• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

LEO Encounter

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Question. What would you think that if during the confrontation, you informed the LEO that you were going to write a letter to his superiors requesting they educate him in the laws of Virginia regarding the carrying of firearms by citizens. Do you think this is a viable approach or would it tend to make the LEO more confrontational and irrate?

If you said that to me... I would give you every ticket I could possible find to charge you with and remember you and your car for a longgggg time.. ;)

That is a huge insult. I would refrain from saying anything like that directly to the LEO.

You can get your point made in a more tactful way and be successful.
But that would be a COMPROMISE and tantamount to suppression of free speech!!

Sort of sounds like the type of logic an MMMer would employ....

:p
 

danbus

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
495
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

taurusfan wrote:
This is the response of the majority of PO. They want to check your ID.

If it ever came to pass that you could carry a gun and NO ONE could EVER question then you would have criminals open carrying. It is never going to happen.

All people like Danbus are doing is risking arrest, serious injury, or death, not to mention having your friends and family think somethings wrong with you mentally.

You know, back in the day, some shmuck said the same thing about the people who did sit ins, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. I'm also sure people said the same thing before they wrote the US Constitution.

I would rather be arrested, have serious injury, or death WHILE living such freedoms and rights.

With that statement, it has become personal, however due to the fact that we DON'T know each other (and saying mean things can get me banned) I will say that you are in bed with the Bradys, the Clintons, and all those who wish for themselves to carry, but don't want others to. Or so you say "I carry concealed, but open carry is stupid, wrong, blah blah blah". It's very apparent that you do not fully support guns rights, be it concealed or open.

Like I said before, I open carry because you don't, I fight for all my rights because you won't, I will not sit with my thumb up my ass and complain, because you will.
 

swatpro911

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
418
Location
Home of the Heros, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Question. What would you think that if during the confrontation, you informed the LEO that you were going to write a letter to his superiors requesting they educate him in the laws of Virginia regarding the carrying of firearms by citizens. Do you think this is a viable approach or would it tend to make the LEO more confrontational and irrate?

If you said that to me... I would give you every ticket I could possible find to charge you with and remember you and your car for a longgggg time.. ;)

That is a huge insult. I would refrain from saying anything like that directly to the LEO.

You can get your point made in a more tactful way and be successful.
I agree with leo229, you dont want to get them pissed at you, trust me they do moment you say something like that, they will try to impose charges and teach you a lesson. Always have a smile on your face and assert your rights and never point the answers directly at him/her like "go to your department and look it up" at this point he/she is tryna find something to charge you with, trespassing, loitering, brandishing etc. becareful but tactful
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

swatpro911 wrote:
I agree with leo229, you dont want to get them pissed at you, trust me they do moment you say something like that, they will try to impose charges and teach you a lesson. Always have a smile on your face and assert your rights and never point the answers directly at him/her like "go to your department and look it up" at this point he/she is tryna find something to charge you with, trespassing, loitering, brandishing etc. becareful but tactful
Your not expected to kiss butt... Be civilas that is all that is expected.

LEOs and Tow Truck Drivers have something in common....

When people need you... they are happy to see you!!

When your there to do your job enforcing a law/private property rule... Arrest person/Tow a car.... people hate your F-ing guts!!

What it really comes down to is this.... they direct their anger at the person doing their job when they are actually the one at fault for their dilemma.

Now whennon-criminal contact is made and is bad... I could understand someone being upset at the LEO and that is justified.

Are their tow truck drivers out there that hate everyone? Sure.. Same goes for LEOs. But that also goes for any citizen.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

In reading this thread, I have a few observations, not in any particular order.

Danbus - You are still "The man". Never has a more succinct statement of why many of us do what we do been posted here.

Taurusfan - I am sorry to tell you that Danbus is more of a gentleman than I, and as such restrained his comments. You sir have set a new low standard for ignorant comments on the forum. I can accept stupidity because it is based in biology, but you sir are simply ignorant, and that is inexcusable because it can be fixed by education. You are in fact part of the problem this country has today. I am frankly surprised to see you on this forum, as I thought most of your ilk went to Canada in the late 1770's. I can only assume from your comment that you are either too ignorant to see the racism that is the underlying cause of Danbus's treatment at the hands of the police in that part of the state, or that you in fact hold those beliefs yourself, which would be the same thing.

This encounter in the pawn shop, was not just a normal consensual encounter. The LEO clearly injected himself into a conversation between two citizens for his own reasons. He is obviously not comfortable with an armed citizenry, and it seems fairly obvious why. Because of that he wants to discourage ANYONE he can from exercise of their rights.

I agree with the sentiment that a citizen should not push a calm situation with a LEO to the next level on their own initiative. The LEO either will or won't, and it is better to actually be reactive rather than proactive in that regard, or simply break off the encounter.

There is definitely a problem in the tidewater area, and like Southernboy, I am not happy about it for many of the same reasons. If we cannot convince VCDL to develop a plan to help us deal with this, then some of us should do so. But in my view there are two issues down there. One is simple harassment of people who OC on an infrequent and random basis.

The second is a much more serious, calculated and demanding issue, and that is the harassment of Danbus. While we have only heard of his situation because he is on this forum to report it, I suspect his situation is not unique. In my view his treatment is based on racial profiling and bigotry, and frankly even though we have never met in person, and I am on the other end of the state, I will stand with him to fight back. I cannot and will not tolerate bigoted acts committed by law enforcement personnel under color of office in MY state.

All I require is word from Dan as to what he requires.

Regards
 

Scheetz

Regular Member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
142
Location
P. W., Virginia, USA
imported post

Question: Where did the random information about 7-11 being illegal come from? I have heard it from numerous people and have never seen a single NO FIREARMS sign at any of my local 7-11s.


So, who was the genius who started that rumor?



And good job on informing the misinformed LEO.
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:
danbus wrote:
...Like I said before, I open carry because you don't, I fight for all my rights because you won't, I will not sit with my thumb up my ass and complain, because you will.
HEAR HEAR!

Again, NEED sigs....

Well said, Dan.

And as far as carry in 7-11, that's err, horse pucky.

I've carried in the one downtown, and one of the ones on Rt. 11 over here. No problems.
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Taclead wrote:
LEO - "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (funny how our ignorance can get us in trouble but not the po-po):banghead:

Enforcing non-existent laws is arrogance, and sometimes profitable!



I truly dislike when cops feel the need to foam at the mouth, especially when they encounter a citizen who knows the laws better than they do. That seems to be a real hot button Issue with them recently. That and citizens standing up to them.



Had this idea last week where we need to get well spoken and informed citizen groups (OCDO, VCDL, et al.) in front of their roll call or other combined assembly to present them with the ACTUAL laws as they are written, and toss in a smidgeon on AG comments on various related firearms issues.



Somebody needs to bring the local constabulary up-to-date with the rest of us so they can be informed on the actual laws as they exist, and to avoid harassing law abiding citizens who aren’t the issue.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Taclead wrote:
LEO - "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (funny how our ignorance can get us in trouble but not the po-po):banghead:

I understand how you feel but you do not need to know "all the laws" to know that what your doing is probably illegal. Some things are at timesobvious.

When it comes to CC... You know it is not legal without a permit. Everyone should know this just from casual conversation. If your going to do it, you need to read up on the law and know what is allowed. You then learn that you need a permit and cannot do it in places serving alcohol. Now the serving alcohol is something that is not obvious. But it it YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to know this since your the one doing it.

Now does the LEO need to know that CC in an alcohol establishment it against the law? Not really. What are the chances he will ever find someone in this situation? Not too good. If a citizen sees you packing and reports you... The LEO can reference the good book and read the law to determine if what your doing is allowed. He does not need to know the code section verbatim.

This is how ridiculous it is to expect a LEO to know every code in the book...

Let's look at just one code out of the thousands that are actually in the book.


18.2-308 Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.

Pages: 11
Words: 6,268
Paragraphs: 94
Lines: 492



§ ChinChin wrote: [/b]

Enforcing non-existent laws is arrogance, and sometimes profitable!



I truly dislike when cops feel the need to foam at the mouth, especially when they encounter a citizen who knows the laws better than they do. That seems to be a real hot button Issue with them recently. That and citizens standing up to them.

