Encounter at 7-11

imported post

SicSemperTyrannis wrote:

Come on folks, you really want the rule to be that cops can't ask anyone questionsexcept under the most limited and precise of circumstances?Really?

I read this as a success story - for everyone. For the professionalism of Prince William County officers and for our fellow open carrier. He handled himself with dignity, and so did the officer. I wasn't there to see if the officer stuck his tongue out or something when he wrote down your license plate, but if not, can't we call this one a happy ending story?

I used to (have to) work with college student activists for a living.I got sick of it because it became clear thattoo manyof them WANTED to be victims. It was really sad and pathetic more than anything else.They got some sort of need met by seeing themselves that way, regardless of the evidence. Occasionally, I see some evidence of that on this forum.

Let's save the outrage for when it is needed - if every cop in Virginia acted like this one, we'd be fine and they'd soon grow bored of the unproductive effort.

Click to expand...

I think I'm going to have to agree with SST. I think it was inappropriate for the officer to make the felon and "pop off a round" comments. But I don't think he exceeded his constitutional limits for a voluntary encounter. And yes, this was a voluntary encounter.

If you have doubts about this I would encourage you to read Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), Jackson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 666. S.E.2d 595 (2004), and of course Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). J.L. and Jackson both give a good overview of the reasonableness of an involuntary stop based on an anonymous tip that the suspect is carrying a handgun illegally. Terry gives a complete outline of voluntary versus involuntary encounters.

The main problem that I have with this thread is the unnecessary back and forth. I get the impression that many people on this board believe that officers in general have too much leeway while conducting voluntary encounters with citizens. But instead of arguing for constitutional reform, they choose to attack the officer's otherwise constitutional actions. Why is this?

If the officer was acting within his constitutional limitations (as I believe he was), then what more can we ask? If you have a problem with those limitations, then why attack the officer?

And please stop the unnerving back and forth. If you state your opinion once, we all know what it is and you don't have to repeat it ten times per day.

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

THis is the kind of double-speak that I have a problem with:

At 6:15 on 17 Dec, LEO229 stated: "The officer suspects the person may be a felon....he even said so in the conversation".

At 10:35 on 17 Dec, LEO229 stated: "The cop was not accusing the guy of BEING a felon".

Which is it LEO229?:what:

Click to expand...

:quirky

Nice catch! Another reason why LEO229 winstheverbal judo award - and whynothing he says here is to be trusted.

imported post

Another good response to all the queries for your ID would be:

"Thank you for doing your job by checking things out. Have a good night."

And walk away.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Well handled!!

Please do complain. A copy of the complaint will likely go into the Officer's file, even if it can't be proven. Let him stack up a few of those and trouble will accrue for him.

Regarding the question, "How do I know you won't pop off a round?" Its a trick question that can't be answered. Nothing you say will "prove" you won't. I think your answer worked fine. Another would be, "The Founders thought it unlikely enough to ensure the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Another might be, "All you need to know is that it is legal."

A very good tactic is to ask questions rather than answer. "Why am I being stopped?" (He may slip up and reveal that he thinks he is stopping you.) "What am I doing that is illegal?" "Why are you suspicious of the exercise of a constitutionally protected right?" "Haven't you heard that criminals don't wear holsters?" Etc.

I'd complain on the repeated ID requests and cheesy attempts at persuasion. You had already declined. Another reply might be, "Why are you assuming I might be a criminal?" It would be really handy to get areply like, "Because you're carrying a gun." (Which was the reason here, even if unsaid.) As I understand it, there is case law to the effect that mere lawful possession does not translate into reasonable suspicion. I'd also complain about the overt license plate writing. It was clearly an attempted intimidation. "See, you keep OCing and this is the grief you'll get." He could just as easily have moved off to one side and noted it down without you seeing it--Idid it dozens of times as a 7-Eleven night clerk many years ago.

In thecircumstance described, the officer is legally allowed to investigate whether you are up to anything. However, that still leaves some room to complain. There is no law that says you can only complain if he stepsoutside the law. Youcan still hithis justifications, demeanor,license plate intimidation, testing your willingness to assert your rights, implying you're a crook by refusing to "help law-enforcement" etc.

Did you have a voice-recorder?

Click to expand...

