LEO Tips for NC OC'ers

I don't think that training is needed to be a "responsible gun owner" ...

Training is used to enhance skills, not make anyone "more responsible"

Its a thought process that antis use to say that one must complete some silly expensive training course before you get a permission slip ...

(and yes, I read the rest of the OP's thought ~ not an attack on his post)

Fuller Malarkey said:

More ad hominem attack. Kind of a one trick pony. That may be short and has a tiny ****, based on reactions.

Click to expand...

Oh I see more examples of you and walking wolf out witting of myself? I stated the facts and even reposted so everyone could see you and your other half working in tandem.

I keep saying I'm looking for a better pony/ horse to ride but I can't afford one. So the one trick pony must suffice I guess. You boys have a good night this thread is clearly useless now if you have devolved into talking about anatomy sizes and height.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Fallschirmjäger said:

No. Allow me to put it in perspective.
When I am minding my own business and approached by a man with a badge and a gun and immediately questioned as to my motives, my identity, my reason for being there, my ultimate destination, my home address and if that was where I came from, it makes me wary. The inability to be left alone absent some articulable, reasonable, suspicion of illegal conduct is a severe hindrance to my civil liberties and my right to be left alone.

The only reason you are approaching me is because I have a gun.
The only reason you are approaching me is because you have a badge and a gun. It's not Citizen Cane approaching me and asking what I'm doing with a gun; it's you.

Citizen Cane isn't trying to have a "conversation with me.
You aren't trying to have a "conversation" with me, you're trying to conduct a field interview and I'm not having it.

Click to expand...

Primus said:

I would say the last part is untrue. The reason you would be stopped as he described is because another LAC [or could just be Joe Blow Unarmed Citizen] would be calling about you. Your talking about officer initiated contact. He was clearly talking about a call for service. Big difference.

Click to expand...

And what big difference might that be? Just saying so doesn't make it so.
Does the fact that it was a result of a person (anonymous or fabulously famous) calling somehow obligate a police department to action? What if someone called to report a break-in, a rape, and a murder and the department completely fails to stop any of the above, are they in any way held responsible?

Does the fact that it was a citizen that called negate the protections of the Fourth Amendment from being safe from unreasonable seizures? Does that mean that I can be detained merely because a citizen made a phone call?

Face it, the reason I'd be stopped isn't because someone "called it in" nor because it was "officer initiated" in the case before us. It would be because his department told him to make contact and not doing so would be insubordinate conduct, nothing more.

Miles' word of choice was "conversation", I used the same expression in return. Yes, all three of us realize it's bull shite. It's not a 'conversation' he wants to have, it's a 'field interview.'
How is "there's a man walking down the road and he has a holstered gun" a call for service and "there's a black man walking own the and he has a rottweiler on a leash" not a call for service? Neither one alleges any illegality nor does either one create any suspicion of illegality. "There's a man with gun who's looked into the same Stop'n'Rob's window at least a dozen times and has met up with a second man" creates a suspicion of illegality, but that hasn't anything to do with the gun.

Fallschirmjäger said:

I must differ with you, sir. Miles' word of choice was "conversation", I used the same expression in return. Yes, all three of us realize it's bull shite. It's not a 'conversation' he wants to have, it's a 'field interview.'
How is "there's a man walking down the road and he has a holstered gun" a call for service and "there's a black man walking own the and he has a rottweiler on a leash" not a call for service? Neither one alleges any illegality nor does either one create any suspicion of illegality. "There's a man with gun who's looked into the same Stop'n'Rob's window at least a dozen times and has met up with a second man" creates a suspicion of illegality, but that hasn't anything to do with the gun.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification Fall. I think the disconnect is that your assuming (may be right) that the call is as you stated or similar " man with properly holstered firearm walking down the street minding his own business". From experience calls are more like " there's a guy with a gun at blah blah street!!!" And dispatch asks questions like what was he doing what kind of gun etc. The citizen usually responds " I don't know I was driving by and the gun was scary it shouldn't be out in the open like that!! Please hurry". Based on that call, the officer MUST respond and check it out. I believe the op even discussed that.

I can say just about every fight I go to involves guns and knives according to the people calling it in. But magically when we come screaming up the guns and knives disappear and magically the complainant won't come out and speak with us. That's because people exaggerate either on purpose or accidentally.

