Washington cop asks open carrier if he is feeling erratic.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 8, 2015

stealthyeliminator said:
You don't have to consent to being contacted in the first place. If you're walking down the sidewalk I am free to try and engage you in conversation...

Only because they are still an individual human being with the same right to attempt a conversation with any other person that any other person has, they may do the same. Why would they want to if no erratic behavior was observed? Well, that's a good question, I don't really want to explore it, though, I don't think arguing about the validity of concern existing beyond a brief observation is going to be very fruitful.

The OCer in the video seemed to have no trouble at all breaking away from and ending the conversation.

Let's just agree that the highlighted portion of my post is contestable.

Consensual encounter has been twisted by cops and the courts to basically an investigation/fishing expedition.

I now use the term casual encounter for conversations that are mutually agreed to. This would be the average person on the street who has a conversation with another average person on the street. That is not what most cops do in "consensual" encounters.

SouthernBoy · Aug 9, 2015

Here's where I have a little problem with police questioning or hassling civilians who happen to be carrying arms. They carry arms at our pleasure and by way of our permission. We carry arms because it is our right. So where do police get off with hassling armed civilians or even stopping them without any RAS or PC?

MAC702 · Aug 9, 2015

since9 said:
...Even a false report of brandishing gives them a legitimate reason to check it out.

If this were true, each of these false reports would be followed with an arrest or citation of the person making said false report. I never hear about those...

Often times “discussions” with citizens turn into probable cause for further investigation or detention.

since9 said:
...Only if you're stupid or combative...

Or you're caught off guard, especially if raised by the government to trust its agents instinctively.

twoskinsonemanns · Aug 9, 2015

I am interested in everyone's thought of the initial contact. The op was directed to approach the cop. If this was conveyed via gesture, is there anyway it can be construed as a consensual encounter?

sudden valley gunner · Aug 9, 2015

SouthernBoy said:
Here's where I have a little problem with police questioning or hassling civilians who happen to be carrying arms. They carry arms at our pleasure and by way of our permission. We carry arms because it is our right. So where do police get off with hassling armed civilians or even stopping them without any RAS or PC?

+1 That's well put. It supports my assertion that there is no such thing as a "consensual" contact.

color of law · Aug 9, 2015

twoskinsonemanns said:
I am interested in everyone's thought of the initial contact. The op was directed to approach the cop. If this was conveyed via gesture, is there anyway it can be construed as a consensual encounter?

It was a consensual encounter. A consensual encounter involves only minimal police contact and no seizure, whereas the investigative stop requires a well-founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

An investigative stop is where police detain you temporarily in order to investigate the possibility that you committed a crime or are in the process of committing a crime. In order to justify an investigatory stop, law enforcement officers must have a well-founded, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). A detainment is a seizure.

taxman · Aug 9, 2015

RogueReflections said:
Thank you. One does not have to engage an officer much to have the conversation twisted. Simply answering where I was, what I was doing, what my mood was, or ANYTHING could be twisted by the right person.

If you don't believe RR's statement above, listen to an experienced attorney's explanation:

[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]

taxman · Aug 9, 2015

twoskinsonemanns said:
I am interested in everyone's thought of the initial contact. The op was directed to approach the cop. If this was conveyed via gesture, is there anyway it can be construed as a consensual encounter?

When you walk away without saying a word and without being challenged by the LEO for leaving, it was a consensual encounter.

sudden valley gunner said:
+1 That's well put. It supports my assertion that there is no such thing as a "consensual" contact.

If no cop is going to let you simply ignore him and go about your lawful business, then yes, there are no consensual encounters.

taxman · Aug 9, 2015

RogueReflections said:
He then informed me that a citizen had “called” and reported that I was acting erratically.

Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer!

"...and you need me to give a sworn statement before you can arrest the hoaxer?"

sudden valley gunner · Aug 9, 2015

taxman said:
When you walk away without saying a word and without being challenged by the LEO for leaving, it was a consensual encounter.

If no cop is going to let you simply ignore him and go about your lawful business, then yes, there are no consensual encounters.

If one walks away it was obviously not consensual.

Consensual is being used by cops for an investigation. I think its dishonest and a cop out of the intent of Terry. Terry was a horrible cop out of the intent of PC and requiring a warrant.

protias · Aug 9, 2015

SouthernBoy said:
Here's where I have a little problem with police questioning or hassling civilians who happen to be carrying arms. They carry arms at our pleasure and by way of our permission. We carry arms because it is our right. So where do police get off with hassling armed civilians or even stopping them without any RAS or PC?

