A facebook post from a local LEO.

DrakeZ07 · Apr 29, 2013

I knew there was a reason Mike's name was so familiar! xD His wife and my Mother are good friends, and I've met him a couple times when him, his wife, my mother, and I would meet up for Chinese night once in a while. Oddly enough, I've always Open Carried every time I go out with friends, family, or friends of family. However, he never said one wrong thing to me, never gave me a foul look, and word has reached my mother via his wife that he often forgot to ask various questions about my sidearm, such as where I bought it, did I like it over another kind. Although admittedly, I made a passing statement at each chow-encounter that I was recording for legal safety and stuff, so maybe that's why he was so kind to me and my mother.

I dunno how this fits into it all, but I was reading the comments, and reading over my FB, and saw the link SP posted [if someone quotes your post, and you edit the stuff out of your own, it remains in the quotation.] and was like ... 'I know that cop...'

Small world, ain't it?

WalkingWolf said:
Give us the case number and I would be happy to. Also seeing the officer is a public servant it would help the hearsay if we know exactly who we are talking about. BTW you have been here long enough to know that when you make a claim, it is up to YOU to back it up. It is insulting to the rest of members to expect them to do your due diligence for you.

Talking about Mike Perkings, a Sergeant at the Winchester, KY Police Dept.
[Didn't see anything in the rules that prohibits the disclosure of a name of a public servant, I ask that if I missed something, that the violating part be removed for me, thankies <3]

DrakeZ07 · Apr 29, 2013

boomer92266 said:
I agree 100%, I don't believe anything is wrong with a law officer checking someone carrying and that includes me.

How can you believe that there is nothing wrong with a LEO stopping, and interviewing, either consensually or otherwise, a citizen who is legally, and lawfully open carrying? Especially when according to Holland V. Commonwealth, NO ONE may question our RIGHT to Openly Carry? No offense, but it seems like you support the harrassment, or otherwise intrusion by a law enforcement officer who questions, stops, or 'checks' someone who is obeying the law? The dude was supposedly Open Carrying a SKS/Rifle, okay, that's 100% legal and unquestionable. He was supposedly OUTSIDE of a court house housing a court of law, okay, again, 100% as long as he didn't enter the building dedicated to the court of law, or its offices that are apart of the court of law. I don't see how he was breaking any law whatsoever, so, why should he be confronted by a LEO if he was doing nothing wrong, nothing illegal? The LEO should have just observed from a distance. And when he saw the dude was openly carrying the firearm, and not inside a prohibited place, called dispatch to clear the call and move on.

Don't support, or agree with the actions of someone who willfully, and purposely obstruct, circumvent, and ignores our rights granted in both our constitution, and our court cases and general assembly, it kinda makes you look anti-liberty.

EMNofSeattle · Apr 29, 2013

DrakeZ07 said:
How can you believe that there is nothing wrong with a LEO stopping, and interviewing, either consensually or otherwise, a citizen who is legally, and lawfully open carrying? Especially when according to Holland V. Commonwealth, NO ONE may question our RIGHT to Openly Carry? No offense, but it seems like you support the harrassment, or otherwise intrusion by a law enforcement officer who questions, stops, or 'checks' someone who is obeying the law? The dude was supposedly Open Carrying a SKS/Rifle, okay, that's 100% legal and unquestionable. He was supposedly OUTSIDE of a court house housing a court of law, okay, again, 100% as long as he didn't enter the building dedicated to the court of law, or its offices that are apart of the court of law. I don't see how he was breaking any law whatsoever, so, why should he be confronted by a LEO if he was doing nothing wrong, nothing illegal? The LEO should have just observed from a distance. And when he saw the dude was openly carrying the firearm, and not inside a prohibited place, called dispatch to clear the call and move on.

Don't support, or agree with the actions of someone who willfully, and purposely obstruct, circumvent, and ignores our rights granted in both our constitution, and our court cases and general assembly, it kinda makes you look anti-liberty.

