Is it legal to resist a civil rights violation?

imported post

This discussion was started on another thread and went a little farther afield than I intended. I was thinking more of an incident wherein a LEO stops you for open carry and demands ID and the surrender of your weapon. You state that you know your rights and don't have time for this BS and attempt to leave the area. Is this legal under federal law? If he escalates, how far can, or should, you go? I'm really interested in what the law has to say about this, and the opinions of anybody interested in expressing one.

imported post

Depends on the state.

Once an LEO initiates a confrontation, they are not going to back down or leave you alone if you simply ignore them or try to leave, especially if they are responding to a complaint call.

Be polite, in most places an LEO can detain you for whatever reason they choose for a reasonable amount of time. If they demand to disarm you, ask if you are under arrest, if they are not placing you under arrest inform them that it is your right to deny permission for the seizure of your belongings. Some states and localities give their officers the authority to disarm their subjects, it is a good idea to know if that is the case in your area... otherwise, any search, seizure, or unreasonable detainment is a violation of your rights. Act accordingly. If there is no grievous threat to your person, it would be best to follow up with their supervisor or with legal action. Document as many details as possible.

If they try to wrestle your gun away from you without your permission or justification, well... use your instincts and best judgement. Ask yourself, what would they do if someone tried to disarm them forcibly...

imported post

You cannotresist an illegal detention, as opposed to an arrest, in Virginia. In Commonwealth vs Hill, the VA Supreme Court had this to say, in part:

We conclude that the law of this Commonwealth, including
the common law of England incorporated into our Code by  1-10,
does not provide a basis for recognizing a common law right to
use force to resist an illegal detention. In the absence of
authority requiring such a right, we perceive no reason for
enlarging, by judicial decision, the scope of the common law on
this subject.
Under the common law, a citizen generally is permitted to
use reasonable force to resist an illegal arrest. See Banner v.
Commonwealth, 204 Va. 640, 646-47, 133 S.E.2d 305, 309-10
(1963); Brown v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 111, 116-17, 497
S.E.2d 527, 530 (1998). The underlying rationale supporting
this common law right is the "provocation" of an illegal arrest,
which operates to excuse an assault directed at thwarting the
unlawful arrest. See Rodgers v. State, 373 A.2d 944, 947 (Md.
1977); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 830 (Wis. 1998). An
unlawful arrest was considered a great provocation at common law
because of the dire consequences, including incarceration of
extreme duration, which often resulted before an accused was
permitted a trial for the charged offense. See State v.
Valentine, 935 P.2d 1294, 1300-01 (Wash. 1997); see also State
v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568, 572 (Utah 1991); Hobson, 577 N.W.2d
at 835....

Accordingly, we hold that a person in this Commonwealth
does not have the right to use force to resist an unlawful
detention or "pat down" search. Thus, in the present case, Hill
did not have the right to use force to resist the challenged
detention and "pat down" search by Officer Fromme, and the Court
of Appeals erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.

You can see the entire opinion here: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvtx/1012526.txt

Of course, they say nothing about how you are supposed to be able to resist an illegal arrest if you are in handcuffs from the illegal detention.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

You cannotresist an illegal detention, as opposed to an arrest, in Virginia. In Commonwealth vs Hill, the VA Supreme Court had this to say, in part:

We conclude that the law of this Commonwealth, including
the common law of England incorporated into our Code by  1-10,
does not provide a basis for recognizing a common law right to
use force to resist an illegal detention. In the absence of
authority requiring such a right, we perceive no reason for
enlarging, by judicial decision, the scope of the common law on
this subject.
Under the common law, a citizen generally is permitted to
use reasonable force to resist an illegal arrest. See Banner v.
Commonwealth, 204 Va. 640, 646-47, 133 S.E.2d 305, 309-10
(1963); Brown v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 111, 116-17, 497
S.E.2d 527, 530 (1998). The underlying rationale supporting
this common law right is the "provocation" of an illegal arrest,
which operates to excuse an assault directed at thwarting the
unlawful arrest. See Rodgers v. State, 373 A.2d 944, 947 (Md.
1977); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 830 (Wis. 1998). An
unlawful arrest was considered a great provocation at common law
because of the dire consequences, including incarceration of
extreme duration, which often resulted before an accused was
permitted a trial for the charged offense. See State v.
Valentine, 935 P.2d 1294, 1300-01 (Wash. 1997); see also State
v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568, 572 (Utah 1991); Hobson, 577 N.W.2d
at 835....

Accordingly, we hold that a person in this Commonwealth
does not have the right to use force to resist an unlawful
detention or "pat down" search. Thus, in the present case, Hill
did not have the right to use force to resist the challenged
detention and "pat down" search by Officer Fromme, and the Court
of Appeals erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.

You can see the entire opinion here: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvtx/1012526.txt

Of course, they say nothing about how you are supposed to be able to resist an illegal arrest if you are in handcuffs from the illegal detention.

Click to expand...

I understand not being legally able to resist an illegal detention. Perhaps I should have framed my question more carefully: Does Federal law allow you to resist a civil rights violation? The FBI web site specifically lists "unlawful detention" as a civil rights violation"under color of law". Since Federal law trumps state law, if it is legal to resist a civil rights violation, then it is legal to resist an unlawful detention. What does Federal law have to say on the matter?

imported post

Here is the nub of it. You cannot defend against a violation of civil rights that has not occurred. So while you have the right to resist, it is a shady area at best. What the FBI is getting at is that after the fact you can file charges and fight the violation. Unless you plan on carrying an FBI agent around there is no way they can act to preempt any violations.

So yes you can fight back, but as a practical matter, if you try to fight at the time of the arrest, you will likely get severally injured or even killed. This is because the LEOs are authorized to use sufficient force to effect the arrest. After the fact you have the option to fight via the courts.

Think Rodney King here. Intentional or not he was perceived to have resisted. It was only after the fact that he was able to assert his rights. Forget weather he did or did not actually resist, or weather he had actually violated the law prior to the arrest. Clearly he was unable to prevent the arrest, and could only fight it after the fact.

That is how it will go down in almost every case. it is only a matter of how much pain you are willing to endure prior to being taken to a place where you can muster a legal response.

Regards

imported post

glocknroll wrote:

This discussion was started on another thread and went a little farther afield than I intended. I was thinking more of an incident wherein a LEO stops you for open carry and demands ID and the surrender of your weapon. You state that you know your rights and don't have time for this BS and attempt to leave the area. Is this legal under federal law? If he escalates, how far can, or should, you go? I'm really interested in what the law has to say about this, and the opinions of anybody interested in expressing one.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest first using judgement. And push back verbally as far as you can, with extreme politeness, and as completely absent antagonism as possible. Here are some ideas. I've left out the pleases, sirs, and officers:

"I know you all are just doing your job, but I don't consent to this encounter."

"If we get to the point where you feel you have to write a summons or make an arrest, I will identify myself to you."

"You understand there is case law that requires police to consider the circumstances before executing a brief, minimally intrusive, investigatory detention. What are the circumstances that justify my detention?"

I suspect even just the words, "brief, minimally intrusive, investigatory detention based on articulable facts" will alert all but the dullest that you might very well know exactly where the line is.

"I do not consent to having my weapon seized."

"What are the circumstances that justify the seizure of my weapon?"

"Polite refusal." (They'll know what thatmeans.)

You can try excusing yourself early and throughout, "Officer, am I free to go?" If he says"no," then of course, you are beingdetained. If he doesn't answer, you can try bidding him good day, and starting away. Case law seems to hinge on whether a reasonable person would judge that he was free to leave.

The whole idea is to bolster your complaint/case later by not stepping out of line one fraction of an inch; and not escalating an encounter by beingangry, verbally abusive, etc.

You'll get the most mileage if youimagine the possibilitiesin an incident and look up case law and statutory law yourself.You definitely want to have certainty that what youdo is notillegal. And the more you know about whatthe officercan and can't do, the better.

Also, you should understand that you can inadvertantly waive your rights. You should check out the videos at www.flexyourrights.org.

