon

it's by thehossusmc 5 mins 45 sec ... and well worth it.

rugerlcr357lg said:

...If a person calls the police seeing someone has a gun, they are likely to stretch the truth (so the cops take their call seriously), like he was yelling at someone or he was waving it around in the air, etc.

Does that not give the LEO immediate RAS upon his arrival?...

Click to expand...

That would give RAS if the officer reasonably believed that you were the subject of the call.

Which is why we should never assume that the officer does not have RAS. He might have information that we don't.

Hence the reason for always asking if you're free to go now. If the officer explicitly answers no, you are detained; don't leave. If he says yes, you are not detained. Leave. If he says nothing (I assume you have a recorder running), walk away. If you are detained, he'll do something to stop you (grab you, order you back), making it clear that you have been detained. "Why am I being detained?" is a good thing to say at that point. The officer, of course, does not have to answer you. If the issue is pressed, he will have to explain it to a judge.

Again, none of this works if you don't have a recorder running.

eye95 said:

That would give RAS if the officer reasonably believed that you were the subject of the call.

Which is why we should never assume that the officer does not have RAS. He might have information that we don't.

Hence the reason for always asking if you're free to go now. If the officer explicitly answers no, you are detained; don't leave. If he says yes, you are not detained. Leave. If he says nothing (I assume you have a recorder running), walk away. If you are detained, he'll do something to stop you (grab you, order you back), making it clear that you have been detained. "Why am I being detained?" is a good thing to say at that point. The officer, of course, does not have to answer you. If the issue is pressed, he will have to explain it to a judge.

Again, none of this works if you don't have a recorder running.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm starting to get it now.
Did you watch the above video?
He has another video called "Train like you fight." Because, you will fight like you train.

If you mean the Eugene video, yes.

When the carrier asked if he was being detained, the officers did not reply, leaving him in limbo. They already told him to hang on, so when they don't answer his question, he could not walk off. When he asked if he was free to go, the officers felt compelled to answer this magic question.

Why could they ignore the first question but feel the need to answer the second? I suspect that it is because so many court decisions use the words "free to leave/go." If they don't answer the detention question, they can rely on the uncertainty of the citizen to keep him hanging around when they do not answer. However, they know that the courts have held that it is the person's belief that they are not free to go that constitutes a detention. Therefore, if they do not answer, the person will possibly feel like they are not free to go, turning what the police are trying to use as a consensual encounter into a (probably illegal) detention.

Until the carrier asked the magic "free to go" question, the encounter was consensual. The instant he asked that question, the officers had to either turn the contact into a detention or tell him that he was free to go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

that it is the person's belief that they are not free to go that constitutes a detent

eye95 said:

If you mean the Eugene video, yes.

When the carrier asked if he was being detained, the officers did not reply, leaving him in limbo. They already told him to hang on, so when they don't answer his question, he could not walk off. When he asked if he was free to go, the officers felt compelled to answer this magic question.

Why could they ignore the first question but feel the need to answer the second? I suspect that it is because so many court decisions use the words "free to leave/go." If they don't answer the detention question, they can rely on the uncertainty of the citizen to keep him hanging around when they do not answer. However, they know that the courts have held that it is the person's belief that they are not free to go that constitutes a detention. Therefore, if they do not answer, the person will possibly feel like they are not free to go, turning what the police are trying to use as a consensual encounter into a (probably illegal) detention.

Until the carrier asked the magic "free to go" question, the encounter was consensual. The instant he asked that question, the officers had to either turn the contact into a detention or tell him that he was free to go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

I thought it was not, if THE PERSON feels free to go, but rather if A REASONABLE PERSON (in their shoes) would feel free to go under the same circumstances.

rugerlcr357lg said:

I thought it was not, if THE PERSON feels free to go, but rather if A REASONABLE PERSON (in their shoes) would feel free to go under the same circumstances.

Click to expand...

I do not recall the exact wording of all of the rulings I have read on the subject, but clearly reasonability of the belief must be part of the test. For example, saying that there were officers in the area, so I immediately felt that I was not free to go, would not pass the reasonability test (or the laugh test, for that matter). However, the key test would still be the perception of the detainee, not the perception of the officer. IAW, did he believe he was being detained, and was that belief not unreasonable?

And that was the point I was trying to make: The carrier needs to put the police on the spot, to force them to take an action that would establish (of course, reasonably) in the carrier's mind whether or not he is free to go. The best way to do this (and ensure reasonability) is to ask the question directly.

I think the police know this, hence their willingness to answer the "free to go" question vice the "detained" question because the court decisions specifically mention the test of whether the contactee believes that he is free to go/leave (of course, reasonably).

The key is that "detention" is a more technical term and unlikely to be understood by the public. "Free to go" is a term well understood by the public, and being such, it is the term used in court decisions to describe the understanding of the contactee in an interaction with the police. Since it is the term used in court decisions to describe the mindset of the contactee, I am saying it is the term we should use when determining our status, and as a nice side-benefit, clearly establishing the reasonability of our belief.

A cop relies upon a citizen's natural instinct to acknowledge a him or anyone for that matter.

If a cop interferes with my travels for the purpose of initiating a consensual contact, and if the cop is confronted with me ignoring him and me keeping on walking, that cop compelling me to acknowledge him is considered by some to be a consensual contact. The court(s) have ruled that only one person is required to consent to a contact between LE and a citizen, that one consenting person is the cop, my consent to being contacted is not required. My consent to continue the contact is not required, but I must request to end the contact that I did not initiate nor request to initiate. Some folks are fine with that. I am not.