I cannot believe your actually prompting someone to complain just to get the cops file thicker when you know knew he did nothing wrong.

Just because you are asked a question or checked out does not mean a complaint is in order. Drug dealers do this in DC to cops they know make drug arrests. Once enough complaints have been made the officer is removed from the area and is less productive. Is that what your looking for?

You want cops to go out and find bad guys... but in the same breath you want to complain when they ask a question. The guy was not forced to do anything and the officer simply made requests and allowed the person to walk away.

This is worth making a bullshit complaint over? Just to get his jacket thicker?

You have to be F-ing kidding me Citizen.I just have lost all respect for you now. :cuss:

Click to expand...

LEO229 is correct. It is an officer's job to poke around. There is nothing wrong with them asking questions, and people are free to respond or not. Just because they are wearing a uniform does not mean they cannot exercise their First Amendment rights. Yes, that includes questions.

I know most gun owners feel persecuted. I certainly understand that, but have been fortunate enough to not have had a confrontational OC encounter with the police.

It's still not a reason to get nasty with them....

...that includes LEO229. "Nothing he said here can be trusted?" That seems a bit silly, considering that he quoted the law and it's easily verifiable through online sources.

If you don't understand the nature of rights, then don't get bitchy about them. They go two ways in these instances. Officers have law, duties, and procedures piled on top of rights; it's important to understand this. "Fishing expeditions" only yield fish if you "take the bait." Don't take the bait and swim away.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I cannot believe your actually prompting someone to complain just to get the cops file thicker when you know knew he did nothing wrong.

Just because you are asked a question or checked out does not mean a complaint is in order. Drug dealers do this in DC to cops they know make drug arrests. Once enough complaints have been made the officer is removed from the area and is less productive. Is that what your looking for?

You want cops to go out and find bad guys... but in the same breath you want to complain when they ask a question. The guy was not forced to do anything and the officer simply made requests and allowed the person to walk away.

This is worth making a bullshit complaint over? Just to get his jacket thicker?

You have to be F-ing kidding me Citizen.I just have lost all respect for you now. :cuss:

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but exactly what law did the OP violate that prompted said officer to request ID for a NICS check? What did he do wrong?

If I am not breaking a law, it is not for you or any other LEO to 'suspect' I might be a felon for simply carrying a weapon. The officer may not have been out of line for simply asking, but neither did he have any probable cause or reasonable suspicion to ask.

imported post

TEX1N just summed it up nicely a few posts up for me.

But this,

LEO229 is correct. It is an officer's job to poke around. There is nothing wrong with them asking questions, and people are free to respond or not. Just because they are wearing a uniform does not mean they cannot exercise their First Amendment rights. Yes, that includes questions.

Click to expand...

Police can question someone all they want to about the weather, or which holster rides more comfortably. However, when the level of questioning DIRECLY RELATES TO DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE as I believe happened in this case, then the police DO NOT have the ability to ask whatever they feel like. As has been presented in this thread, Virginia courts have ruled that carrying a firearm, absent any other suspicious activity, is NOT enough for a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed. Every situation is different and highly dynamic -- I hope to behave as well as the OP did if I were in a position such as that. Thankfully, I haven't yet been.

There is tons of caselaw on the subject of police questioning and intimidation and that sometimes how a person is questioned is very germane. Before anyone asks me to link some proof, I made an honest effort to locate some cases which said that voluntary consent is sometimes a tricky thing. The vast majority of people do NOT know WHEN they are free to walk away and when they are free to decline to answer questions, which the officers take advantage of.

LEO229, respectfully, you are being disengenuous when you stated that both cops and non-cops can lie. With any police/citizen interaction, the police may lie when collecting evidence and/or during interrogation, yet are expected to be truthful on official paperwork or in court. Citizens (non-LEO) are punished for lying to a police officer at any point of contact. This is why WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

Cops can lie, non-cops can SAY NOTHING.

"Won't you please help me figure out if you're a felon?" Gimme a freakin' break! Fifth amendment, bud. I don't have to help you with jack shit.

Examples like these convince me more and more to respond to a LEO's questions with my own questions. I don't care if the cop thinks I'm being evasive.