You don't have to be breaking the law to be legally detained. That's the purpose of the detention is to see if you are breaking the law, read Terry again, the decision specifically allows someone to be preemptively investigated before committing a crime, in fact that was the very issue at play in Terry.

rifle outside a courthouse, can be suspicion of several things, witness tampering, jury intimidation, threatening a public official... etc etc etc. that may not be what's happening, but it warrants further investigation, especially if the individual has a long history of interaction with the police. this is well within judicial precedent.

WalkingWolf · Apr 29, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
You don't have to be breaking the law to be legally detained. That's the purpose of the detention is to see if you are breaking the law, read Terry again, the decision specifically allows someone to be preemptively investigated before committing a crime, in fact that was the very issue at play in Terry.

rifle outside a courthouse, can be suspicion of several things, witness tampering, jury intimidation, threatening a public official... etc etc etc. that may not be what's happening, but it warrants further investigation, especially if the individual has a long history of interaction with the police. this is well within judicial precedent.

Citation?

EMNofSeattle · Apr 29, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Citation?

Terry v. Ohio

WalkingWolf · Apr 29, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
Terry v. Ohio

Where in Terry V Ohio does it state that a lawfully carried firearm is RAS? Please be specific.

EMNofSeattle · Apr 29, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Where in Terry V Ohio does it state that a lawfully carried firearm is RAS? Please be specific.

I think you need to go back and read what I actually wrote....

boomer92266 · Apr 29, 2013

DrakeZ07 said:
How can you believe that there is nothing wrong with a LEO stopping, and interviewing, either consensually or otherwise, a citizen who is legally, and lawfully open carrying? Especially when according to Holland V. Commonwealth, NO ONE may question our RIGHT to Openly Carry? No offense, but it seems like you support the harrassment, or otherwise intrusion by a law enforcement officer who questions, stops, or 'checks' someone who is obeying the law? The dude was supposedly Open Carrying a SKS/Rifle, okay, that's 100% legal and unquestionable. He was supposedly OUTSIDE of a court house housing a court of law, okay, again, 100% as long as he didn't enter the building dedicated to the court of law, or its offices that are apart of the court of law. I don't see how he was breaking any law whatsoever, so, why should he be confronted by a LEO if he was doing nothing wrong, nothing illegal? The LEO should have just observed from a distance. And when he saw the dude was openly carrying the firearm, and not inside a prohibited place, called dispatch to clear the call and move on.

Don't support, or agree with the actions of someone who willfully, and purposely obstruct, circumvent, and ignores our rights granted in both our constitution, and our court cases and general assembly, it kinda makes you look anti-liberty.

If I am open carrying, it will not bother me if a LEO want to ask me a few questions to make sure I am an ok guy. It shouldn't take more than a minute or two to take care of that. There is just so much bad going on with shootings lately that a LEO just checking someone to see if they are ok should be ok at least I think so. Now I'm not talking about a LEO harrassing someone for several minutes and threatning them with a crime for just open carrying. I know there are LEO that do this and i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about just going up and talking and making sure everything is ok in a friendly manner. I just know that it doesn't bother me for a LEO to check me to be sure i'm ok with a gun, I was checked once in monroe county it took less than 2 minutes. now i can walk the streets and the same officers wave and ask how i'm doing as well as the rest of the department. I have even become good friends with the monroe county sheriff and the Gamaliel chief of police and tompkinsville chief of police who all three support open carry.

color of law · Apr 29, 2013

boomer92266 said:
If I am open carrying, it will not bother me if a LEO want to ask me a few questions to make sure I am an ok guy. It shouldn't take more than a minute or two to take care of that. There is just so much bad going on with shootings lately that a LEO just checking someone to see if they are ok should be ok at least I think so. Now I'm not talking about a LEO harrassing someone for several minutes and threatning them with a crime for just open carrying. I know there are LEO that do this and i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about just going up and talking and making sure everything is ok in a friendly manner. I just know that it doesn't bother me for a LEO to check me to be sure i'm ok with a gun, I was checked once in monroe county it took less than 2 minutes. now i can walk the streets and the same officers wave and ask how i'm doing as well as the rest of the department. I have even become good friends with the monroe county sheriff and the Gamaliel chief of police and tompkinsville chief of police who all three support open carry.