If a person did call and calmly state you or anyone was walking with your family with a properly holstered hand gun and minding your own business I would suffice to say that would warrant a mere drive by and wave then clear the call. That's all that should occur. And then maybe the phone call back to person who called ( if they leave contact which they don't around here) to explain the person is perfectly legal and for them not to bother them.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

:lol::lol::lol: Officer must respond to scary gun :lol::lol::lol:

You're killing me here, I tell ya you're killing me. :lol::lol::lol:

CITE?

WalkingWolf said:

:lol::lol::lol: Officer must respond to scary gun :lol::lol::lol:
You're killing me here, I tell ya you're killing me. :lol::lol::lol:
CITE?

Click to expand...

"Must"? Yeah, I caught that too.
The only things anyone "must" do are things they can be held responsible for, be punished for not doing. Failing to respond to a citizen's call about a firearm isn't one of them.
How do we know? Because if a police department receives a 911 call about a burglary, a call about a rape, a call about a murder and fails to prevent any of those can't be held responsible.

If I'm wrong and a department "must" respond then post the court decision or any other citation to that fact and I will loudly and publicly apologize.

Primus, I'm only going by the premise (see what I did there?) presented by the original poster. He did not allege any suspicion of illegality so I merely kept the same standards in my replies.

Not sure if your purposely propagating misinformation but I'll attempt to clarify for others.

In most departments there is a priority system to calls. For example my department has 1 2 and 3. 1 being get there as soon as possible and 3 being someone wants to make a report of a broken window that happened 3 days ago. As the calls come in they get assigned a priority and then are dispatched by either non Leo or some small places police themselves will have to dispatch. My department is large so we employ a whole crew of non le to dispatch.

The call actually originates with a call taker. Then goes to dispatcher. Then gets out by computer and radio to patrol.

If and when we are dispatched places we must go. If you blow off a call you are subject to administrative actions at the LEAST. I've seen multiple guys on here explain this. I really hate barking dog calls. But if I don't go I can be written up for it. Its a call for service. Yes even you walking peacefully down the road can be a call for service. The other citizen who called is asking/demanding we serve them by at least driving by to check out the situation.

So a gun call comes in. Passerby liberal makes crazy gun accusations says you have a scary gun and shouldn't. Goes from call taker to dispatcher to patrol. Gets assigned a priority 1 by THEM and patrol goes. Patrol goes stops the guy and tries to figure out how much truth there is.

That is how some/most of these calls go. Please do not believe guys that say leos can just tell dispatch to screw because they KNOW the guys is legal without even going by. I hope this clarifies for some the process.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Not sure if your purposely propagating misinformation but I'll attempt to clarify for others.

In most departments there is a priority system to calls. For example my department has 1 2 and 3. 1 being get there as soon as possible and 3 being someone wants to make a report of a broken window that happened 3 days ago. As the calls come in they get assigned a priority and then are dispatched by either non Leo or some small places police themselves will have to dispatch. My department is large so we employ a whole crew of non le to dispatch.

The call actually originates with a call taker. Then goes to dispatcher. Then gets out by computer and radio to patrol.

If and when we are dispatched places we must go. If you blow off a call you are subject to administrative actions at the LEAST. I've seen multiple guys on here explain this. I really hate barking dog calls. But if I don't go I can be written up for it. Its a call for service. Yes even you walking peacefully down the road can be a call for service. The other citizen who called is asking/demanding we serve them by at least driving by to check out the situation.

So a gun call comes in. Passerby liberal makes crazy gun accusations says you have a scary gun and shouldn't. Goes from call taker to dispatcher to patrol. Gets assigned a priority 1 by THEM and patrol goes. Patrol goes stops the guy and tries to figure out how much truth there is.

That is how some/most of these calls go. Please do not believe guys that say leos can just tell dispatch to screw because they KNOW the guys is legal without even going by. I hope this clarifies for some the process.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

This reeks of statist rhetoric. It's constructed to excuse and make it appear legit to violate the law abiding in the name of "duty". It fails to mention that observation of the situation or subject of concern can usually clear up any concerns,, leaving everyone involved with rights in tact.

It also takes this thread off topic. This is an open carry forum, not the Dragnet or Starch n' Husky monologues.

And in staying with that rule, I'll add to what others have stated:

DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE.

Recorders are your friend.

Smarmy police officers, in person or on the 'net, practicing their tactics of overcoming objections to the violation of your rights are not your friends.

Falls I apologize wasn't alleging you were misinforming it was another poster I was referring to

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Not sure if your purposely propagating misinformation but I'll attempt to clarify for others.