Cops are civilians too.

I don't recall ever seeing military walking around in the streets other than at parades and I certainly don't recall them being armed.

RogueReflections · Aug 10, 2015

Dario said:
Well done sir! What camera did you use? My "smartphone" tends to freeze up whenever I try to record something I want to save and I'm looking for an inexpensive body type camera that I can reliably click on when something like this happens.

I was just using a pocket camera on this. I was not out to shoot video, so I did not have my usual gear with me. I just saw this officer looked like he had the intention on approaching me and I NEVER talk to a cop unless I am recording.

SouthernBoy · Aug 10, 2015

protias said:
Cops are civilians too.

I don't recall ever seeing military walking around in the streets other than at parades and I certainly don't recall them being armed.

In the context of my post, I chose the word "civilian" over "citizen" for the reason you mentioned. My point is that I am more concerned about armed police where there are no armed civilians because that flies in the face of the Founders' original intent; that the people always be armed as a safeguard against tyranny, from wherever that may come. As for armed military just walking around in the streets, that would concern me greatly. First, it would mean that something dire has already taken place or is about to take place. Second, once again the teachings of the Founders comes to mind. I prefer that far more arms be in the hands of the people as a control mechanism to keep the police and the military in check, should a worse case scenario take place.

taxman · Aug 10, 2015

SouthernBoy said:
My point is that I am more concerned about armed police where there are no armed civilians because that flies in the face of the Founders' original intent; that the people always be armed as a safeguard against tyranny, from wherever that may come.

I can't pretend to speak for protias, but my point would be that I'm most concerned by the kind of 'us vs them' minded police who use the word 'civilian' in the 3rd person, and you seem to have fallen into those thugs' language trap.

You can talk about cops vs ordinary citizens (I usually refer to ordinary citizens as the cops' employers), or about military vs civilians, but not about cops vs civilians, because cops are civilians.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 10, 2015

Until QI is erased, and other protections cops have over the mundanes. They are no longer "civilian". They are animals that are more equal.

Dario · Aug 10, 2015

taxman said:
Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer!

"...and you need me to give a sworn statement before you can arrest the hoaxer?"

Aha, so that's what they mean when dispatch says "RP is willing to sign" on the scanner.

solus · Aug 10, 2015

protias said:
Cops are civilians too.

I don't recall ever seeing military walking around in the streets other than at parades and I certainly don't recall them being armed.

thank goodness that wasn't your double jeopardy question protias...

ci·vil·ian
səˈvilyən
noun
1.
a person not in the armed services or the police force.
synonyms: noncombatant, nonmilitary person, ordinary citizen, private citizen;
"family members and other civilians were quickly evacuated from the post"
adjective
1.
of, denoting, or relating to a person not belonging to the armed services or police.
"military agents in civilian clothes"
synonyms: noncombatant, nonmilitary person, ordinary citizen, private citizen; informalcivvy
"family members and other civilians were quickly evacuated from the post"

ipse

MAC702 · Aug 11, 2015

Please cite your dictionary. I agree with you that that is a common modern meaning, and one we often use in here, but technically, I believe cops are still civilians, which were the citizenry not in the military. I guess maybe some modern dictionaries are agreeing that cops are more military than not these days?

Interestingly, www.dictionary.com and www.merriam-webster.com also say that fire fighters are not civilians. Must be the uniform. Maybe the milkman is next.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 11, 2015

MAC702 said:
Please cite your dictionary. I agree with you that that is a common modern meaning, and one we often use in here, but technically, I believe cops are still civilians, which were the citizenry not in the military. I guess maybe some modern dictionaries are agreeing that cops are more military than not these days?

Interestingly, www.dictionary.com and www.merriam-webster.com also say that fire fighters are not civilians. Must be the uniform. Maybe the milkman is next.

It is a true definition for countries without our same make up.

A non civilian police force would be unconstitutional. I think we have way passed the point of them being a civilian police force. A distinction they have worked hard to achieve.

color of law · Aug 11, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
It is a true definition for countries without our same make up.

A non civilian police force would be unconstitutional. I think we have way passed the point of them being a civilian police force. A distinction they have worked hard to achieve.

+100

The arrogant cops I've have been in contact with absolutely believe they are more equal than their civilian counterpart.

Washington cop asks open carrier if he is feeling erratic.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate