molonlabetn wrote:
Cut And Shoot wrote:
Jeez!
You're getting into a pissin' contest with an LEO.
You're visibly armed.
ANYTHING the LEO does will be "justified" according to the parameters set forth in his/her contention that you're visibly armed.
ANY failure on your part to abide by the instructions of the LEO will be viewed as "non compliance."
I'll take crap and be called a troll for these views, but --
If you're openly armed (e.g. open carry) and being stopped, detained, questioned by an LEO, basically that LEO is justified by law in any action he/she might take to "ensure officer safety." That would include but not necessarily be limited to:
Detention
Arrest
Restraint -- (handcuffs)
Holding you at gunpoint
Disarming you
Confiscation of your firearm -- or any other "weapon."
"Civil rights" and "RKBA" be damned. If you're armed and being stopped / detained by police, ANY "failure to comply" will get you classed into the "armed suspect/non compliant" arena and anything, everything the police do to disarm you, control your actions, and "ensure officer safety" will be viewed by the DA and any jury in the USA as "reasonable means" to "safely manage a visibly armed threat."
You can argue "civil rights" and "RKBA" until hell freezes over. You're not "in control" of the situation. You don't have any "rights" that supercede the right of the LEO to "ensure officer safety." And if you're going to enter into a pissing contest with the police about it, they'll be happy to demonstrate to you just exactly who is in charge in such a situation.
And then you and your attorney can piss and moan about it later in court.
But you'll lose your case.
You don't confront the police with a firearm. Them's the rules.
No pissing contest... What law is being broken by open-carry which the LEO is forced to respond to? What cause is there for them to initiate a valid confrontation? A complaint call, perhaps, but even at that there is no support for a LEO to force anyone to do anything about legal activity.
If a cop notices that my shoes are un-tied, can he stop me and force me to tie my shoes, even if I don't want to? Can he take me to jail for not tying my shoes when he demands it?
Open-Carry in and of itselfis not probable-cause for anything, especially detainment and interrogation!
I'd like to see any documentation you can come up with which gives any LEO the authority to do "anything they want" to a person who has not broken any laws. Got any backup for those assertions?
:banghead:
Open carry is "reasonable suspicion" in all sorts of instances.
Just like walking down the street with "Crips" or "Bloods" colors is "reasonable suspicion" to stop you and question you.
Actually, police need no "reason" whatever to stop and question you. They can assert a "reason" -- as minor as "acting suspicious." And "driving while black" would be documentation here. I've talked with minority LEO's driving in Mercedes who got stopped while driving in certain neighborhoods.
"Suspected drug dealer"
"Gang colors"
"Visibly carrying a firearm."
Open carry may be legal, but it's "cause" for an LEO to stop you and question you. Particularly if you're carrying a firearm in an urban area.
But I've had LEO's stop and question me while carrying a handgun, in a holster, out in the middle of the desert, in "open range" . . . while fishing.
The police can stop and question you for just about any reason they might care to presss -- open carry of a firearm is an excellent reason to "detain" and "question."
And if you think it's not, you're living in La La Land.
"Officer safety" can be cited as a reason for all sorts of LEO actions. Disarm you, handcuffs, hold you at gun point. If you have a gun visible, the LEO can cite that as "reason" for any actions that "ensure officer safety."
YES, minding your own business and being unobtrusive is not a "reason." I carry firarms openly -- centerfire, scoped rifles -- down the city streets here. And I don't get into LEO stops.
But if they wanted to stop me, they'd have "reasonable suspicion."
And then the next "level of threat" they'd be looking for would be "non compliance."
The thread I'm citing herein is where the post cites "violation of civil rights" because the LEO wants to "confiscate the firearm."
I'm sorry, but if I get stopped by an LEO while carrying a loaded gun on the street. He/she gets cooperation. If that means he/she gets the gun, so be it.
I'm betting if I cooperate, I'll get the gun returned.
If I decided to "resist" or otherwise become "non-compliant" . . . I'll be viewed as a "threat" -- Surprise, surprise.
I've been stopped . . . routine traffic. I forgot to turn my lights on in town.
Pulled over, I had a gun on my belt, another in the glove box, a bag on the floor, passenger side with a dozen handguns, and in the back of the truck, another half dozen rifles, several thousand rounds of ammo.
Police didn't have any "issues" . . . I have my CCW, and was out "shooting." Compliant, non-confrontive.
But if the police decide to stop me in town for open carry. They get compliance, not a "pissing match."
You get into a "pissing match" with the police and they're going to give you a lesson about who's in charge.
Later you can sort it out in court.
When it's a question of firearms and "officer safety" the DA and the courts will rule in favor of the LEO.
We don't give a good god damn what the "open carry" law says. If the police feel you're "an armed threat" they get to take actions to neutralize your threat. And you can be damned sure they're going to build a case in their favor.
This is what they're trained to do. LEO's and the DA work on this stuff every day.