imported post

Let me be clear. If a LEO politely approaches me and conducts himself in a professional manner, I am not about to start a violent encounter with him. I am fully aware that cases of mistaken identity do occur, and I might just meet the physical description of the guy who just robbed the bank up the street and shot 3 tellers. And if a cop draws down on me and says to stop, I will stop. But if you walk up to me and forcibly try to disarm me with no warning, or begin to physically abuse me, or confiscate my property without charging me with a crime , then Iwill probablyresist. If such a time ever comes when the police start going door and doing searches, or confiscating guns, then I will definitely resist. If I were to resist inan encounter with the police, I wouldn't attempt to become a fugitive from justice. I would be the first to call some federal LE organization, and surrender to them. I'm really not looking for trouble. I am honestly about as pro law enforcement as you can get. I just don't want to be a doormat. I'm not a hot head. I'm not a cop hater. I just want to be able state that I know my rights in an encounter with the police. And if I am engaged in peaceful protest, or going about my lawful, peaceful business, then I want to know that I am right when I put up a fight in defense of my rights, or defense of the rights of my loved ones. There are evil people in every walk of life. Even behind the badge. I will be the first to say that bad cops are generally few and far between, but I will not have my rights abused. As an example: I once got stopped for a traffic ticket (that I deserved, by the way). At the time, I didn't have a concealed handgun permit. I informed the officer that I had a handgun in the vehicle, and he looked in and could see it on the seat. He informed me that he believedit was illegal for me to have a gun in the car. I told him that he was mistaken. All this exchange was politely conducted. I waited while he called his supervisor, and within a few minutes his seargent showed up at the scene. He informed the junior officer that it was indeed legal for me to have a gun in the car, as long as it was visible from outside the car. They gave me my ticket, and on my way I went. I never felt that I was being abused, and I was never rude to the officer. And one more cop learned that not all gun carrying citizens are bad guys.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Here is the nub of it. You cannot defend against a violation of civil rights that has not occurred. So while you have the right to resist, it is a shady area at best. What the FBI is getting at is that after the fact you can file charges and fight the violation. Unless you plan on carrying an FBI agent around there is no way they can act to preempt any violations.

So yes you can fight back, but as a practical matter, if you try to fight at the time of the arrest, you will likely get severally injured or even killed. This is because the LEOs are authorized to use sufficient force to effect the arrest. After the fact you have the option to fight via the courts.

Think Rodney King here. Intentional or not he was perceived to have resisted. It was only after the fact that he was able to assert his rights. Forget weather he did or did not actually resist, or weather he had actually violated the law prior to the arrest. Clearly he was unable to prevent the arrest, and could only fight it after the fact.

That is how it will go down in almost every case. it is only a matter of how much pain you are willing to endure prior to being taken to a place where you can muster a legal response.

Regards

Click to expand...

My position is this: if I have been informed that I am not free to leave, then the violation has already occured, if in fact I have committed no crime and there is no pobable causeto suspect that I have. Yes, I realize that if you fight the police you might lose. Then again, you mightnot. Depending on the circumstances, some things are worth dying for. I admit the circumstances would have to be extreme, but they would have to be extreme for me to even comtemplate resistance. Once again, I am not looking for a fight. But I am not going to take a beating for no reason and not resist. I am also aware that the police can, and at times will, perjure themselves and supress evidence to make a case. I have had it happen to me. I was once arrested for a shooting that I was involved in. I was the one who called the police (or sheriffs dept., in this case). I walked outside when they arrived, hands in the air, and surrendered. The deputy who transported me later testified that he had arrested me carrying my weapon (a 2" Colt Detective Special) concealed, and that my restricted permit only allowed concealed carry when I was working as a PI. He also testified that he was the one that I had surrendered to. Both were lies. My revolver wasn't concealed when I surrendered, and I surrendered to another deputy. Same deputy also ignored the statement that he was given by a witness that heard the alleged "victim" say "I will f*****g kill you", and saw him with a knife in his hand, before I fired. He still charged me with assault, and reckless handling of a firearm. It could have been much worse. I was finally able to get the charge nol prossed, after much legal wrangling. I later found out that this deputy and the "victim" (who survived) were old high school buddies.

imported post

Many thanks to all who took the time to respond to my inquiry.

imported post

I don't know or use too much formal law. I try to operate on common sense law. I sure do wish they were one and the same. In most situations common sense law will be enough to protect you from any serious problems.

In the situation we are currently discussing I do not think physical resistance to arrest would be warranted. I'll use the Declaration of Independence to explain why.

1- "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."

So we can learn that in order to be justified to raise up the level of resistance we have to petition.In the case of an arrest you will very quickly have anopportunity to petition the government and the people (jury) for redress.You probably shouldn't get violentbefore that.