It does not matter what I know or think I know about what the cop does or does not know......ouch, that hurt.

The reality is that it is likely that bad things will happen to me if a cop that attempts to consensually contact me gets nothing but the cold shoulder treatment from me. So, knowing that little bit of information compels me to treat every interaction with a cop as a detention regardless of how a cop classifies the contact.

At the initiation of contact, you have no way of knowing whether the contact is consensual or not. In the event that it is not (also, in the event that the cop thinks he has a lot more authority than he lawfully has) and you walk away, bad things will happen.

My tack is to treat the cop like any other person on initial contact. He is just a person talking to another person. I will stop and then greet him politely. I will then wait for him to establish why he chose to talk to me. Is he stopping me under the color of law? Or is he a firearms enthusiast and wants to talk to me about my opinion on my Dan Wesson?

I have been contacted by officers three times while OCing. The first two were detentions, and that became clear within seconds. In the first, the body language of the officer told me that he thought I was a threat. Very quickly, he asked for my firearm. In the second, there were at least three cars, lights flashing and four officers greeting me. No doubt there. In the third, the officer came up to us and asked if he could join us. We were having coffee at Starbuck's. He sat down and the group of us had a wonderful and productive discussion.

In the third encounter, I never asked if I was free to go. In the first one, I did not know the best words, but did ask questions of that nature. In the second encounter, I knew to ask if I was being detained. Now I know that it is best to ask if I am free to go now.

But, this advice needs to be cogitated on by all: When the LEO first approaches you, you have no idea whether he has RAS. Make polite conversation long enough to establish the nature of the contact without discussing your behavior. Only then should you choose how to proceed. Folks who do not heed this advice may find themselves lawfully face-planted into the pavement.

That's just why I am here

Thanks, Eye and OC, (is that like i95)?

That's just why I came to these forums, to find out the laws, my rights, and the best way to handle each situation that I may encounter that gives me the least amount of trouble. Being taken to the ground in front of a date (that I'm supposed to be protecting) on the way to get a red box movie, isn't gonna look good to anyone.
Geesh, I thought I put a lot of research just into which particular gun to buy!

The problem seems to be that all uniformed officers do not uniformly know the laws and not behave/respond to each situation unformly (in the same way).
Doesn't the word uniform mean "the same"? Kinda funny huh?

If every officer knew OC was fine in Ohio, or at least if they knew they had to treat it as such, a lot of their time would be saved and better used, which serves all involved.
I am in no way trying to waste a cop's time dealing with me when he could be doing other things.
From what I've read, which is a lot, most cops will flat out violate our rights.....as long as we don't tell them they aren't allowed.

As I see it as this point, there's a lot to learn, but there are a finite numbers of things to have happen. the threat of disorderly, inciting panic, obstruction, the proper ways to respond, etc.

Once one becomes educated in each of those things, increases ones likelyhood to NOT have problems.
A lot of you guys have learned through the trial and error and through experience. Us new guys get to learn from all you guys' experience, without having to have the bad experiences ourselves.
Thanks!

I know, if, if, if. If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt when hops.

Yes, my name is a play on I-95.

And yes, the greatest danger that OCers face is cops not knowing the law and, worse, thinking that they do!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

Yes, my name is a play on I-95.

And yes, the greatest danger that OCers face is cops not knowing the law and, worse, thinking that they do!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Then we need to find out the best ways for that NOT to be the case any more.
OhioOC.org Shirts with orc 9.68 on them would be awesome.

It is my routine to be polite after I have been accosted by a cop. I agree with eye95, the cop may be asking directions to the nearest doughnut shop. How could I not come to the aid of the civil power in that particular situation, as required by law here in Missouri.

Then again, I may be asked if I witnessed 'X'. By the way, failure to identify yourself as a witness is a criminal offense in Missouri.

Then there is that properly holstered firearm clearly visible on your hip. The cop thinks he has a job to do to protect the public from 'X' and you are the 'X' at that particular moment. In this particular scenario strict compliance with the law is what saves the day for both the cop and the citizen.....and a audio recorder at a minimum.

Sage advice......"am I free to go?" The money quote, and it does not take five seconds to make that statement and compel the cop to make a important choice.

Good luck.

OC for ME said:

It is my routine to be polite after I have been accosted by a cop. I agree with eye95, the cop may be asking directions to the nearest doughnut shop. How could I not come to the aid of the civil power in that particular situation, as required by law here in Missouri.

Click to expand...

Missouri law requires people to know where every doughnut shop is??? Geesh, talk about dumb laws.

But seriously, great info, understand, and now i know the quote well. Thank you.

Do I need to tell him I'm recording?

I do have a lil digital audio recorder that I have used for sales meetings. Do I need to tell him I'm recording?
How would I do that? He walks up to me and i say, "Ummm, just 1 second officer, lemme just get my digital recorder out here."

Calling all Ohio dudes who know the law on recording a police encounter!

Missouri, no help to you, is a one person/party consent state. I would never disclose that I am recording the encounter, here in Missouri.

rugerlcr357lg said:

I do have a lil digital audio recorder that I have used for sales meetings. Do I need to tell him I'm recording?
How would I do that? He walks up to me and i say, "Ummm, just 1 second officer, lemme just get my digital recorder out here."

Click to expand...

OC for ME said:

Calling all Ohio dudes who know the law on recording a police encounter!

Missouri, no help to you, is a one person/party consent state. I would never disclose that I am recording the encounter, here in Missouri.

Click to expand...

Negative. Ohio is a one party state in regards to recording. Only one member of the party (in this case, you) needs to know it is being recorded.


Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

The police may run a check on license plates at anytime they desire