...Snip
If the law does not exist... how can you enforce it and make money off it? ;) can you give me an example?

Cops should not be foaming at the mouth.. I agree.. But cops do not like smart asses that foam at the mouth either. :p

The citizen has an advantage over the LEO when it comes to the code book.

As you probably read above.. LEO is expected to actually know ALL thestate codes. The are many he enforces on a daily basis. Disregard red light, Speeding, Reckless driving, DWI, Shoplifting, Assault, Possession of stolen property (Auto), Drunk in public.

And then you have the citizen that joins these gun boards and talk day after day about gun codes. Something the LEO (Except me) does not do. Then the Citizen/LEO encounter happens and the LEO knows or believes (after browsing the code book one day) that your doing something that may be illegal.

You have read up on the code and KNOW your right. The LEO has to check the book and make sure. Your OBVIOUSLY going to know the code better then the LEO since you spent hours chatting about them. How often does heget gun related complaints? Maybe Reckless Discharge or brandishing once in a while.

So I submit that people should not get bent out of shape over it. I would love to challenge any of you to read just one small section ofcodes and then I could test you on a topic other than guns. I am confident you will fall asleep on page two.
 

vtme_grad98

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
385
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, ,
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Now does the LEO need to know that CC in an alcohol establishment it against the law? Not really. What are the chances he will ever find someone in this situation? Not too good. If a citizen sees you packing and reports you... The LEO can reference the good book and read the law to determine if what your doing is allowed. He does not need to know the code section verbatim.
That's the biggest problem with what we've been seeing. Too many LEOs don't take that important step. Instead, they walk around with the "I'm a police officer, so I automatically know by gut feeling what is, and is not, illegal. Just like I can spot guilty people by their beady eyes."
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Enforcing non-existent laws is arrogance, and sometimes profitable!



I truly dislike when cops feel the need to foam at the mouth, especially when they encounter a citizen who knows the laws better than they do. That seems to be a real hot button Issue with them recently. That and citizens standing up to them.

...Snip
If the law does not exist... how can you enforce it and make money off it? ;) can you give me an example?
Greetings Leo!


Hypothetical Example: Police Officer from Sully Station, Fairfax Police Department detains Mr. M. ChinChin while he is open carrying his lawfully owned Glock 17 .9MM semi-automatic handgun while walking through the parking lot of a Target Department store off of Rt 50 in Chantilly, Virginia at 14:35hrs on a balmy Saturday afternoon in June. Said officer states that somebody inside (let’s call them, C1) made a "MWAG" call and he is detaining Mr. M. ChinChin pending no outstanding warrants. In the course of being "detained" officer friendly states Mr. M. ChinChin is being cited for carrying an "Illegal firearm and ammunition" in violation of 18.2-287.4 because he has 1 17-round mag loaded up, and 2 17-round mags in a mag holster, which exceeds the verbiage in 18.2-287.4 which states no more than 20 rounds of ammunition, despite the protests of Mr. ChinChin reciting the exact law verbatim and that the mag presently equipped only accommodates 17 rounds, well under the passed law, and that the amount of mags possessed is not cumulative when applied to that law. Mr. M. ChinChin is told to shut up and referred to as a "jail-house lawyer."

Wait, it just gets better!

Because Mrs. ChinChin was driving that day, Mr. ChinChin didn't have his license with him, hence no way to prove he was who he said he was, so he was arrested on the class 1 misdemeanor until his license could be brought into the station, his identity proved and no warrants discovered. Mr. M. ChinChin (or S1) requested to have his SSN run to verify the information, but the responding officer decides he didn’t like Mr. M. ChinChin’s demeanor and “wasn’t going to waste his time sitting in a parking lot waiting for a license to be brought over” so he takes him in.

Effectively, Mr. M. ChinChin (or S1 if you will) was arrested and booked for a class-1 misdemeanor which did not exist (carrying more than 20 rounds of ammunition on your person). In this example, Mr. M. ChinChin was subject to false arrest and imprisonment until a more season and knowledgeful officer discovered the error and kicked Mr. M. ChinChin loose.