2- "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

An illegal arrest is not a "long train of abuses." I wouldn't hurt anyone over it. I surely wouldn't kill over it either. It would be classified as an abuse. Therefore the proper way to take care of this problem is through the court system. When arrested we still have many protections that give us the opportunity to have our case heard rather quickly. We still will be afforded a trial by jury. We will enjoy all sorts of nice things that give you a huge advantage over the government. This might be a great time to petition for redress too.

***I am sure someone will try to argue the fact that our current government is more oppressive than England was at the time this document was written. I will be the first to agree with you. That does not give us the right to violent resistance. This may seem like a contradiction but it is not. The government the colonies were upset with did not give them representation. We have functioning representation in our system. We get what we pay for. We are responsible. Most people actually meekly accept or actively seek things that are not in accordance with the supreme law of the land (neither the letter or the spirit of the law). My dad says that we would be better off if we just paid our legislators double and sent them home.

So we must now ask ourselves this question, when would you be justified to use violent measures against a government official? I think certain criteria needs to be addressed.

1- You will never be justified to use violence when talking would have been enough. After arrest the courts still provide enough protection. Therefore as things stand now in every jurisdiction I am aware of this is true. Especially in civil rights cases.

2- If you start a physical fight while armed during an attempted arrest, even if it is unlawful, the officer will be justified in fighting back. I don't know about you, but I can kind of guess what could happen with two armed men struggling.Is this a responsible solutionwhen you will have your day in court?

3- If a police officer shows up with guns blazing you would be justified in resisting violently. The police officer is basically denying you opportunity to fix the problem later. You will be dead shortly if you don't react. Those conditions allow for lethal force. I would also use lethal force if the standard became that you no longer were given an opportunity to defend yourself verbally in a fair court. Since those conditions don't exist right now and the police normally like to arrest instead of kill,you wouldn't be justified to resist violently.

As far as losing your guns go. If they try and take your guns while there is still a second amendment go ahead and fight. If our nation legally kills the second amendment you no longer have the right to fight it violently. If you do the sure response of "the people" is all the more fair.

imported post

resisting violently and lethally was apparently an adequate defense for 5 of the waco survivors.....albeit under the very narrow circumstances.

your rights may get violated, even in a peaceful encounter, and we agreed to utilize the court system over 200 years ago for that.

imported post

daniel.call wrote:

If our nation legally kills the second amendment you no longer have the right

Click to expand...

! WRONG !

Bill of rights DOES NOT give you yourrights. Your rights existing independently of any document written. And as such, "removing" anything from bill of rights does not affect anything.

In fact, bill of rights was written to restrict government. So how come a government court decides on how to interpret it or should it even exist? It is like a fox guarding the chickens.

Understand one thing: You can not purchase freedom. Nor can you sell it. You cannot give it to someone else or "make someone free".

You should not ask or beg for your freedom or a "permission to be free". One can only claim it as the birthright and firearms provisions are the means to ward off those who disagree, be it the King of England or the King of the US.

imported post

This is a similar question I suppose. I haven't really looked into this much, but this site: http://www.flexyourrights.org/ says that officers can only detain you to do a frisk and check for weapons. But if you are openly carrying they already know you have weapons. Does that mean they can't detain you, but only arrest you? And would frisking someone openly carrying be legal, since the presence of weapons is already determined? Or is the site wrong?

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

This is a similar question I suppose. I haven't really looked into this much, but this site: http://www.flexyourrights.org/ says that officers can only detain you to do a frisk and check for weapons. But if you are openly carrying they already know you have weapons. Does that mean they can't detain you, but only arrest you? And would frisking someone openly carrying be legal, since the presence of weapons is already determined? Or is the site wrong?

Click to expand...

At least in Virginia, where open cary is legal (I don't know anything about Alabama) the mere presence of a firearm doesn't give probable cause for detention. Unlawful detention is a civil rights violation, which is where the question came from in the first place. People keep telling me that if I resist, I can be killed. I already knew that. How long should we go on having our rights violated without resistance? Should we always just hope that the government will punish it's own agents for violating our rights?

imported post

molonlabetn wrote:

Depends on the state.

Once an LEO initiates a confrontation, they are not going to back down or leave you alone if you simply ignore them or try to leave, especially if they are responding to a complaint call.