In most departments there is a priority system to calls. For example my department has 1 2 and 3. 1 being get there as soon as possible and 3 being someone wants to make a report of a broken window that happened 3 days ago. As the calls come in they get assigned a priority and then are dispatched by either non Leo or some small places police themselves will have to dispatch. My department is large so we employ a whole crew of non le to dispatch.

The call actually originates with a call taker. Then goes to dispatcher. Then gets out by computer and radio to patrol.

If and when we are dispatched places we must go. If you blow off a call you are subject to administrative actions at the LEAST. I've seen multiple guys on here explain this. I really hate barking dog calls. But if I don't go I can be written up for it. Its a call for service. Yes even you walking peacefully down the road can be a call for service. The other citizen who called is asking/demanding we serve them by at least driving by to check out the situation.

So a gun call comes in. Passerby liberal makes crazy gun accusations says you have a scary gun and shouldn't. Goes from call taker to dispatcher to patrol. Gets assigned a priority 1 by THEM and patrol goes. Patrol goes stops the guy and tries to figure out how much truth there is.

That is how some/most of these calls go. Please do not believe guys that say leos can just tell dispatch to screw because they KNOW the guys is legal without even going by. I hope this clarifies for some the process.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Why would you stop a guy for doing something that is not illegal? To "check him out"?

So, when you see an alleged policeman you don't know, you stop him and make sure that he is a policeman? Because a police imposter is a a very dangerous individual, yes?

davidmcbeth said:

Why would you stop a guy for doing something that is not illegal? To "check him out"?

So, when you see an alleged policeman you don't know, you stop him and make sure that he is a policeman? Because a police imposter is a a very dangerous individual, yes?

Click to expand...

David please read back. I stated if I knew they were legal I would just drive by and wave. But I have to respond to at least determine its legal.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

davidmcbeth said:

Why would you stop a guy for doing something that is not illegal? To "check him out"?

So, when you see an alleged policeman you don't know, you stop him and make sure that he is a policeman? Because a police imposter is a a very dangerous individual, yes?

Click to expand...

And if someone else called 911 to report that and if the call was built and I was dispatched the. Yes I'd drive by.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I find it interesting the initial poster has eight posts under his belt after a 3 year timespan. This one has generated and blossomed into 50+ posts from all over country and ignited a countrywide argument.

The first submitted in Aug 2010 something about bojangles cashier giving him a LE discount (could this would be considered acceptance of a gift?) as he states his training is supposedly six months away from entering BLET (spring 2011)

His second post, 3.5 years later is one where he is discussing his deputy activities with appropriate training provided in three positions in apparently less than two +/- years with him finally being assigned in the pistol/CCW permits section. Of course his use of CCW is presumed proper within his sphere of influence and understanding though NC Statutes use the term Conceal Handgun Permit.

He allegedly discussed with the Honorable Aldridge, who from my understanding is the most knowledgeable individual within the AG’s office, past and current, on NC’s firearm statutes. I am not entering into a discussion of the poster’s interpretation, based solely on a minute and a half conversation which took place after a seminar with Mr. Aldridge. I have personally witnessed Mr. Aldridge get inundated and swamped with attendee’s half witted questions about their personal pet peeve(s) about the CHP statutes. So I am quite confident this conversation between the two was quite in-depth and of substance enough for the OP to present his view(s) as Gospel.

I admire the poster’s admittance to OC ‘while off duty’ but I am sure he has never experienced any type of LE interference from his OC’g since as soon as other officer’s roll up to engage in ‘friendly chat’, they recognize him as a fellow in blue and then just wave and move on to more pressing police business. If responding officer’s do engage the OP just flashes his badge and everything is right with the world once again.

Tho I take exception to his minimization of CHP training; quote ‘you have to at least take a class once to be briefed on firearms safety and laws, sort of like having a hunting license’ unquote. Wow, what a good analogy comparing CHP training and a hunting license.

Let’s see, NC statute 14-415.12 set forth the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission establish standards of an 8 hour course of which a minimum of 2 hours must be on the laws of deadly force plus range time. I am not sure how this perception falls under the Ops statement ‘briefed’. Hunting license doesn't even have a shooting component!

Finally, as shown on this forum numerous times, LE’s do not seem to have any interest in providing appropriate guidance to citizens who wish to carry a firearm, OC or CC. Yet the OP is ready to provide his extensive knowledge about CCW or wait I am sure he meant CHP as well as OC'g.

The ensuing personal agitation and rhetoric by other posters…is an interesting read but not actually germane. Tho Falls excellent post at the beginning.

Ipse

Short version of all the above....