The "profitable" part would be resulting from Mr. M. ChinChin (or S1) suing the officer and department for false imprisonment, unlawful detention, violation of civil liberties and "other punitive damages as the court deemed appropriate."

This would be an example of enforcing a law which didn’t exist (albeit it under the mistaken guise of another existing law) and how doing such could be profitable.
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
imported post

vtme_grad98 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Now does the LEO need to know that CC in an alcohol establishment it against the law? Not really. What are the chances he will ever find someone in this situation? Not too good. If a citizen sees you packing and reports you... The LEO can reference the good book and read the law to determine if what your doing is allowed. He does not need to know the code section verbatim.
That's the biggest problem with what we've been seeing. Too many LEOs don't take that important step. Instead, they walk around with the "I'm a police officer, so I automatically know by gut feeling what is, and is not, illegal. Just like I can spot guilty people by their beady eyes."
I would argue the bigger problem inherent is officers editorializing on laws and detaining citizens to give them a piece of their mind. While I have no issue with them holding opinions off the job, when they’re on-duty they are serving in the capacity of law enforcers, not law legislators. They need to keep their opinions on what laws are and are not appropriate to themselves.

It’s ironic that in almost every “official letter from the offices of [insert police official], they include verbiage of “I should note that I am prohibited from interpreting these laws for you or providing an opinion regarding the application of those laws to a particular fact pattern.”

Example cite; Paragraph 2: http://www.vcdl.org/letters/VASP_OPEN.pdf

Yet you don’t see that from the rank and file.I would be interested in learning what that prohibition is that applies to the senior staff, but not beat cops.
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Question. What would you think that if during the confrontation, you informed the LEO that you were going to write a letter to his superiors requesting they educate him in the laws of Virginia regarding the carrying of firearms by citizens. Do you think this is a viable approach or would it tend to make the LEO more confrontational and irrate?

If you said that to me... I would give you every ticket I could possible find to charge you with and remember you and your car for a longgggg time.. ;)

That is a huge insult. I would refrain from saying anything like that directly to the LEO.

You can get your point made in a more tactful way and be successful.
But that would be a COMPROMISE and tantamount to suppression of free speech!!

Sort of sounds like the type of logic an MMMer would employ....

:p

Hank - if your going to use my words across the forum please provide me the appropriate credit; try this format

"Sort of sounds like the type of logic an MMMer would employ...." - source bohdi
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

vtme_grad98 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Now does the LEO need to know that CC in an alcohol establishment it against the law? Not really. What are the chances he will ever find someone in this situation? Not too good. If a citizen sees you packing and reports you... The LEO can reference the good book and read the law to determine if what your doing is allowed. He does not need to know the code section verbatim.
That's the biggest problem with what we've been seeing. Too many LEOs don't take that important step. Instead, they walk around with the "I'm a police officer, so I automatically know by gut feeling what is, and is not, illegal. Just like I can spot guilty people by their beady eyes."

Well, that would be a problem. If you think you know.. you better know for sure.

As I said... The code sections has so many And and Or clauses that it can take a week to figure out if the code applies to what your doing.

I can spot things that are "out of the ordinary" or "unusual" for my area. You still have to read up o the code to be sure.

There have been times when I stop someone for a traffic violation and I crack the book open BEFORE I write a ticket. I want to be sure I have the right code and that the behavior fits the wording of the violation.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

ChinChin wrote:
Greetings Leo!
snip....
In the course of being "detained" officer friendly states Mr. M. ChinChin is being cited for carrying an "Illegal firearm and ammunition" in violation of 18.2-287.4 because he has 1 17-round mag loaded up, and 2 17-round mags in a mag holster, which exceeds the verbiage in 18.2-287.4... snip

Well, I understand your story but there was actually a real code that was used. It appeared that you were talking about a crime that had no code section.

In your example... you were charged for a crime that existed on the books but you did not violate it.

It would appear that you were falsely arrested.

Even if you did not have your ID card.. your identity could have been proved by providing your Name, DOB, and SSN. A quick DMV check would have taken care of that. I am guessing this was not done.

Did this actually happen to you?
 
Top