Be polite, in most places an LEO can detain you for whatever reason they choose for a reasonable amount of time. If they demand to disarm you, ask if you are under arrest, if they are not placing you under arrest inform them that it is your right to deny permission for the seizure of your belongings. Some states and localities give their officers the authority to disarm their subjects, it is a good idea to know if that is the case in your area... otherwise, any search, seizure, or unreasonable detainment is a violation of your rights. Act accordingly. If there is no grievous threat to your person, it would be best to follow up with their supervisor or with legal action. Document as many details as possible.

If they try to wrestle your gun away from you without your permission or justification, well... use your instincts and best judgement. Ask yourself, what would they do if someone tried to disarm them forcibly...

Click to expand...

I agree be polite and remain calm. Stand your ground and be ready to assert your rights in a professional manner. If they demand IDs then ask them whats going on or is there something wrong? then if sound ok produce the ID and let them work from there. Never resist physically, if you just bash or touch an officer it can be a fellony charge. So becareful, play smart.

imported post

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.

Click to expand...

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:

imported post

Cut And Shoot wrote:

Open carry is "reasonable suspicion" in all sorts of instances.

Click to expand...

Not even for a brief Terry stop, but thanks for playing.

imported post

Cut And Shoot wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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:

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps in the mind of the LEO, the possession of a firearm by a 'lowly civilian' might give rise to suspicion... But it certainly doesn't give them LEGAL precedent to arrest me, if what I am doing is, in fact, legal.

You still didn't answer any of my requests to actually cite even some of your local laws which would allow for a police officer to assume you are doing something illegal because of the presence of a firearm.

What if the police wanted to stop and strip search every person whom they saw holding a lighter? Lighters are legal... but some people use them to use drugs. Could the LEO not assume that you have drugs if they see you with a lighter?

No. It's an unreasonable stretch of the imagination to get from the simple fact that a person openly possesses a legal object, to the assumption that they are doing something illegal with it, when in fact they aren't.

What you're suggesting is that the police can arrest anyone they want, without any articulable evidence or suspicion... Can you say 'police-state'?

Oh... but I have a gun! :shock:

Good grief, so does he... Are you suggesting that LEOs are above the law and above the public whom they serve? If the cop decides that for 'officer safety', you have to remove all of your clothes... would you? What if it's 20-below outside?

"Oh come on, a police officer would never jeopardize my well-being!"

Oh yeah? Why is he pointing his gun at you then?

If I break a law, yeah, it's their duty to bring me to justice (or rather, write a report about it, since they likely weren't there to prevent it). But please get real. An officer's 'suspicions' due to unconventional LEGAL behavior or possessions could not be articulated to a judge as justification for violating a person's rights, or arresting them, lacking further evidence.

Should we comply with un-lawful arrest? :uhoh:

imported post

molonlabetn wrote:

Perhaps in the mind of the LEO, the possession of a firearm by a 'lowly civilian' might give rise to suspicion... But it certainly doesn't give them LEGAL precedent to arrest me, if what I am doing is, in fact, legal.

You still didn't answer any of my requests to actually cite even some of your local laws which would allow for a police officer to assume you are doing something illegal because of the presence of a firearm.

What if the police wanted to stop and strip search every person whom they saw holding a lighter? Lighters are legal... but some people use them to use drugs. Could the LEO not assume that you have drugs if they see you with a lighter?

No. It's an unreasonable stretch of the imagination to get from the simple fact that a person openly possesses a legal object, to the assumption that they are doing something illegal with it, when in fact they aren't.

What you're suggesting is that the police can arrest anyone they want, without any articulable evidence or suspicion... Can you say 'police-state'?

Oh... but I have a gun! :shock:

Good grief, so does he... Are you suggesting that LEOs are above the law and above the public whom they serve? If the cop decides that for 'officer safety', you have to remove all of your clothes... would you? What if it's 20-below outside?

"Oh come on, a police officer would never jeopardize my well-being!"

Oh yeah? Why is he pointing his gun at you then?

If I break a law, yeah, it's their duty to bring me to justice (or rather, write a report about it, since they likely weren't there to prevent it). But please get real. An officer's 'suspicions' due to unconventional LEGAL behavior or possessions could not be articulated to a judge as justification for violating a person's rights, or arresting them, lacking further evidence.

Should we comply with un-lawful arrest? :uhoh:

Click to expand...

I agree.

imported post

Damn. I was starting to think I was alone out here. Why do most of us carry firearms? To defend against criminals. What is a civil rights violation? A crime. 2+2=4 .Cop committing crime=criminal cop.