Officer Friendly doesn't have to respond because it's a "man with a gun call" or "because a citizen called"; Officer Friendly has to respond because his department told him to go. If they told him to go because someone reported a bench was painted red he has the same responsibility.

We also all realize it's misdirection. The original poster wrote, "... But, that doesn't mean we're freed form an obligation to investigate if someone calls us and reports "a man with a gun." If that's the call I'm dispatched to, I'm going to locate you, ask you some questions, and I may ask to unload your gun while we're speaking..." Is there any way that does not imply that the department does not have a responsibility based upon a report of a man with a gun?
The poster doesn't say he wouldn't be held responsible if he failed to obey the orders of his department, he implies that it's his department's duty to investigate and that there is some obligation to do so. We know, and have known for some time that's just not the case.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Short version of all the above....

Officer Friendly doesn't have to respond because it's a "man with a gun call" or "because a citizen called"; Officer Friendly has to respond because his department told him to go. If they told him to go because someone reported a bench was painted red he has the same responsibility.

We also all realize it's misdirection. The original poster wrote, "... But, that doesn't mean we're freed form an obligation to investigate if someone calls us and reports "a man with a gun." If that's the call I'm dispatched to, I'm going to locate you, ask you some questions, and I may ask to unload your gun while we're speaking..." Is there any way that does not imply that the department does not have a responsibility based upon a report of a man with a gun?
The poster doesn't say he wouldn't be held responsible if he failed to obey the orders of his department, he implies that it's his department's duty to investigate and that there is some obligation to do so. We know, and have known for some time that's just not the case.

Click to expand...

Falls while I can't cite a law that states so but I'm pretty positive that if I refused to go to car accident and people died I'd be sued and or fires. Also pretty sire if department as a whole said not to go to said accident and there was death or injury we would still get sued among other things. We literally are public servants. At least in my pd. I can't and am not speaking for anyone else.

So now please replace car accident (which you agree I assume) with barking dog, loud music, car driving around block too many times, suspicious vehicle or people which turns out to guy and girl making out......

Again ghats why I stressed when you roll up to said call and realize it was a dumb call you wave and keep rolling. When that loud music is from a car you roll your window down and ask nicely if they could turn the music down which doesn't even amount to a detention. If you seen its a guy walking with a holstered weapon just chugging along you keep on rolling and wave. Unless there is something else going on (RS).

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You really have little knowledge of the law regarding the responsibilities of a police officer.

`fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

Primus, can you provide some objective evidence of your departmental policy which states you, as a public servant, must respond to citizen's issues! as it seems it is against the national norm and if the policy is validated i will be the first to send a KUDOS to the city manager for their forward thinking posture.

ipse

solus said:

Primus, can you provide some objective evidence of your departmental policy which states you, as a public servant, must respond to citizen's issues! as it seems it is against the national norm and if the policy is validated i will be the first to send a KUDOS to the city manager for their forward thinking posture.

ipse

Click to expand...

Solus in all seriousness I will try and find a policy that states so.

Again I've described again and again what happens on a daily basis. In fact if someone can provide evidence I don't need to respond to barking dogs I'll be more the grateful. I'll make sure I passes it to my bosses.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Solus in all seriousness I will try and find a policy that states so.

Again I've described again and again what happens on a daily basis. In fact if someone can provide evidence I don't need to respond to barking dogs I'll be more the grateful. I'll make sure I passes it to my bosses.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The SCOTUS says so, see my post above! Did you sleep through classes?

Also don't you have a policy manual of your department?

Primus said:

Solus in all seriousness I will try and find a policy that states so.

Again I've described again and again what happens on a daily basis. In fact if someone can provide evidence I don't need to respond to barking dogs I'll be more the grateful. I'll make sure I passes it to my bosses.

Click to expand...

As multiple posters have said, neither you nor your department have any responsibility towards any singular citizen at all. If you are late to a crash and people die, you aren't responsible. If you get lost, you aren't responsible. If you fail to prevent a death even if you do arrive in time, you aren't responsible.

The only responsibility you have is to obey the department's order for you to go to that location, or be charged as being insubordinate to your department's authority.

The issue isn't if you can 'ignore' a call for service; you don't get a 'call for service', your department does. What you get is an order to go somewhere and do something. Failing to do that is actionable by your department.

You may get a personal request from a citizen about a barking dog, or even a murder being committed in their house. If you fail to respond you can be reprimanded by your department if their policy allows. But if you get a request from a citizen and you get an order from your department, it's not even a hard guess which one is actionable and which one isn't should you ignore one of them.