And, to the idea that felons do open carry -- I don't care. That has nothing to do with me. I mean, whatever happened to the notion of, "it's better to let ten guilty men go free than have one innocent man hang"? Cops have to obey the rules too and those rules aren't put in place to protect the guilty, they're there to protect the innocent.

imported post

Sage of Seattle wrote:

TEX1N just summed it up nicely a few posts up for me.

But this,

LEO229 is correct. It is an officer's job to poke around. There is nothing wrong with them asking questions, and people are free to respond or not. Just because they are wearing a uniform does not mean they cannot exercise their First Amendment rights. Yes, that includes questions.

Click to expand...

Police can question someone all they want to about the weather, or which holster rides more comfortably. However, when the level of questioning DIRECLY RELATES TO DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE as I believe happened in this case, then the police DO NOT have the ability to ask whatever they feel like. As has been presented in this thread, Virginia courts have ruled that carrying a firearm, absent any other suspicious activity, is NOT enough for a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed. Every situation is different and highly dynamic -- I hope to behave as well as the OP did if I were in a position such as that. Thankfully, I haven't yet been.

There is tons of caselaw on the subject of police questioning and intimidation and that sometimes how a person is questioned is very germane. Before anyone asks me to link some proof, I made an honest effort to locate some cases which said that voluntary consent is sometimes a tricky thing. The vast majority of people do NOT know WHEN they are free to walk away and when they are free to decline to answer questions, which the officers take advantage of.

LEO229, respectfully, you are being disengenuous when you stated that both cops and non-cops can lie. With any police/citizen interaction, the police may lie when collecting evidence and/or during interrogation, yet are expected to be truthful on official paperwork or in court. Citizens (non-LEO) are punished for lying to a police officer at any point of contact. This is why WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

Cops can lie, non-cops can SAY NOTHING.

"Won't you please help me figure out if you're a felon?" Gimme a freakin' break! Fifth amendment, bud. I don't have to help you with jack shit.

Examples like these convince me more and more to respond to a LEO's questions with my own questions. I don't care if the cop thinks I'm being evasive.

And, to the idea that felons do open carry -- I don't care. That has nothing to do with me. I mean, whatever happened to the notion of, "it's better to let ten guilty men go free than have one innocent man hang"? Cops have to obey the rules too and those rules aren't put in place to protect the guilty, they're there to protect the innocent.

Click to expand...

Please include some citations regarding the "case law regarding police questioning." As I understand it, in a chance encounter such as this, they can ask just about anything...and you can respond with just about anything, including nothing.

Please send some citations because I'm very interested in reading them.

**I am not a cop.** BTW. I'm just asking questions because my BS meter is going off.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen...

If I stop a car for speeding and ask.. Where you going to? You in a hurry? Why do you not want to tell me where your headed?

Is this a violation? Am I out of line for pressing the driver for this information? Should I only be interested in the speeding violation and ask no other questions? I have my reasons for asking these questions and it can be useful in determining who are doing illegal activity.

You really need to wake up and understand that there is no harm in asking optional questions. I can ask all the questions I want.. You may not like it.. But you can do the same to me on the street. I cannot stop you and all I can do is walk away.

If we are going to play that game.. I suggest we create a SILENCE law. If your asking questions and you refuse to stop when asked.. You should be charged with a Class 1 Misdemeanor. That way I can charge civilians that ask me lots of optional questions.

It would only seem fair.

Click to expand...

LEO, I have been at DUI checkpoints where the officer did not take kindly to me answering the where are you coming from? and Where are you going? questions with "from that direction, to that direction".

It is not inherint for me to answer those questions with more information that the officer needs to determine if I have been drinking. Once he determines I have not been drinking then let me be on my way, don't harass me with your bull$%^& because you don't like my answers. I have no responsibility to provide information for your fishing expedition. Nor am I required to provide any "proof" you need because you are suspicious of some legal activity.

imported post

longwatch wrote:

Lets not talk in circles people.

Click to expand...

Unless you're ('you are' contracted) in a race to complete 4000 'laps' first before any one else.

imported post

BB62 wrote:

bayboy42 wrote:

THis is the kind of double-speak that I have a problem with:

At 6:15 on 17 Dec, LEO229 stated: "The officer suspects the person may be a felon....he even said so in the conversation".

