Colorado a "Shall inform" state

mobiushky · May 24, 2013

centsi said:
I am not arguing with you either. We're both arguing with the idea that this would be used for RAS. But it WOULD be Felony Menacing because there is a deadly weapon involved. If I threatened to tear your arms off, I'd be committing the misdemeanor, but if my threats were with a firearm it's a felony:

(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:

(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or

(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.

I agree with that part. I think the line comes into where the LEO will say he has RAS to gather info on you. Maybe using a scenario is better.

You walk into Fred-Mart. Some lunatic lady thinks your gun is scary. Even though it's properly holstered and the gun is not being waived and literally you are NOT menacing anyone. Lady calls 911 and says there's a guy with a gun at Fred-Mart and she's scared of you. They ask if the guy is waiving the gun around and threatening people. She says no, but she's still scared. The police will come and they will search you and will ask for ID and the whole she-bang because they had RAS that someone is menacing. According to the LEO I spoke with, they HAVE to send a unit. Even if they know it's stupid, they have to. (BTW, this is what I was told by an OC friendly LEO.) And when they get there they will do the whole search bit and the RAS will be based on menacing. The LEO was the one who used the term "catch-all".

Like I said, I'm just passing along what I was told. He may have it wrong, but I'd be willing to bet if you sued over that encounter, you'd lose.

centsi · May 25, 2013

mobiushky said:
I agree with that part. I think the line comes into where the LEO will say he has RAS to gather info on you. Maybe using a scenario is better.

You walk into Fred-Mart. Some lunatic lady thinks your gun is scary. Even though it's properly holstered and the gun is not being waived and literally you are NOT menacing anyone. Lady calls 911 and says there's a guy with a gun at Fred-Mart and she's scared of you. They ask if the guy is waiving the gun around and threatening people. She says no, but she's still scared. The police will come and they will search you and will ask for ID and the whole she-bang because they had RAS that someone is menacing. According to the LEO I spoke with, they HAVE to send a unit. Even if they know it's stupid, they have to. (BTW, this is what I was told by an OC friendly LEO.) And when they get there they will do the whole search bit and the RAS will be based on menacing. The LEO was the one who used the term "catch-all".

Like I said, I'm just passing along what I was told. He may have it wrong, but I'd be willing to bet if you sued over that encounter, you'd lose.

I'm sure you're LEO is telling you the truth as he sees it, but for everyone else on this forum in Colorado I think it is important to say that you DO NOT have to ID for a MWAG call if you are OCing. I don't want to waste everyone's time with the details but it's happened to me several times now and I understand firsthand how it works. A video camera makes a HUGE difference. Watch some of these videos of OC encounters on YouTube. The LEO is insistent that he needs their name or ID, the OCer stands his ground and then the LEO, looking at the camera, lets them go. That encounter would probably have lasted a lot longer without a camera and perhaps it would have turned out differently. Yet that proves the obvious. They don't have RAS. They didn't give up RAS because of the camera, they just gave up their BS threat of RAS because of it. Remember, the LEO wants your ID, but he really wants you to volunteer it. That way he can't be sued for anything because you gave it up. And if you say you were pressured into giving your ID, it's simply your word against his and you lose. But when the camera comes out the situation changes. Everyone can now see that you don't want to give up your ID, so if he ends up getting it a judge or jury knows that it was coerced. And if it is later ruled an invalid RAS stop, he can be sued.

I'd be curious to see what your LEO would say in your same scenario where the OCer had a camera and recorded the entire encounter and the LEO knew that it was being recorded.

Fallschirjmäger · May 25, 2013

mobiushky said:
"... According to the LEO I spoke with, they HAVE to send a unit. Even if they know it's stupid, they have to. (BTW, this is what I was told by an OC friendly LEO.) And when they get there they will do the whole search bit and the RAS will be based on menacing. The LEO was the one who used the term "catch-all".

Like I said, I'm just passing along what I was told. He may have it wrong, but I'd be willing to bet if you sued over that encounter, you'd lose.

The only things anyone or any department "has to do" is something they will be punished for if they fail to do so.
Fail to pay your taxes? Get hit with a penalty and perhaps even jail time.
Murder someone? Prepare for non-luxury accommodations at the state's expense.
Fail to investigate a break-in, reported rape and murder after repeated calls from a homeowner?..... not so much, see Warren v. D.C.

The police no more have to respond to a report of a man legally carrying a firearm than they do to a man legally letting his cat get stuck up a tree.

The only thing the officer "has to do" is respond to dispatch; ignoring that is likely in violation of department policy as I doubt the department takes kindly to being ignored when they tell an officer to do something.

F350 · May 25, 2013

mobiushky said:
I agree with that part. I think the line comes into where the LEO will say he has RAS to gather info on you. Maybe using a scenario is better.

