From The New Guy

imported post

I joined this forum a little over a week ago and have noticed a few things that bother me. If I were a little more sensitive they might make me want to go elsewhere. But since I'm the macho(?) guy that I am I think I can stick it out.

1. There seems to be quite the "us v. them" mentality on here when it comes to LEO, even though some of them are members of the forum. We need to remember that they have a tough job to do. They put their lives on the line every time they make a traffic stop. If they're not cautious they're dead. We need to try to put ourselves in their shoes before we castigate every move they make.

This doesn't mean that I think every move they make is okay. Most of the time when a LEO encounter goes the wrong way, it's through ignorance. Education cures ignorance. In the mean time just cooperate, get it over with and move on. That way you don't cause more problems than you need. You can handle any legal aspects AFTER the incident.



2. Speaking of LEO encounters, there seem to be a lot of members here want to turn an encounter into a confrontation. WHY? All that's liable to do is to get your ignorant self thrown in jail. Resist a cop in the performance of hiss duties and you lose. Again, handle the legal aspects AFTER the encounter, not during. Besides you represent the rest of us in a VERY bad light.



3. There is entirely too much backbiting and bickering on here. Personal insults are for the playground and you lose your credibility when you resort to them. At least you do with me.

So much for the negative.

Other than the above listed points, I think this is a great site. I've learned a lot over the past week and will continue to glean knowledge whereI can

imported post

Resist a cop in the performance of hiss duties and you lose.

Click to expand...

Why should I have to "lose"? Carrying a holstered weapon is (according to the courts) nothing to be alarmed about and isn't against the law.

The courts have ruled that for police to detain a person for even the briefest moment of time, they must have achieved the legal standard called reasonable suspicion [1]. Courts have ruled that merely carrying a gun is NOT cause for alarm and certainly does not satisfy reasonable suspicion, which is reasonable belief that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime, based on a very specific set of facts (not a hunch). Even a 911 call reporting a person walking around with a gun would not satisfy this legal requirement.

As a very peaceful, calm citizen, I think you are looking at the situation the wrong way. The police are starting a confrontation by drawing upon, disarming, detaining, etc. people whom they have no right to do so. As I said, being detained for the briefest moment of time requires specific reasonable belief a person has committed a crime -- which possession of a gun does not provide! Therefore in the vast majority of these stops, the police are not respecting constitutional rights, which is clearly initiating a confrontation.

I would ask you to investigate a little bit the issues involved in these encounters, in particular reasonable suspicion and probable cause and suspect rights. The case law is also useful. If the police are behaving properly and respecting citizen rights, all of us should have solely consensual encounters with police, which do not include pat down or disarmament.

If any other citizen approached me on the street and tried to disarm me, it would clearly be a conflict he started. The police have specific laws that allow them to disarm, arrest, etc. in specific circumstances. As an entirely law-abiding citizen, I can assure you they will never have cause to disarm or arrest me. To have such cause, they need a specific reasonable belief that I am about to commit a crime -- carrying a gun is not sufficient to have such a belief. Thus, should the police do so they are beginning a confrontation with me. Agreed?

I hope you are not suggesting that the police should get to violate my rights just because they are police -- there are specific laws that describe what police can do. If you agree that police are bound by the law, then you agree that the police have started confrontations in many stories described on these forums.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

imported post

Regarding your #2 point,consider being illegally disarmed. You're saying to deal with it later. Is this what we're supposed to do if the government ever decides to come door to door and completely disarm us? "Deal with it later"? When this comes, it won't come all at once.

I see this as killing a frog by slowly boiling it. If you slowly keep turning up the heat, the frog won't know you're killing it until it's too late.

I see these illegal disarmings as just another step towards the ultimate goal of completely disarming all ofus. At what point do we tell them "NO, you won't be disarming me today" and back that up?

I agree that educating the LEO'sthat disregard our right to OC is necessary, no, NEEDED. But they just don't want to hear it. This is where the lawyers come in to back us up. Hopefully, by getting lawyers to help us, they can make the upper echelons of law enforcement see where their patrol officers, and any other officers, are stepping on the rights of the law abiding citizens.And make them stop before too many law suits are brought against their police departments.

Edit: Agrees with everything xiphoris said.

imported post

xiphoris and Spydertattoo, you've both made good points for select instances. Most LEO encounters, however are responding to MWAG calls, and are actually polite encounters that some people seem to want to take to the next level. By all means, stand on your rights, but don't push it to the point that you actually end up breaking the law.

SpyderTattoo recently had an LEO encounter at Winco in Kent. I think he did exactly what he should have done at the time of the incident. Now he's following up on the legal aspects of the situation. That's EXACTLY the the behavior I recommend whenever possible.

imported post

Xip...

I think you addressed it well in what you said. As I read his post I thought the same thing you did, that the LEO are the one causing the confrontation... That brings to mind the account where a lady LEOasked a guy very politely if she could see his CPL and ID. She also said thathe does not have to show it, buthe could if he liked to. and she knows OC is legal, but that the reason she made contact with him is because some one called it in.... The guy didprovided his ID because the LEO was so polite.

That is how it should be done, if it is done. I understand they have a job to do, but it does not call forpushing theirauthority over someonebecause of a firearm. And we do not have totake being treated like a criminal. I feel I wouldmyself would show ID and anything they asked for. But if I for some reason want some excitement in my day, I wont show it, because I don't have to. But that does not mean I am wrong likeI don't. I think if more LOEs would approach people in the manner as i spoke of, you would see more LOE encounters go smoothly.

Also If I do not show ID, for OC why would I go to jail, under what charge?

imported post

Bookman wrote:

xiphoris and Spydertattoo, you've both made good points for select instances. Most LEO encounters, however are responding to MWAG calls, and are actually polite encounters that some people seem to want to take to the next level. By all means, stand on your rights, but don't push it to the point that you actually end up breaking the law.

SpyderTattoo recently had an LEO encounter at Winco in Kent. I think he did exactly what he should have done at the time of the incident. Now he's following up on the legal aspects of the situation. That's EXACTLY the the behavior I recommend whenever possible.

Click to expand...

A MWAG call does not mean a crime has been committed and does not give the cop the right to stop, detain or disarm you. A MWAG is not a crime in and of it self. If the cops sees nothing to give him reasonable suspision that there is a crime, again the presence of a gun is not reasonable suspision, then he has no reason to contact. In fact a properly train dispatcher will deal with the MWAG call and with the right question determine id the is a crime or not.

Caller: There is a guy with a gun!

Dispatch: What is the guy doing?

Caller: He is walking down the street.

Dispatcher: Where is the gun?

Caller: In a holster?

Dispatcher: Is it on a belt around his waist?

Caller: Yes.

Dispatcher: That is perfectly legal. He his breaking no law.

Caller: But......but.......but he has a gun.

Dispatcher: Yes he does and that is his Constitutional right to do so.

imported post

Yes, I'm glad to see you read about my incident. At this very minute I'm typing up an email to my attorney describing my encounter. My attorney is going to draft up an official letter and send it to KPD. The only reason I concealed my gun was for the benefit of my wife and daughter, who were both very embarrassed by the whole thing.

I do believe the officer may have broken the law regarding coercion. I read an RCW about it, but can't find the exact RCW number on it right now.

Edit: found it, RCW 9A.36.070

imported post

SpyderTattoo wrote:

Yes, I'm glad to see you read about my incident. At this very minute I'm typing up an email to my attorney describing my encounter. My attorney is going to draft up an official letter and send it to KPD. The only reason I concealed my gun was for the benefit of my wife and daughter, who were both very embarrassed by the whole thing.

I do believe the officer may have broken the law regarding coercion. I read an RCW about it, but can't find the exact RCW number on it right now.

Edit: found it, RCW 9A.36.070

Click to expand...

We met at Jarhead's last Sunday. I came with DEROS72



Like I said, you did exactly what I think you should have done under the circumstances. Now you're addressing the legal aspects. Some people here seem to have forgotten that it's the courts that rule on the law, not the man on the street.

Sure, the cop is breaking the law, but it's most likely through ignorance, rather than malice.

imported post

Bookman wrote:

I joined this forum a little over a week ago...

...We need to...

...you represent the rest of us in a VERY bad light.

Click to expand...

I agree, somewhat, with your third point, however, what often appears as bickering is usually just normal forum banter. After all, not everyone is going to agree completely on any subject or topic. I also greatly dislike personal attacks though, and find myself wishing I was a moderator so I could stop them when they happen.

I think you’re being a little condescending in your first two, to the point of being insulting. If you’ve only just begun here it’s better to listen and learn from the ones that have been around a while and offer your opinions after you’ve mastered the subject matter. Some of us have had our rights under Article 1 Section 7 violated enough to know, much better than you, how best to react in a given situation.

Speaking only for myself, I’m neither an activist nor an educator. I don’t carry pamphlets and I don’t quote the law to passersby. I stand behind my belief that my carry is lawful and typical, and would like to go about my day to day business without being harassed. Like Greta Garbo; I just want to be left alone. My reaction to having my privacy violated by agents of the state is not fixed, but dependent upon the situation and the attitude of the person doing the violating. If the officer seems open to dialog, I will engage him or her in a conversation. If the officer is failing in his or her duty as a public servant then I will act as disgusted as I am feeling. If that’s not good enough for you, an admittedly new participant to this forum, then it’s just something you’ll have to learn to live with. I’m never going to adjust my behavior to fit your expectations.

imported post

Bookman wrote:

Sure, the cop is breaking the law, but it's most likely through ignorance, rather than malice.

Click to expand...

I think you are giving some cops way to much credit. When they do it twice, even after being told it's illegal, that's malice on somebody's part.

Oh yeah, isn't it their job to know the law and if they don't know it, find out what it actually says rather than make it up as they see fit?

imported post

I don,t think I would strictly depend on the court to sort out a bad encounter after the fact .I will stand up for my rights as a responsible gun owner at the time of said encounter.i.e. a couple of weeks ago when a security guard no less told me I could not carry openly or I could be arrested. I wasn,t about to say "Oh sorry I 'll bend to your ignorance and stop carrying "I quickly reminded him at that time of the rcws.I do carry pamphlets around everywhere.Most have been given to curious folks that just did not their rights.I firmly believe if one does not take a stand at the time ,and if enough people just take a passifist "we'll sort it out later"attitude is how we will eventually have our rights gradually stripped from us.I don,t seek confrontation but will take a stand when nessesary.I also agree with Bear in the quoted conversation posted in that dispatchers need to be educated as well.In a majority of instances I read here it is a LEO that instgates a confrontation by stopping you in the first place or drawing down on you when he has no call or right to do so....In my opinion the 2nd ammendemnt is non negociable and changes to should not even be allowed to bedebated just as the 1st.....After all look what happened in Austrailia.Pasifist attitude resulted in a door to door gun collections.They are now defenseless.

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

Bookman wrote:

I joined this forum a little over a week ago...

...We need to...

...you represent the rest of us in a VERY bad light.

Click to expand...

I agree, somewhat, with your third point, however, what often appears as bickering is usually just normal forum banter. After all, not everyone is going to agree completely on any subject or topic. I also greatly dislike personal attacks though, and find myself wishing I was a moderator so I could stop them when they happen.

I think you’re being a little condescending in your first two, to the point of being insulting. If you’ve only just begun here it’s better to listen and learn from the ones that have been around a while and offer your opinions after you’ve mastered the subject matter. Some of us have had our rights under Article 1 Section 7 violated enough to know, much better than you, how best to react in a given situation.

Speaking only for myself, I’m neither an activist nor an educator. I don’t carry pamphlets and I don’t quote the law to passersby. I stand behind my belief that my carry is lawful and typical, and would like to go about my day to day business without being harassed. Like Greta Garbo; I just want to be left alone. My reaction to having my privacy violated by agents of the state is not fixed, but dependent upon the situation and the attitude of the person doing the violating. If the officer seems open to dialog, I will engage him or her in a conversation. If the officer is failing in his or her duty as a public servant then I will act as disgusted as I am feeling. If that’s not good enough for you, an admittedly new participant to this forum, then it’s just something you’ll have to learn to live with. I’m never going to adjust my behavior to fit your expectations.

Click to expand...

Granted, I may have sounded condescending. If so, I apologize. That wasn't intentional. I was just giving my opinion on the subject.

As for the LEO encounters, I've noticed that most have turned out well, but that some, who were not there, espouse an "in your face" attitude when dealing with cops. IMHO this is counterproductive, as it has more potential to escalate than defuse a situation. All I'm saying is to let the courts handle the legalities. Use the system against them if necessary.


I guess what I'm trying to say here is to keep as civil AS POSSIBLE.

imported post

Bookman wrote:

SNIP 1. There seems to be quite the "us v. them" mentality on here when it comes to LEO, even though some of them are members of the forum. We need to remember that they have a tough job to do. They put their lives on the line every time they make a traffic stop. If they're not cautious they're dead. We need to try to put ourselves in their shoes before we castigate every move they make.

Click to expand...

Well, you've stepped in it now.

'sOK. We'll give you more latitude as a new guy.

This has come up before. Here are some excerptedremarks of mine from a previous discussion:



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 theseactionsbycertain 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 leastshowing he believesthat 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 a kind ofus-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 to get us those rights? 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." In fact the detective said, "Everything Prof. Duane told you is true." So, there we have a law school professor, a detective, and aSupreme Court justice 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 acitizen 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.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=13418&forum_id=65&highlight=Citizen+Responds

imported post

Bookman wrote:

SNIP Most of the time when a LEO encounter goes the wrong way, it's through ignorance. Education cures ignorance.

Click to expand...

As Rafiki says to Simba in Lion King, "Look closer."

We've found that the problem isn't ignorance. Its a willingness to assert their authority in the absence of personal certainty that OC is illegal.

This is otherwise known as exceeding their authority. Or making it up as they go along.

Unless the officer knows to a dead moral certainty thatOC is illegal, as in, "I've personally read the statute and know its prohibited," the officer has no business stopping an OCer until he has checked the statutes and discovered for sure.

Actually, its only coincidental that these cops show up on our radar. Its only coincidentally related to guns. I've got five dollars that says these cops didn't pick their encounter with an OCer as the first time to violate someone's 4th Amendment rights.

imported post

Bookman wrote:

SNIP Speaking of LEO encounters, there seem to be a lot of members here want to turn an encounter into a confrontation.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by confrontation.

imported post

Bookman wrote:

SNIP There is entirely too much backbiting and bickering on here. Personal insults are for the playground and you lose your credibility when you resort to them.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

Considering the responses this thread has garnered so farI must concede that I've spoken too soon and need to learn more about the subject.

My apologies to anyone I may have offended.


Edit: I still stand by the comment about the bickering and fighting. Calling someone a "Dumbass" is NOT healthy discussion.

imported post

Bookman wrote:

Considering the responses this thread has garnered so farI must concede that I've spoken too soon and need to learn more about the subject.

My apologies to anyone I may have offended.


Edit: I still stand by the comment about the bickering and fighting. Calling someone a "Dumbass" is NOT healthy discussion.

Click to expand...

Wow!

Lock the doors, fellas. Don't let him get away!

We need more like him!

imported post

I also think backing down from an illegal stop brought on by an uniformedLEO is not going to help keep our rights .I am always polite when talking with a LEo and will continue to be so even in telling him in a particular instance he is wrong.Again do I think all Leos are bad guys?Of course not.But again if we allow ourselves to be bullied by an officer as someone said ,making it up as he goes along ,will only encourage that particular behavior to continue.

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

SNIP I also think backing down from an illegal stop brought on by an uniformedLEO is not going to help keep our rights .I am always polite when talking with a LEo and will continue to be so even in telling him in a particular instance he is wrong.Again do I think all Leos are bad guys?Of course not.But again if we allow ourselves to be bullied by an officer as someone said ,making it up as he goes along ,will only encourage that particular behavior to continue.

Click to expand...

May I just make one distinction? For the benefit of the newer guys.

We've definitely learned that it does no good to try to educate a negative LEO during an encounter. They are not interested and it has never once worked that I recall.

The distinction is that you can use your certainty on the law toimply tothe officer that you are not going to be pushed around.

This would be a little different than education. You would not be trying to convince* the officer. You would just politely let him know that you are confident you know the law.



*Realize that if he is trying to intimidate you, he's not interested in being convinced, not interested in what the law saysone way or the other. He's using his assertion about the lawto get you to waver and fold. That would be his interest--you wavering and folding. Trying to educate him will only lead him to strengthen his effort or try another intimidation tactic.