Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80

Thread: Does a LEO have to give you his RAS if you ask for it?

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Does a LEO have to give you his RAS if you ask for it?

    A great deal of discussion on the various types of stops has been had on the "First stop Canton" thread here in the Ohio forum:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...st-stop-Canton

    This thread is not for the discussion of stops (consensual, detention, arrest), but rather about RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion), the thing that separates a consensual encounter from a detention/detainment.

    So, an officer gives you an order to "Stop right there!", you ask "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?", and the officer responds "NO!"

    In order to legally detain you the officer must have (at least) RAS.

    The question is "Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?" (a related question is "Does he have to be truthful about it?")

    As is customary with this sort of discussion, cites to authority are most valuable.Ladies? Gentlemen?
    Last edited by BB62; 09-07-2012 at 01:01 AM. Reason: spelling

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    The only one who's curiosity he has to satisfy is the trial judge.

    That said, the conversation isn't going much further until I at least know what crime I'm suspected of. It's kinda hard to cooperate in his investigation if I don't know what information about what suspected crime I'm suspected of.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 09-07-2012 at 01:13 AM.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    The only one who's curiosity he has to satisfy is the trial judge...
    Cite?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    The only one who's curiosity he has to satisfy is the trial judge.

    That said, the conversation isn't going much further until I at least know what crime I'm suspected of. It's kinda hard to cooperate in his investigation if I don't know what information about what suspected crime I'm suspected of.
    Ha! Cooperation? Foolish human....


    Keep the faith!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    "Am I free to leave?"
    "No."
    "I have nothing further to say without benefit of counsel."

    At that moment, I don't CARE what his RAS is, or even whether he HAS any.

    I care if I'm free to leave. If NOT, apart from STATUTORILY REQUIRED notifications (carrying concealed under an Ohio CHL, verbal ID, or showing of CHL and secondary ID IF CARRYING) We're not going to talk AT ALL.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Cite?
    Cite to what?

    If you are free to leave who cares what his motivation for the contact is, leave.

    If you are not free to leave clam up, comply only as required by law. Who cares what his claimed RAS is.

    Some folks always try to educate on the side of the road. Not me, I leave or let my lawyer do my talking for me beyond any statutory verbal interactions.

    Example:

    Got "consensually contacted" by one my local finest. The only thing I said was, after I was accosted, "Good morning Officer Friendly I am very busy, may I be on my way?" He asked if he could have a word with me and I said "no, thank you" and repeated the previous. He said I could be on my way. I gave him a warm "thank you" and "have a good day please stay safe." I then went about my business. What, 30 seconds tops?
    "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

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    I'm sure BB62 was asking for a citation to authority for what I posted. All I can say is that this very question has appeared before in other forums and that the most lawyerly (and officerly, if that's even a real word) reply was that the officer owes you nothing by way of explanation. However, he does have to be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion to the trial judge.

    The officer is free to lie during the course of investigation, "You're homie done gave you up, you might as well admit what you did and I'll ask the prosecutor to go easy on you" or "I saw what you were doing. I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it. If you cooperate and tell me about it, it will show the judge that you're sorry and he'll probably go easier on you." I can't remember the exact phrasing that was used, but it was something to the effect of "officers must be allowed to retain the 'arts and crafts' of their profession in order to extract confessions from criminal suspects."

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    I'm sure BB62 was asking for a citation to authority for what I posted...
    Yes, that's correct.

    I like the notion of clamming up, but am intrigued/bothered by the fact that no one (yet) has cited case law one way or the other.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Yes, that's correct.

    I like the notion of clamming up, but am intrigued/bothered by the fact that no one (yet) has cited case law one way or the other.
    I don't think there is a law to cite. Short of that an LEO can lie to you about RAS or any other thing. If they can lie, then they can sure NOT tell you why they are detaining you.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Case law for what? RAS? There is plenty of case law that "shows" that the cop either had or did not have RAS. How could there be case law on a cop not providing RAS at the time of a detainment to justify the detainment. But the point remains, how can a citizen sue/appeal that he was not given the cop's RAS when there is no right violated for merely not telling you why the cop is violating your right(s) by detaining you.....I think.