At 10:35 on 17 Dec, LEO229 stated: "The cop was not accusing the guy of BEING a felon".

Which is it LEO229?:what:

Click to expand...

:quirky

Nice catch! Another reason why LEO229 winstheverbal judo award - and whynothing he says here is to be trusted.

Click to expand...

Suspicion and accusation are two different things, they're not synonymous. I believe the officer asked questions based on the possibility, even though he may have known full well that it probably wan't a possibility, that the OP was a felon. His job is to check for public safety.

I know if I were the officer, I would feel much better about running the plates in lieu of courtesy cooperation from the OP to make sure that he was NOT a felon, than to take a chance in letting a felon go.

Hypothetically: Say the circumstances were different, and the OP was a convicted felon, and the officer didn't initiate contact or run the plates at all, and later that evening/week, the OP murders someone or commits a armed crime? I'm sure an officer would much rather have someone irritated at him than to know that he possibly could have saved a life or prevented a crime. Isn't that similar to why we all carry guns? To prevent looking back and thinking "If only..."?

I believe that if the officer would have accused him of being a felon, that the conversation wouldn't have been quite so polite, the officer would have had his gun drawn and the OP would have been disarmed and in handcuffs.


Anybody can be a criminal, just like anybody can be a terrorist. Criminals aren't always dumb, they may be familiar with firearms laws. If nobody with an obvious firearm was ever approached by the police (would like to assume that it will be civilly), then criminals would know that they could just walk around with a visible firearm to appear like they're law abiding.

Now, I'm not picking sides between OC and CC, but realistically, "out of sight is out of mind". If you're concealed, and concealed well, nobody's going to know. If you're carrying openly, everybody around you is going to know. Law abiding people carry concealed as well as criminals, it would be naiive to think that criminals would never openly carry, but like I said, openly carrying is going to draw attention regardless. If you OC, you're doing so with that understanding. There are days when I don't want the added attention, so those are the ones I CC (with permit), there are other days when I feel like I'm willing to deal with it, and those days I OC.

Even though we're still beating a dead horse here, I still say that the officer was doing his job, and the OP handled himself well. Granted, the officer did try to use some verbal manipulation to gain some voluntary cooperation, but from my experiences, his level of an attempt pales in comparison to what I've dealt with from coworkers, car salesmen and various solicitors. If someone is going weak willed enough to let any level manipulation get them all fired up to the point of seeing red, then it scares me to think of that person carrying a firearm.

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

THis is the kind of double-speak that I have a problem with:

At 6:15 on 17 Dec, LEO229 stated: "The officer suspects the person may be a felon....he even said so in the conversation".

At 10:35 on 17 Dec, LEO229 stated: "The cop was not accusing the guy of BEING a felon".

Which is it LEO229?:what:

Click to expand...

You can pick apart what I said all day..... You know what I am getting at. :lol:

If you want clarification... He did not ACCUSE him of anything. He suspected it could be possible.

I could "suspect" your a jerk.. But this does not mean I am out right "accusing" you of it. I would have to say.. "You are a jerk." (and I am not... just used as an example)

PM me if you need more clarification.

imported post

Deleted OT-LW

imported post

Carpetbagger wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The officer suspects that the person may be a felon... he even said so in the conversation. It was done for criminal justice purposes.

The purpose was to be sure that the subject armed with a gun was legal to do so. This did not cause any harm or delay to the subject who was allowed to go on his way.

Click to expand...

At the risk of further beating this very deceased equine...

The officer had absolutely no reason to suspect that the OP was a felon. It was a fishing expedition, pure and simple. That doesn't make it wrong, butto say that the officer suspected anythingoverstates the case.

That being said, this was an OK (not good) encounter. Certainly does not warrant a complaint.

Click to expand...

Why? Because he "looks" honest?

Cops fish all the time... this is how some criminals are caught.. By simple luck!

Not many criminals commit crimes infront of a cop. And they sure do not walk up and say.. "By the way... I am a convicted felon and I am illegally in possession of this handgun."

There are times when you see something and it just does not sit right with you. You check it out and move on. Sorry, but cops do check people out that seem out of the ordinary or a little suspicious.

Let me lay it out for you.....

Ever bluff?