That's what is so great about this country. Your free to let the cops search your house without a warrant. If that is what floats your boat go for it.

On the other hand my time is my property. And time is money. And when someone takes my time without my consent that's theft. The cop is not being paid to harass law abiding citizens.

WalkingWolf · Apr 29, 2013

boomer92266 said:
If I am open carrying, it will not bother me if a LEO want to ask me a few questions to make sure I am an ok guy. It shouldn't take more than a minute or two to take care of that. There is just so much bad going on with shootings lately that a LEO just checking someone to see if they are ok should be ok at least I think so. Now I'm not talking about a LEO harrassing someone for several minutes and threatning them with a crime for just open carrying. I know there are LEO that do this and i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about just going up and talking and making sure everything is ok in a friendly manner. I just know that it doesn't bother me for a LEO to check me to be sure i'm ok with a gun, I was checked once in monroe county it took less than 2 minutes. now i can walk the streets and the same officers wave and ask how i'm doing as well as the rest of the department. I have even become good friends with the monroe county sheriff and the Gamaliel chief of police and tompkinsville chief of police who all three support open carry.

Almost every county has a large stack of warrants on real bad guys to execute. There is nothing stopping muni LEOs from executing them. I would think getting bad people off the street in their town would be much more fruitful than harassing LAC. If any are supporting harassing LAC by their deputies and officers they clearly do not support OC, they are just blowing smoke up your........

WalkingWolf · Apr 29, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
I think you need to go back and read what I actually wrote....

All you wrote was Terry V Ohio, that was it. I found nothing in that case that even mentions lawful open carry. So be a big boy and answer the question~where in T V O does it state that a lawful openly carried firearm is RAS?

Fallschirjmäger · Apr 29, 2013

Big Daddy XD said:
Maybe your idea of tyranny needs readjusting. I am also willing to bet that if your wife and child had, god forbidden, got injured or killed by this guy because he was there to do harm and no leo responded or just did a drive by that you'd be raising holy hell because they didn't stop him. It seems to me that all anyone cares about is the government leaving them alone until they do and something bad happens then their suing them for not protecting them instead of suing them for getting in their way.

Are there leo's who overstep their bounds and push their so called authority around? YES! Are there times when its obvious that oc'ers are doing nothing wrong and don't deserve to be stopped? YES! Are there times when oc'ers are pushing their authority around just looking for a fight and making the rest of us look bad in the process? YES! However I will stand by my initial statement that if hes a known criminal in front of a courthouse or school, or walking down a deserted road in the middle of no where with a AK slung across his back (cause I'm sure his neighborhood is so bad that he needs and AK for self protection when he goes for a walk) he needs to be stopped so the situation can be assessed.

This is my opinion. You are entitled to yours. However skewed it may be.

1) Regarding the wife, kids, family dog, etc., You could raise as much 'holy hell' as much as you wanted and even try take it to the Supreme Court just like Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro did when their flatmate was being raped and murdered downstairs and the District Police failed to stop it.
The Supreme Court ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that the police aren't responsible for your personal safety outside of certain situations that they create.

2) It doesn't matter to me if he's carrying the AK for protection, because he thinks it looks pretty, or because he thinks it will keep the lions, tigers, and aardvarks away. Unless he's carrying it for offensive purposes, and there is a reasonable suspicion of such it's a legal act. Last century you could just as easily and with the same logic said, "There's no reason for a purple man to be walking in a green neighborhood. He could be looking for green women to rape or a house to burglarize. He's got no reason to be there so he should be stopped so that the situation can be assessed."
- See Miller v. U. S., 230 F 486 at 489, "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime."

You're welcome to have opinions, but they shouldn't be used to blind one from facts or truth.

EMNofSeattle · Apr 29, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
All you wrote was Terry V Ohio, that was it. I found nothing in that case that even mentions lawful open carry. So be a big boy and answer the question~where in T V O does it state that a lawful openly carried firearm is RAS?

I stated that you don't need to be committing a crime for the police to lawfully detain you under the Terry ruling.

marshaul · Apr 29, 2013

Obvious LETroll is obvious.