    I guess it boils down to a "who cares why you got rear ended at the stop light, all that matters is that you got rear ended at the stop light."

    Don't get me wrong I think it would be fantastic that a cop had to provide RAS and would get hit for it later if he did not.
    "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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291
    From what I've read, it comes back to the question, 'am I being detained, or free to go'. I've always been of the mind that they don't / aren't required to tell you anything as far as RAS is concerned, but I can't prove it by case or statute.

    This way, depending on the circumstances, IE: open carrying somewhere outside a vehicle, no ID needed to be passed, just a verbal name / dob or address, if you are in fact being detained. And I also believe you only have to pass this once, if it is not written down or remembered, oh well. Kinda like being asked to blow into the machine twice b/c nothing registered the first time.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    OC for ME... ?

    I have no clue what you're saying, but a related question would be "Does a LEO have to tell you why you are being detained?"

  13. #13
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    RAS(Reasonable Articulated Suspicion, Detentions and Arrests)

    Officers were educated on ID'ing, were polite and professional and admitted they were wrong on video

    Detentions and Arrests, info and definitions by cowboyridn

    Detention descriptions, consensual and when to walk away. An informational read

    3 Different levels of Police/Citizen encounters Explained

    4th and 5th Amendment Resources by user Citizen

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1027378.html
    The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.
    The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.
    I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.
    At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).
    This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.

    This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr
    52 F.3d 194 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-1675. United States Court of App

    Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
    "Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."


    In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

    A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's travelling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.

    Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves., 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821. State v. Williams

    “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 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 (1993)

    “The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances.” WI v. Kiekhefer (1997)

    An anonymous tip is not RAS

    ID'ing yourself discussion




    How to Remain silent when questioned by Police

    Don't Talk to Cops (PLEASE WATCH, Important for any and all Law Enforcement Encounters)

    DUI Refusal

    Another DUI refusal

    How to refuse a Police Search

    How to keep Police from Searching
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  14. #14
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Whether the officer has RAS or not is moot, if you do not talk, and invoke your right to remain silent, and do not consent to a search. The officer has two options, take you into custody or release you. And if he takes you into custody, unless it has changed he/she does have to inform you why you have been arrested. I'll have to do some digging to come up with the cite.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    You know... it kinda makes you miss the apocryphal old days when it was less cloudy and you heard things like -

    "Stop! in the name of the law" - no question then under what authority you've been seized, or "You're under arrest for the crime of eating a ham sandwich on Sunday to the detriment of public order."
    I wonder if we shouldn't go back to such things (assuming such ever happened in the first place.)

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by JSlack7851 View Post
    From what I've read, it comes back to the question, 'am I being detained, or free to go'. I've always been of the mind that they don't / aren't required to tell you anything as far as RAS is concerned, but I can't prove it by case or statute.

    This way, depending on the circumstances, IE: open carrying somewhere outside a vehicle, no ID needed to be passed, just a verbal name / dob or address, if you are in fact being detained. And I also believe you only have to pass this once, if it is not written down or remembered, oh well. Kinda like being asked to blow into the machine twice b/c nothing registered the first time.
    And the term is "OR" not "AND." The Supreme Court has made it clear in Hiibel, NAME ONLY......

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    So, an officer gives you an order to "Stop right there!", you ask "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?", and the officer responds "NO!"

    In order to legally detain you the officer must have (at least) RAS.

    The question is "Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?" (a related question is "Does he have to be truthful about it?")
    No, and no.

    Arguing about various "types" of stops is pointless. How many investigative detentions can dance on the head of a pin isn't important. The only question that is important, is whether you reasonably feel you are not free to leave. If your answer is "no", then you have been seized, and should shut up and say nothing without benefit of legal counsel.
    Last edited by KBCraig; 09-09-2012 at 01:49 AM.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    "Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?"

