DMB
Regular Member
imported post
Decoligny wrote:
Decoligny wrote:
[sigh] now that's original. - David
-
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.
-
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.
Name? Or nothing?
- Thread starter Carondalet
- Start date
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
DMB wrote:
DMB wrote:
That's being a free citizen.
DMB
Regular Member
imported post
Wynder wrote:
Wynder wrote:
You are 100% right. Personally, i would opt for a different approach. I'm a cop who happens to not only know the law, but support OC. You'd never have this problem with me. If I stopped you, it would be to BS about your gun. However, as you know there are those that simply don't know. They aren't hasseling you, they THINK they are doing the right thing. Wouldn't a little cordial two way conversation be more beneficial in the end, as opposed to the standard militia type response? Just saying ....- David
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
DMB writes:
There's a difference between walking up and starting a conversation by asking for ID and "Hey, is that a Springfield XD?"
The latter will most certainly earn a friendly conversation about the Dawson fiber optic sights and extended mag release I've had added for competition shooting. The former will elicit the militia response.
What you're saying certainly goes too ways, if the LEO starts of casual and cordial -- and I feel as though he's not probing for anything outside of general interest -- I'm all for a chat if I have the time.
DMB writes:
There's a difference between walking up and starting a conversation by asking for ID and "Hey, is that a Springfield XD?"
The latter will most certainly earn a friendly conversation about the Dawson fiber optic sights and extended mag release I've had added for competition shooting. The former will elicit the militia response.
What you're saying certainly goes too ways, if the LEO starts of casual and cordial -- and I feel as though he's not probing for anything outside of general interest -- I'm all for a chat if I have the time.
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
Check out what SCOTUS has to say about "Terry Stops" and "Reasonable Articulable Suspision".
If a cop walks up and says, "Excuse me, can I talk to you for a minute?" and starts a polite conversation with me, then fine I will be polite, and if he asks me why I am carrying a gun, I will let him know that I carry it for personal protection and in compliance with all applicable California and Federal Laws.
If a cop walks up and says, "You there, stop, show me your I.D., NOW." I will ask the questions I stated previosly. If it escalates to him threatening me with arrest, etc. I will comply with all his directives about "hands on the car" "move over there" etc. But I will provide him only the information that I am required to by law.
Know the Law, Know your Surroundings, Know your Rights, and Know the number to a good attorney.
I refuse to give up any of my constitutional rights just to "appease" an LEO and make things go "smoother".
It's the 4A right to be secure in your person, papers, and effects. When they start the "Gif me your papers" (Tuetonic accent added) BS, I know they will attemp to intimidate me into forfeiting my rights.
Check out what SCOTUS has to say about "Terry Stops" and "Reasonable Articulable Suspision".
If a cop walks up and says, "Excuse me, can I talk to you for a minute?" and starts a polite conversation with me, then fine I will be polite, and if he asks me why I am carrying a gun, I will let him know that I carry it for personal protection and in compliance with all applicable California and Federal Laws.
If a cop walks up and says, "You there, stop, show me your I.D., NOW." I will ask the questions I stated previosly. If it escalates to him threatening me with arrest, etc. I will comply with all his directives about "hands on the car" "move over there" etc. But I will provide him only the information that I am required to by law.
Know the Law, Know your Surroundings, Know your Rights, and Know the number to a good attorney.
I refuse to give up any of my constitutional rights just to "appease" an LEO and make things go "smoother".
It's the 4A right to be secure in your person, papers, and effects. When they start the "Gif me your papers" (Tuetonic accent added) BS, I know they will attemp to intimidate me into forfeiting my rights.
DMB
Regular Member
imported post
Decoligny wrote:
hehe, just be glad they don't start with the "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges".
I hear ya brother and I AM on your side. Just trying to add another perpective that's all. - David
Decoligny wrote:
hehe, just be glad they don't start with the "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges".
I hear ya brother and I AM on your side. Just trying to add another perpective that's all. - David
charlie12
Regular Member
imported post
aroundlsu wrote:
You need to read the back of the permit again.
It says:
WARNING: Whenever you are detained by a police officer, you will immediately inform the officer that you are carrying a concealed handgun. Failure to do so may cause this permit to be revoked. PERMITEE WILL ahere to LRS 40:1379.3, SectionsI and M in regards to Blood Alcohol Telting and Prohibited Locations for Concealed Carry.
It says nothing about "under arrest"
aroundlsu wrote:
You need to read the back of the permit again.
It says:
WARNING: Whenever you are detained by a police officer, you will immediately inform the officer that you are carrying a concealed handgun. Failure to do so may cause this permit to be revoked. PERMITEE WILL ahere to LRS 40:1379.3, SectionsI and M in regards to Blood Alcohol Telting and Prohibited Locations for Concealed Carry.