A cop asks you for your ID and you give it to him willingly. The cop figures that if you gave it to him... you must not have anything to hide and there is probably no reason to check you out. Cop hands back your ID and NO CHECK IS EVEN DONE!

Call it a "guilt check."

Now.. cop asks for your ID and you refuse! (Keeping in mind that most people do not do this) Well now... we have a live one here. Not committinga crime but this guy MUST have something to hide. Looks likeI will have to do what I can to get his identity and check him out to be sure he is supposed to have that gun.

I guess I cannot break it down any better than that. I am sure many will say that the cop should not even ask for the ID at all because OC is legal. I get it.. But you have to understand that legal or not to OC... some people may not be allowed to do it!! The ID check is one way to quickly find out.

This situation applies to many other events... Child molester at a school. Guy hanging out in a parking lot. There are many more. Criminals do NOT want to give up their ID.... and then there are a few other people here on this board that feel the same way. Sorry if you are going to be viewed as a possible criminal.. that is just how it is.

imported post

Sage of Seattle wrote:

TEX1N just summed it up nicely a few posts up for me.

But this,

LEO229 is correct. It is an officer's job to poke around. There is nothing wrong with them asking questions, and people are free to respond or not. Just because they are wearing a uniform does not mean they cannot exercise their First Amendment rights. Yes, that includes questions.

Click to expand...

Police can question someone all they want to about the weather, or which holster rides more comfortably. However, when the level of questioning DIRECLY RELATES TO DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE as I believe happened in this case, then the police DO NOT have the ability to ask whatever they feel like. As has been presented in this thread, Virginia courts have ruled that carrying a firearm, absent any other suspicious activity, is NOT enough for a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed. Every situation is different and highly dynamic -- I hope to behave as well as the OP did if I were in a position such as that. Thankfully, I haven't yet been.

There is tons of caselaw on the subject of police questioning and intimidation and that sometimes how a person is questioned is very germane. Before anyone asks me to link some proof, I made an honest effort to locate some cases which said that voluntary consent is sometimes a tricky thing. The vast majority of people do NOT know WHEN they are free to walk away and when they are free to decline to answer questions, which the officers take advantage of.

LEO229, respectfully, you are being disengenuous when you stated that both cops and non-cops can lie. With any police/citizen interaction, the police may lie when collecting evidence and/or during interrogation, yet are expected to be truthful on official paperwork or in court. Citizens (non-LEO) are punished for lying to a police officer at any point of contact. This is why WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

Cops can lie, non-cops can SAY NOTHING.

"Won't you please help me figure out if you're a felon?" Gimme a freakin' break! Fifth amendment, bud. I don't have to help you with jack shit.

Examples like these convince me more and more to respond to a LEO's questions with my own questions. I don't care if the cop thinks I'm being evasive.

And, to the idea that felons do open carry -- I don't care. That has nothing to do with me. I mean, whatever happened to the notion of, "it's better to let ten guilty men go free than have one innocent man hang"? Cops have to obey the rules too and those rules aren't put in place to protect the guilty, they're there to protect the innocent.

Click to expand...

It is a crime to lie when I am asking questions about an official investigation and YOU areNOT the suspect in that investigation.

People who lie and have knowledge about a crime should tell what they know so the offender can go to jail. If you lie to protect that person.... your just as guilty as he is.

Cops are not "required" to be honest unless they are on the stand and under oath. All other times the cop can say what needs to be said. Cops are expected to be honest and generally are.

There are times when they may not be honest and it is for a good reason. Some evidence or details do NOT need to be told to the public. Some information is private and the public has no need to know.

During an interview.... the bag guy is allowed to lie... and so canthe cop. If the cop had to always tell the truth.. the bag guy could ask.. Do you have my DNA? Do you have my prints? Do you have a witness?

The cop would be required to say "NO" and the bad guy knows he is a free man and can go back out and rape again. But... If he thinks he is caught cold... He may confess and provide corroborating details to the event and go to jail.

[It is better to let 10 guilty men go free.....]

So a cop that sees a guy looking in windows of a car in the commuter lot should not be approached. He has not committed a crime and there is no harm in looking. But you say.. Let him go since he is innocent.