    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    No, and no.

    Arguing about various "types" of stops is pointless. How many investigative detentions can dance on the head of a pin isn't important. The only question that is important, is whether you reasonably feel you are not free to leave. If your answer is "no", then you have been seized, and should shut up and say nothing without benefit of legal counsel.
    So, if the cop fails to verbalize his RAS I have to conclude that the stop is JUST a consensual stop and I walk away.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    "Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?"

    So, if the cop fails to verbalize his RAS I have to conclude that the stop is JUST a consensual stop and I walk away.
    I don't think that KBCraig implied that. If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does. I haven't found anything that states a cop has to explain his RAS to your/my satisfaction to affect a detention. Sounds like focusing on RAS might be a mis-guided direction of time and effort if the objective is to keep your foot out of the detention trap. It might come into play as a diversion or get the cop to question their actions, if you get one inexperienced enough to fall for it. Those intent on dominating you....will.

    Personally, I think cops gamble on your ignorance and their own intimidation value. And to some extent, they gamble on your ability and willingness to lay out 5 figures to confront their behavior. Win, lose, or draw, the cop's not out anything. Like children, they know how far they can push before they get a disciplinary time out. With pay.

    While we discuss how we can walk upright on our hind legs like free human beings in spite of the opposition, cops stop in here and take what they find back to their own forums, where they work out the matching methods of overcoming our rights.
    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."

  20. #20
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    "Does he have to explain/give you his RAS if you ask for it?"

    So, if the cop fails to verbalize his RAS I have to conclude that the stop is JUST a consensual stop and I walk away.
    "Am I free to leave?"
    "No" (or refuses to answer)
    "I have nothing further to say without benefit of counsel."

    You COULD try to walk away. If he ORDERS you to stop (by explicit command or tone of voice), or physically restrains you, you're NOT free to leave. SHUT UP.

    If he doesn't compel you to stay, verbally or physically, you cannot LEGALLY be charged with fleeing or anything similar.

    It doesn't get much simpler than that.

    Carry a voice recorder so nobody has to rely on HIS version of events.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    color of law wrote -
    So, if the cop fails to verbalize his RAS I have to conclude that the stop is JUST a consensual stop and I walk away.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    I don't think that KBCraig implied that. If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does. I haven't found anything that states a cop has to explain his RAS to your/my satisfaction to affect a detention. Sounds like focusing on RAS might be a mis-guided direction of time and effort if the objective is to keep your foot out of the detention trap. It might come into play as a diversion or get the cop to question their actions, if you get one inexperienced enough to fall for it. Those intent on dominating you....will.
    ??????If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does.??????

    Believe means - To expect or suppose; think. So, what am I to believe? If you believe you are under arrest, then you are under arrest. If you believe you are being detained, then you are detained. But, if the cop can't articulate his reason for sticking his nose into my business then I can only BELIEVE that he is trying to have a consensual conversation. At which point I walk away.

    The cop now has a choice, let me walk or throws my butt to the ground. If the cop throws me to the ground and places me under arrest I will be charged with something. And I'm sure I will know what the charge is.

    You are free to BELIEVE whatever you like, but I will get an answer one way or another..........

    And yes, the cop can make-up whatever cock and bull story he wishes - for me it better be good.
    Last edited by color of law; 09-09-2012 at 02:13 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    ??????If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does.??????

    Believe means - To expect or suppose; think. So, what am I to believe? If you believe you are under arrest, then you are under arrest. If you believe you are being detained, then you are detained. But, if the cop can't articulate his reason for sticking his nose into my business then I can only BELIEVE that he is trying to have a consensual conversation. At which point I walk away.

    The cop now has a choice, let me walk or throws my butt to the ground. If the cop throws me to the ground and places me under arrest I will be charged with something. And I'm sure I will know what the charge is.

    You are free to BELIEVE whatever you like, but I will get an answer one way or another..........

    And yes, the cop can make-up whatever cock and bull story he wishes - for me it better be good.