It says nothing about "under arrest"
Mainsail
Regular Member
imported post
Decoligny wrote:
Bingo! That should be the very first thing to come from your mouth, “Am I being detained?” Everything else hinges on the officer’s answer to that question. By answer I mean either yes or no, because they will very often ask another question to make you forget that you didn’t get an answer to yours.
Decoligny wrote:
Bingo! That should be the very first thing to come from your mouth, “Am I being detained?” Everything else hinges on the officer’s answer to that question. By answer I mean either yes or no, because they will very often ask another question to make you forget that you didn’t get an answer to yours.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Don't forget the option to just declare your non-consent to the encounter.
Asking questions gives the officer the chance to be evasive.
An out-right declaration, "Officer, I do not consent to this encounter" puts the onus on him. If he continues past that declaration, he's basically saying its a non-consensual encounter (hedoes have reasonable suspicion to justify a non-consensual encounter), or he's ignoring your constitutional rights by continuing the encounter against your refused consent aka making it a detention.
Don't forget the option to just declare your non-consent to the encounter.
Asking questions gives the officer the chance to be evasive.
An out-right declaration, "Officer, I do not consent to this encounter" puts the onus on him. If he continues past that declaration, he's basically saying its a non-consensual encounter (hedoes have reasonable suspicion to justify a non-consensual encounter), or he's ignoring your constitutional rights by continuing the encounter against your refused consent aka making it a detention.
DMB
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
I don't know about VA, but I really wouldn't recommend that approach in La. - David
The_Side_of_Good
Regular Member
imported post
DMB wrote:
This is one of the reason's I like this forum... You get to see perspectives from the extremes of the issue and make your own assessment of the best approach.
I've personnally elected to present a positive professional image when forced to OC, and have rarelyhadencounters or inquiries. I've been fortunate to only encounter the same professionalism from the LEO's that have engaged me when either CC or OC. I believe thatDMB provides insight we should all recognize when discussing this issue; most LEO's are out to enforce the laws and do the right thing for the right reasons: As is often noted here, there are exceptions to this (as with any) rule. That's when I hope that responses that have been enumerated in this thread will help us each of us out of a bad encounter.
Just my $0.02...
DMB wrote:
This is one of the reason's I like this forum... You get to see perspectives from the extremes of the issue and make your own assessment of the best approach.
I've personnally elected to present a positive professional image when forced to OC, and have rarelyhadencounters or inquiries. I've been fortunate to only encounter the same professionalism from the LEO's that have engaged me when either CC or OC. I believe thatDMB provides insight we should all recognize when discussing this issue; most LEO's are out to enforce the laws and do the right thing for the right reasons: As is often noted here, there are exceptions to this (as with any) rule. That's when I hope that responses that have been enumerated in this thread will help us each of us out of a bad encounter.
Just my $0.02...
DMB
Regular Member
imported post
The_Side_of_Good wrote:
The_Side_of_Good wrote:
Thanks buddy, and to add one important thing with respect to be challenged by law enforcement. Many times, we may not be initiating an encounter on our own, but rather responding to a report from a caller about "a man with a gun". If that is the case, then yes, I am probably going to be a lot more direct, blunt, and am definitely going to "run the show". (For everyone's safety). Now, the second I determine that the encounter is the result of some hysterical caller with an overactive imagination, then I will thank you for your time and send you on your way. If anyone cannot understand why a police officer might act this way under these circumstances then I'm sorry, I guess you are just in for a lifetime of unpleasant encounters.
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
DMB wrote:
This is where the education aspect come into play. In areas like Virginia where open carry is legal pretty much everywhere, the 911 operators need to be trained to get some information from the caller.
Example
Operator: "911 What's your emergency?"
Caller: "There's a man with a gun at the Starbucks at 5th and Main!"
Operator: "Exactly what was the man with the gun doing?"
Caller: "He was ordering coffee, a Vente Mochachino Half Caff Soy Latte"
Operator: "Was the man holding the gun, or was it in a holster?"
Caller: "It was in a holster"
Operator: "Was the man threatening anyone with the gun?"
Caller: "No"
Operator: "Ma'am Openly carrying a firearm is not a criminal act in Virginia, we will send an officer to discuss the situation with you if you would like."
This of course is an "in a perfect world" scenario.
DMB wrote:
This is where the education aspect come into play. In areas like Virginia where open carry is legal pretty much everywhere, the 911 operators need to be trained to get some information from the caller.
Example
Operator: "911 What's your emergency?"
Caller: "There's a man with a gun at the Starbucks at 5th and Main!"
Operator: "Exactly what was the man with the gun doing?"
Caller: "He was ordering coffee, a Vente Mochachino Half Caff Soy Latte"
Operator: "Was the man holding the gun, or was it in a holster?"
Caller: "It was in a holster"
Operator: "Was the man threatening anyone with the gun?"
Caller: "No"
Operator: "Ma'am Openly carrying a firearm is not a criminal act in Virginia, we will send an officer to discuss the situation with you if you would like."
This of course is an "in a perfect world" scenario.