OC for ME · Apr 29, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
You don't have to be breaking the law to be legally detained. That's the purpose of the detention is to see if you are breaking the law, read Terry again, the decision specifically allows someone to be preemptively investigated before committing a crime, in fact that was the very issue at play in Terry.

rifle outside a courthouse, can be suspicion of several things, witness tampering, jury intimidation, threatening a public official... etc etc etc. that may not be what's happening, but it warrants further investigation, especially if the individual has a long history of interaction with the police. this is well within judicial precedent.

Detained is likely not the term a [that] cop would use. Casual contact or whatever term is in vogue these days would be more likely the term a [that] cop would use.

A [the] suspicion must be reasonable and articulable if the stop is challenged in the future. Cops are not wanting to hazard their employment on a hunch or mere concern. Seeing a OC'd gun, in KY apparently, must not [can not] be a suspicious behavior. The "perp's" past criminal acts are irrelevant if no arrest for OCing a gun was made. Stigma [not convicted of a felony offense] can not [must not] be a predicate for a initiating a stop.

A lawful detainment requires more than a hunch or mere concern or past unlawful behaviors [profiling].....can't recall what course case stated that.

WalkingWolf · Apr 29, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
I stated that you don't need to be committing a crime for the police to lawfully detain you under the Terry ruling.

WHAT? The whole meaning of RAS is based around a crime that has been committed or is about to be committed! You can't have RAS without the element of a crime!

EMNofSeattle · Apr 29, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
WHAT? The whole meaning of RAS is based around a crime that has been committed or is about to be committed! You can't have RAS without the element of a crime!

No, it's reasonable suspicion of a crime....

why don't you tell me which Ohio statute makes it illegal to walk back and forth near a business? because what was what was upheld as RAS for the officer's search discovering a concealed revolver leading to the esteemed Mr. Terry's conviction.....

let's think guy with gun outside of court house, easy RAS to detain, witness intimidation, jury intimidation, threats against elected officials, keep in mind we're talking rifle, not someone with a holstered pistol, I'm willing to bet the courts would back up any detention made to investigate on suspicion of those crimes...

remember, the "about to commit a crime" I just came up with three that can be reasonably inferred from the intent of carrying long guns outside a courthouse. remember, a terry stop is not an arrest, it's a detention for the purposes of investigation, investigation is certainly warranted in that case.

Fallschirjmäger · Apr 29, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
I stated that you don't need to be committing a crime for the police to lawfully detain you under the Terry ruling.

WalkingWolf said:
WHAT? The whole meaning of RAS is based around a crime that has been committed or is about to be committed! You can't have RAS without the element of a crime!

Read his words carefully, you DON'T have to be COMMITTING a crime to be lawfully detained, but you DO have to be REASONABLY SUSPECTED of committing a crime.

EMNofSeattle · Apr 29, 2013

gutshot said:
"Checking out" is one thing, slandering a private citizen on social media with information obtained through the use of his position of public trust is another. That being said, I still think the "checking out" went too far.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but this may shock you to your core, but any police encounter you have if a report is filed, and any court records are all public record. you don't need to be an officer to gain that information.

furthermore, it's only slander if it's untrue and meant to damage your reputation. if it's true it's not slander.
if a registered sex offender is at a park, and you pull out a bullhorn and yell "this man is a registered sex offender" it's not slander... it's the truth.

Fallschirjmäger · Apr 29, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
No, it's reasonable suspicion of a crime....

why don't you tell me which Ohio statute makes it illegal to walk back and forth near a business? because what was what was upheld as RAS for the officer's search discovering a concealed revolver leading to the esteemed Mr. Terry's conviction.....

Selective recall, ENM?
"Detective McFadden ... observed the two proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece—in all, roughly a dozen trips. After one of these trips, they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly after a brief conversation. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up", detective McFadden followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store."
Although walking back in forth in front of a store is not a crime in Ohio, taken together with the other indicators, yes, it was suspicious enough to warrant a detention.

As the old saying goes, "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's enemy action. " A dozen times?... definitely suspicious.

A facebook post from a local LEO.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Active member