Sorry, any behavior that seems suspicious can and will be checked out. This is a deterrent to crime too. The bad guy that has been identified BEFORE his crime knows that if he hits now... the cop knows who to come visit.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

Excuse me, but exactly what law did the OP violate that prompted said officer to request ID for a NICS check? What did he do wrong?

If I am not breaking a law, it is not for you or any other LEO to 'suspect' I might be a felon for simply carrying a weapon. The officer may not have been out of line for simply asking, but neither did he have any probable cause or reasonable suspicion to ask.

Click to expand...

How do you propose stolen cars and wanted people be caught?

Are you expecting people to turn them in? Do you think they will turn themselves in on their own?

Cops run tags and check names to see what they can find. This is the BEST way to find stolen cars and wanted persons. If this is not done.... criminals go free and in a few years they can NEVER be prosecuted for their petty crimes. So if they can avoid the system long enough... the never get punished.

Cops do not have to do this. They could go to work, park in the lot, watch TV like a security guard, move only to go to a dispatched call, and then go home.

Is this what you want? Or do you want a cop that is patrolling your neighborhood looking for people he feels are suspicious.Talking and asking questions when he gets a feeling that something is a little strange.

If not... this is what you can get...

"Sir, I saw the guy acting suspicious but since he was not actually breaking any laws I never approached him. Had I done that and discovered who he was... there is a good chance he would have left the area and not raped your child."

Sound OK?

imported post

Taclead wrote:

LEO, I have been at DUI checkpoints where the officer did not take kindly to me answering the where are you coming from? and Where are you going? questions with "from that direction, to that direction".

It is not inherint for me to answer those questions with more information that the officer needs to determine if I have been drinking. Once he determines I have not been drinking then let me be on my way, don't harass me with your bull$%^& because you don't like my answers. I have no responsibility to provide information for your fishing expedition. Nor am I required to provide any "proof" you need because you are suspicious of some legal activity.

Click to expand...

Did you know that those checkpoints land more than drunk drivers?

No license, Suspended License, Wanted subject, Stolen cars, Probation Violations....

The question and answer game is needed so that you cannot make something up later. People up to no good have a hard time coming up with the answers too.

Let's say you answer... "I am coming from my friends house" and a OL check later identifies that you are on a restricted license... To and From WORK ONLY!

Now the cop knows you are in violation. The information you are being asked if for a reason. Much of it is for possible use later. Being evasive can get all the possible tickets that can be written to you.

Cops have a job just like you do. Theydo not be given a rash of crap for doing what they are expected to do. It is refreshing to meet people that are not viewing you as a Nazi.

I gave a guy a ticket today for speeding. Could have written him for 75 in a 55 but he was real kind so I dropped it to a sign violation. Explained everything and he shook my hand before driving off. I could have easily been an ass and would have had be caught an attitude.

Just something to think about....

imported post

Longwatch, this really could use a padlock.

imported post

Tess wrote:

Longwatch, this really could use a padlock.

Click to expand...

I agree, this has become very tiresome.

imported post

The bottom line is this officer acted on a personal bias against OC.

"Your already scaring people by openly carring a pistol in public."

The officer's actions can be justified only so long as the abovestatement and the attitude it reveals is ignored. Once he acted on bias, rather than legitimate indicators of possiblewrongdoing, everything else became abuseof authority and harassment.

Its subtle; but itis there. To illustrate by contrast, the officer could just as easily have given his personal opinion ina nice way.

Lets not lose sight of the above statement as we follow discussion points across hill, dale, and thread.

The above single statement makes everything else the officer said or did illegitmate.

Separately, and only as a speculation, it seems to meentirely possible that this officer knew about the events at Tony's and the earlier Prince William Co. activity. I see no reason to exclude the possibility that this officer decided to engage in a little bit of "get even" or "push back" against "upstart" OC'ers by messing with the OC'er. The officer very carefully walked the line. And walked it so carefully that, except for that one statement, this encounter could otherwise be wellcamoflaged as legitimate LE activity.

It wasvery well handled by the OC'er. I still recommend a formal complaintas a continuation ofthe handling.

imported post

cREbralFIX wrote:

Another good response to all the queries for your ID would be:

"Thank you for doing your job by checking things out. Have a good night."

And walk away.

Click to expand...

+1