You walk into Fred-Mart. Some lunatic lady thinks your gun is scary. Even though it's properly holstered and the gun is not being waived and literally you are NOT menacing anyone. Lady calls 911 and says there's a guy with a gun at Fred-Mart and she's scared of you. They ask if the guy is waiving the gun around and threatening people. She says no, but she's still scared. The police will come and they will search you and will ask for ID and the whole she-bang because they had RAS that someone is menacing. According to the LEO I spoke with, they HAVE to send a unit. Even if they know it's stupid, they have to. (BTW, this is what I was told by an OC friendly LEO.) And when they get there they will do the whole search bit and the RAS will be based on menacing. The LEO was the one who used the term "catch-all".

Like I said, I'm just passing along what I was told. He may have it wrong, but I'd be willing to bet if you sued over that encounter, you'd lose.

Then the LEO is totally ignorant of SCOTUS president.

Saxxon · May 25, 2013

There is pretty much no situation that you come out better off being a smartass and mocking a LEO, it just puts you in an adversarial role and demonstrates that you perhaps lack better judgement putting your ego before common sense. As someone who is carrying you should have a firm control of your ego and need to one-up others as that is a primary facet in maintaining control in a confrontation is not letting your emotions and ego get in the way of rational action.

MWAG may warrant them contacting you, but its not a RAS of a crime as your are within your rights to do so. Just because the caller peed their pants doesn't mean you were menacing them, it means they have an irrational fear and need to see a shrink. I believe someone on this forum posted about some halfwit lady going screeching insane in a store and finally being told to leave by the manager because she wanted to make a scene about the poster's OC.

There are numerous recording devices available on the market now, any LEO should expect they are being recorded directly or indirectly by bystanders in most situations. This has had a positive effect in helping clean out some bad ones from the ranks since their abuses were finally irrefutably put in front of the courts and superiors.

Peronsally it depends on the situation as to whether I'd willingly show my ID etc. If it was just a harassment stop, I'd decline. In a situation last year I consented to them chekcing my ID as there was an active situation in progress in the area and they were trying to make sure there were not other actors involved. I checked out (as I knew I would) and I was on my way home shortly after. In that situation I can understand the concern and while the RAS was somewhat general, I wasn't going to gain anything by arguing with them about it when there dozens of officers about with weapons in hand.

Myself I live in a town where the local police are better informed on OC/CC and they are glad to see law abiding citizens who are able to defend themselves and others.

MatieA · May 26, 2013

mobiushky said:
>>Snip According to the LEO I spoke with, they HAVE to send a unit. Even if they know it's stupid, they have to. (BTW, this is what I was told by an OC friendly LEO.) <<SNIP>>

Like I said, I'm just passing along what I was told. He may have it wrong, but I'd be willing to bet if you sued over that encounter, you'd lose.

WRONG; Read Gonzales vs. Castle Rock

http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/3mer/1ami/2004-0278.mer.ami.pdf

davidmcbeth · May 26, 2013

Saxxon said:
There is pretty much no situation that you come out better off being a smartass and mocking a LEO, it just puts you in an adversarial role and demonstrates that you perhaps lack better judgement putting your ego before common sense. As someone who is carrying you should have a firm control of your ego and need to one-up others as that is a primary facet in maintaining control in a confrontation is not letting your emotions and ego get in the way of rational action.

MWAG may warrant them contacting you, but its not a RAS of a crime as your are within your rights to do so. Just because the caller peed their pants doesn't mean you were menacing them, it means they have an irrational fear and need to see a shrink. I believe someone on this forum posted about some halfwit lady going screeching insane in a store and finally being told to leave by the manager because she wanted to make a scene about the poster's OC.

There are numerous recording devices available on the market now, any LEO should expect they are being recorded directly or indirectly by bystanders in most situations. This has had a positive effect in helping clean out some bad ones from the ranks since their abuses were finally irrefutably put in front of the courts and superiors.

Peronsally it depends on the situation as to whether I'd willingly show my ID etc. If it was just a harassment stop, I'd decline. In a situation last year I consented to them chekcing my ID as there was an active situation in progress in the area and they were trying to make sure there were not other actors involved. I checked out (as I knew I would) and I was on my way home shortly after. In that situation I can understand the concern and while the RAS was somewhat general, I wasn't going to gain anything by arguing with them about it when there dozens of officers about with weapons in hand.

Myself I live in a town where the local police are better informed on OC/CC and they are glad to see law abiding citizens who are able to defend themselves and others.

Yes ...

Idiot: "there's a man with a gun who wants to harm me, send the police!"
Functioning brained person: "really? then why are you alive?"

since9 · May 30, 2013

centsi said:
§ 16-3-103. Stopping of suspect

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

So you do NOT have to produce ID unless they have reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime.

Centsi hit a home run, here, and I'd like to add one critical point: The mere presence of a firearm on a person does not meet legal the requirement for either "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause." While arguing with a law enforcement officer is an exercise in diminishing returns, there's nothing wrong with asking him why he stopped you. Regardless of his answer, if you were engaged in lawful behavior, you can then sincerely ask him, "Does that constitute either RAS or PC?"

That gets him thinking. How you peel off from there depends on the situation.

Colorado a "Shall inform" state

mobiushky

Regular Member

centsi

Campaign Veteran

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

F350

Regular Member

Saxxon

Regular Member

MatieA

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

since9

Campaign Veteran