Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote in another thread:
There are so manydeceptively attractive statements in the other OP, that I don't care to try to address them all. Theauthor talks a good talk, but carefully omits a number of important points. I say carefully because muchunderlyinghis material hasbeen hashed out before,more than once, with the OPer participating inmanyof the threads.
Please allow me to address a number of points.
Police officers are human and do a tough, dangerous job. Theyemphaticallydeserve to be treated as fellow human beings with the respect due any human being. Thehonest ones deserve thanks for the tough job and the risks.
Us-vs-them. The accusation is that some members of this board have such an attitude. It is criticized. However, onekey point is omitted.Here it is:when the police officer approaches to investigate, at the instant of contact IT IS THE POLICE OFFICER WHODEMONSTRATES AND CREATES THE US-vs-THEM SITUATION. TheLEO is investigating for crime. It is now the state against the suspected criminal.The LEO is saying you are now suspected of being amongst a class of people to whom he is opposed and who it is his sworn duty to take action against.It is the police officer manifesting theopposition, the us-vs-them attitude. It is theseactions ofcertain police officersthatcreate the us-vs-them attitude, by demonstrating their suspicion or opposition.To further illustrate, imagine thereverse. Ifcertain police did not harass OC'ers, skirt and/or violate 4A case law, seize guns, demand ID without authority--in short, if certain police manifested noopposition or suspicion,how could anybodyhave an us-vs-them attitude? There would be no "them" to versus.
The preceding paragraphtalks with some generality. Andaddresses a momentaryus-vs-them attitude occuring during an encounter. Lets get out of generality and into some specifics.How does oneextend from the momentary us-vs-them attitude toan on-going,us-vs-them attitude? Just this way. Even the good cop, the respect-deserving cop, the thanks-deserving cop is treating the OC'er as a "them" when he contacts to investigate. It may be only inasmall degree, but it is still present.Theproblem for the OC'er is that he often will not know the degree oflegal jeopardy he is in.He may not know until it is too late that a false report was made to 911. Or even a true report of just a man with a gun, where the OCer doesn't realize he has otherwise committed some misdemeanor, discovered by the officer responding to the911 call about a gun.
Even a good cop just making a consensual contact after nothing more than his own personal observation is at the very least manifesting that a lawfully carried gun is suspicious. An abusive cop is by definition a "them." So, for the foregoing reasons all police, when they are investigating an OC'er, aremaking themselves an "us." Thatcovers everyLEO-OCer encounter.Defensively preparing for a police encounter is wise.
Further, the OPeressentially says that being the"them" to the police officer's "us", we should now go along withbeing the target of this attitude.Not only are we mis-assigned culpability for this attitude, we are recommended to cooperate in its abatement,forego exercisingcertain rights, and cooperate in andpossibly increase our legal jepoardy.
Onelast point on us-vs-them. In case anybody feels a little shaky about being an "us". We have a number of Founders telling us through their writings to be suspicious of government. One, Patrick Henry I believe, tells us explicity to guard the public liberty and be suspicious of anyone who approaches that jewel. I suspect, dear reader, that you consider your personal liberty to be a part of the public liberty. What closer approach to your immediate liberty is there than a uniformed, armed agent of the government standing right in front of you askingadversarial questions, however polite the phrasing or sweet the tone? Is not the Founder-recommended suspicion an adoption of an us-vs-them attitude?Let me here include the 4th Amendment. Have we not seen certain police use arguments and deception to getOCers to waive their 4th Amendment protections? Have we not seen certain police use deception or falsehood to encourage OCers to suspend their OC. Are these not examples of public liberties, approachesagainst which we are recommended to be suspicious by the very men who risked life, fortune, and honor? The Founders recommended what amounts to an us-vs-them attitude with regard to rights. That would include 4A and 2A.
A few comments in no particular order.
The information in the Busted video by FlexYourRights.org applies. As does the information in Professor Duane's video from Regent law school. The detective in Professor Duane's video did not refute Duane's statement (paraphrase), "Never under any circumstances talk to police. It cannot help you. It may in fact hurt you." So, there we have a law school professor, a detective, and afederal judge cited in the videoall saying don't talk to police. Compare this to theimport of the other thread's OP.
That OPchose the words"spout off"when discussing OCersrefusing theirconsent.I can't recall an OCer spouting off. More than one has posted his express intention to be polite when refusing or talking to an LEO.
If it is totally legitimate (according to the courts, anyway) for a police officer to approach a citizen consensually to investigate suspected crime, how can it be any less legitimate for a citizen to politely decline totalk to the officer? To say otherwiseimplies anobligation to talk to the officer. Which of course violates the meaning of consensual.
Yes, the officer is a human being and has feelings. However, when he is on the job, he is a special class of human being. The concept of consensual investigative contact was laid out by thejudiciary in response to a perceived need to define further the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable seizure of the person. We have rights to give boundaries tothe officer'sspecial status as a human being. Nothing negative attaches to our exercising them. It can't be allowed. It would invalidate the right in question to a degree equivalent to the negative. The most that can be legitimately urgedis to exercise them politely. Whenforegoinga right is worked forwithout also a full acknowledgement ofthe complete legitimacy of exercisingthat right, the author is suspect.Ifa police officerthinkspoorly of a polite refusal, there issomethingdeeper going on. Something that doesn't sound good for 4A rights.
I completely recognize your right totalk with a police officer who is investigating you. I completely recognize that there may be minimal legal jeopardyand you can weigh for yourself the risk you are willing to take. Also, I've said before we each have to decide how we wish to respond based on the totality of the circumstances.
Ask yourself how often you have seen the author of the other thread's OP cleanly acknowledgeyour rights. Or recommend you exercise them. Compared to how often that author has worked forgettingyou to forego exercising them.
Please.If you quote,delete everything exceptthe part you upon which you care to comment.
LEO 229 wrote in another thread:
There are so manydeceptively attractive statements in the other OP, that I don't care to try to address them all. Theauthor talks a good talk, but carefully omits a number of important points. I say carefully because muchunderlyinghis material hasbeen hashed out before,more than once, with the OPer participating inmanyof the threads.
Please allow me to address a number of points.
Police officers are human and do a tough, dangerous job. Theyemphaticallydeserve to be treated as fellow human beings with the respect due any human being. Thehonest ones deserve thanks for the tough job and the risks.
Us-vs-them. The accusation is that some members of this board have such an attitude. It is criticized. However, onekey point is omitted.Here it is:when the police officer approaches to investigate, at the instant of contact IT IS THE POLICE OFFICER WHODEMONSTRATES AND CREATES THE US-vs-THEM SITUATION. TheLEO is investigating for crime. It is now the state against the suspected criminal.The LEO is saying you are now suspected of being amongst a class of people to whom he is opposed and who it is his sworn duty to take action against.It is the police officer manifesting theopposition, the us-vs-them attitude. It is theseactions ofcertain police officersthatcreate the us-vs-them attitude, by demonstrating their suspicion or opposition.To further illustrate, imagine thereverse. Ifcertain police did not harass OC'ers, skirt and/or violate 4A case law, seize guns, demand ID without authority--in short, if certain police manifested noopposition or suspicion,how could anybodyhave an us-vs-them attitude? There would be no "them" to versus.
The preceding paragraphtalks with some generality. Andaddresses a momentaryus-vs-them attitude occuring during an encounter. Lets get out of generality and into some specifics.How does oneextend from the momentary us-vs-them attitude toan on-going,us-vs-them attitude? Just this way. Even the good cop, the respect-deserving cop, the thanks-deserving cop is treating the OC'er as a "them" when he contacts to investigate. It may be only inasmall degree, but it is still present.Theproblem for the OC'er is that he often will not know the degree oflegal jeopardy he is in.He may not know until it is too late that a false report was made to 911. Or even a true report of just a man with a gun, where the OCer doesn't realize he has otherwise committed some misdemeanor, discovered by the officer responding to the911 call about a gun.
Even a good cop just making a consensual contact after nothing more than his own personal observation is at the very least manifesting that a lawfully carried gun is suspicious. An abusive cop is by definition a "them." So, for the foregoing reasons all police, when they are investigating an OC'er, aremaking themselves an "us." Thatcovers everyLEO-OCer encounter.Defensively preparing for a police encounter is wise.
Further, the OPeressentially says that being the"them" to the police officer's "us", we should now go along withbeing the target of this attitude.Not only are we mis-assigned culpability for this attitude, we are recommended to cooperate in its abatement,forego exercisingcertain rights, and cooperate in andpossibly increase our legal jepoardy.
Onelast point on us-vs-them. In case anybody feels a little shaky about being an "us". We have a number of Founders telling us through their writings to be suspicious of government. One, Patrick Henry I believe, tells us explicity to guard the public liberty and be suspicious of anyone who approaches that jewel. I suspect, dear reader, that you consider your personal liberty to be a part of the public liberty. What closer approach to your immediate liberty is there than a uniformed, armed agent of the government standing right in front of you askingadversarial questions, however polite the phrasing or sweet the tone? Is not the Founder-recommended suspicion an adoption of an us-vs-them attitude?Let me here include the 4th Amendment. Have we not seen certain police use arguments and deception to getOCers to waive their 4th Amendment protections? Have we not seen certain police use deception or falsehood to encourage OCers to suspend their OC. Are these not examples of public liberties, approachesagainst which we are recommended to be suspicious by the very men who risked life, fortune, and honor? The Founders recommended what amounts to an us-vs-them attitude with regard to rights. That would include 4A and 2A.
A few comments in no particular order.
The information in the Busted video by FlexYourRights.org applies. As does the information in Professor Duane's video from Regent law school. The detective in Professor Duane's video did not refute Duane's statement (paraphrase), "Never under any circumstances talk to police. It cannot help you. It may in fact hurt you." So, there we have a law school professor, a detective, and afederal judge cited in the videoall saying don't talk to police. Compare this to theimport of the other thread's OP.
That OPchose the words"spout off"when discussing OCersrefusing theirconsent.I can't recall an OCer spouting off. More than one has posted his express intention to be polite when refusing or talking to an LEO.
If it is totally legitimate (according to the courts, anyway) for a police officer to approach a citizen consensually to investigate suspected crime, how can it be any less legitimate for a citizen to politely decline totalk to the officer? To say otherwiseimplies anobligation to talk to the officer. Which of course violates the meaning of consensual.
Yes, the officer is a human being and has feelings. However, when he is on the job, he is a special class of human being. The concept of consensual investigative contact was laid out by thejudiciary in response to a perceived need to define further the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable seizure of the person. We have rights to give boundaries tothe officer'sspecial status as a human being. Nothing negative attaches to our exercising them. It can't be allowed. It would invalidate the right in question to a degree equivalent to the negative. The most that can be legitimately urgedis to exercise them politely. Whenforegoinga right is worked forwithout also a full acknowledgement ofthe complete legitimacy of exercisingthat right, the author is suspect.Ifa police officerthinkspoorly of a polite refusal, there issomethingdeeper going on. Something that doesn't sound good for 4A rights.
I completely recognize your right totalk with a police officer who is investigating you. I completely recognize that there may be minimal legal jeopardyand you can weigh for yourself the risk you are willing to take. Also, I've said before we each have to decide how we wish to respond based on the totality of the circumstances.
Ask yourself how often you have seen the author of the other thread's OP cleanly acknowledgeyour rights. Or recommend you exercise them. Compared to how often that author has worked forgettingyou to forego exercising them.
Please.If you quote,delete everything exceptthe part you upon which you care to comment.