    Problem is, these things don't always play out like you imagine them in your head. For example:



    How far do you push getting your acceptable definition of RAS before khaki pants shoots you because he "feared for his life", or interpreted your insistence of RAS to your liking as resisting? You're still free to choose....some reality should be recognized, however.
    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."

  23. #23
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Does a LEO have to give you his RAS if you ask for it?

    The way I see it, if he's got something on me, he is going to detain me. If he doesn't, he's going to detain me. And if I know for a fact that I have committed no crime, no talky. I think the question "am I being detained" leaves the officer too many outs. If you change it to "For what crime are you detaining me?" That gets to the point and throws them off. And I think it would lead them into saying "Im not". Then you're off. "Ill be on my way."
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    ??????If you've been detained, or believe you have been, RAS is whatever the cop makes up between then and the time it gets to court, if it does.??????

    Believe means - To expect or suppose; think. So, what am I to believe? If you believe you are under arrest, then you are under arrest. If you believe you are being detained, then you are detained. But, if the cop can't articulate his reason for sticking his nose into my business then I can only BELIEVE that he is trying to have a consensual conversation. At which point I walk away.

    The cop now has a choice, let me walk or throws my butt to the ground. If the cop throws me to the ground and places me under arrest I will be charged with something. And I'm sure I will know what the charge is.

    You are free to BELIEVE whatever you like, but I will get an answer one way or another..........

    And yes, the cop can make-up whatever cock and bull story he wishes - for me it better be good.


    http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...rld&id=8799989

    Not much exchange of views in this video. Tag 'em and bag 'em. I don't entertain much notion the cops are obligated to prove their point to me. This cop seems to think he has what he needs to detain, and conversation probably wouldn't influence his decision, ya think? I am of the notion I'm better off not stepping in the detention trap, if I'm able to. Immediately having the cop define my status and acting accordingly is my plan. If I'm detained, shut up. If I'm not, we have nothing to discuss. Or share, as far as what my picture looks like on a state issued document.


    Me, hypothetically approached by Officers Friendly and Tackleberry:


    Officer F: "Hey. We need to talk to you".

    Me: "There's been some mistake. I didn't call you."

    Officer T: "No mistake. We need to talk to you. Now".

    Me: Really? As you, uh, failed to mention any crime you suspect me of committing, I'll trust there is none, and I'll be on my way".

    Their response will determine what I believe about my immediate civil standing.....detained or not detained.

    My thoughts are that engaging in a RAS debate is exactly what attorneys tell us not to do....the discussion can become whatever the cop needs it to be to justify whatever they want to justify. Resisting, obstruction, disorderly. Contempt of cop. Remember, when the word firearm enters the report, the cop automatically gets dealt the trump card. He can rarely do any wrong, as he, against all odds, is placing his well being in harm's way, gallantly insuring his and society's safety.....
    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."

  25. #25
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    The way I see it, if he's got something on me, he is going to detain me. If he doesn't, he's going to detain me. And if I know for a fact that I have committed no crime, no talky. I think the question "am I being detained" leaves the officer too many outs. If you change it to "For what crime are you detaining me?" That gets to the point and throws them off. And I think it would lead them into saying "Im not". Then you're off. "Ill be on my way."
    My lawyer prefers "Am I free to leave?"

    It COMPLETELY sidesteps legal jargon and the cop's probable ignorance of (or dishonesty about) same.

    I don't want ANYTHING to do with the police... AT ALL.

    I certainly don't want to stand around debating Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues with them.

    Given that I don't want to talk to cops AT ALL, the fewer words exchanged the better.

    I don't CARE why I'm being detained, only WHETHER I am.

    And if I am, I have NO intention of engaging the cop in any way not SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY LAW. NO consent to ANY searches will be granted, EVER.

    And he doesn't have to SAY I'm being detained. All that's required is whether the totality of his actions and inactions would cause a REASONABLE PERSON to believe that they were not free to leave. At that point, any communications from my side are OVER until my lawyer is present.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •