• 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.

It was my first time......haha

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Armed-CA wrote:
Although todays episode ended well, I am kindof upset about the freaking mall cops reaction. Then the guy told the cops it was loaded, he never asked, I never told.
Sounds like he made a false report. I would call his supervisor and explain that this creates both criminal liability for the guard, and civil liability for the guard and the employer. Ask the supervisor how (s)he intends to deal with the situation.

Also, next time don't call the PD to cooperate. It's none of their business if you're carrying a gun. If they happen to catch up with you, comply under protest.

And why would you care about people that treat you with such disrespect? If one of my LE friends talked to me like that I'd tell him where he can stick his badge.
 

Mykal

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
67
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Armed-CA wrote:
Although todays episode ended well, I am kindof upset about the freaking mall cops reaction. Then the guy told the cops it was loaded, he never asked, I never told.
Sounds like he made a false report. I would call his supervisor and explain that this creates both criminal liability for the guard, and civil liability for the guard and the employer. Ask the supervisor how (s)he intends to deal with the situation.

Also, next time don't call the PD to cooperate. It's none of their business if you're carrying a gun. If they happen to catch up with you, comply under protest.

And why would you care about people that treat you with such disrespect? If one of my LE friends talked to me like that I'd tell him where he can stick his badge.
i agree. if he made a false report it could cost him his guard card, and damage the reputation of the employer. see if you can request a copy of the report from the company. they always write it in a log book. if they deny ask if you can prove it was you by verifying the license plate number of your vehicle to match the report.

SO's are to report only the facts. not opinion. observe and report.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
imported post

Armed-CA wrote:
Yeah, I'm a little wary of filing a complaint against him as I know him pretty well, and have two other local cops, out of a force of 54, that I know even better.



Todays encounter sucks because it truly does kind of make me not want to carry here in town anymore. I just don't want them to look poorly upon me, it just sucks that they aren't better educated.

Any way we can get a c"Continuing Education" group together that would be willing to schedule CE classes in cities and counties that people have issues in? I mean, we could invite all local law enforcement, security agencies, even D.A.'s and judges.



Although todays episode ended well, I am kindof upset about the freaking mall cops reaction. Then the guy told the cops it was loaded, he never asked, I never told.
Don't matter if he is your best friend, FILE A COMPLAINT!

If police subjugate your rights then your only option is to pursue legal action against them.

Do it for OCing men and women everywhere.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Not too much to complain about as he called the PD and said here I am if you want to talk. He consented to everything else. The statement of "don't do it again" might be some kind of policy violation (that angle won't go anywhere)but it is still just the officers opinion.


I'm not a big fan of UOCing at malls (just yet) personally as they have active security (rent-a-ninjas)that will over react as this activity is still generally misunderstood due to high profile national media mall shootings.


Mom and pop stores, restaurants, supermarkets, open strip-malls etc... seam to be non-issue locations generally and help us "normalize" carry in the publics and LEO's eyes with less controversy and fewer potential trespassing issues.

If possible, I strongly encourage having friendly witnesses during UOC and not being alone also seams to give a less threatening profile.



A-CA,

You may want to start a dialog with a supervisor and suggest training the officer's along the lines of the Ca. Peace Officer Association's open carry letter and let them know you and others will be doing this in the future.

Make it a polite letter, but explain the self-defense motivations or CCW reform angles you may have. And that you wish to avoid an adversarial relationship with LEOs.

Don't let this deter you it is just a bump along the road. I still don't know why you called them but since you're on a first name basisplease continue the dialog and invite them to read this site and check out californiaopencarry.orgfor further information.

Carry On!



photo by oleg volk:
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

cato wrote:
Maybe we'll find out after the 48 hrs. thing runs out and he's 849ed ;)
What is this 48 hrs thing you write about? Are you talking about the time limit within which the DA must file a complaint against you if you are in custody.No cop is his right mind is going to babysit anyone for 48 hrs only to 849PC them and no cop supervisor is going toallow such a thing. If you are going to be cut free at allit's gonna happen quickly under 849PC or its not gonna happen until much later when the DA decides to reject the case. DA rejections are a completely different thing than 849pc.
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
You'll be filing a formal complaint for that final statement from LEO1, yes?

Things turned out fine, and that's good. It could also have gone not so good during the police encounterat your house.

There is 4th Amendment case law regarding what circumstances the police need before they can "pat you down" "for their safety". According to my understanding, none were present, except your consent. Meaning, you could have refused consent tothe search of your person and any involuntary pat down would have been illegal.
What is there to beef about? There was obviously a relationship betweenArmed-CA and this cop. It seems to be a friendly one. The cop spoke as if to a friend and although he seems to have been advising our hero to not use the law as he is allowed to, I'm having trouble finding any rudeness, vulgarity or conduct unbecoming that is actionable. By pushing him to file a beef you are pushing him into damaging a useful friendship. Rather than pissing in this guy's boot, how about using this "teachable moment" to everyone's benefit. Filing complaints on chicken s&%t incidents only builds animosity and decreases the chances that your servants (the police) will actually care about you and your rights.

Now on to the legal side. Lets assume that our hero didn't invite the PoPo to his house and grant consent for everything that happened (which he did). The PoPo were perfectly justified in patting him down. The incident that precipitated the contact was a man with a gun call. It doesn't matter if the mall ninja may or may not have reported the the gun was loaded. There is no way that he could know and there is very little chance that the police would take his word about the status of the gun anyway. The police see a guy that is reported to have been carrying a gun. Cops, carrying loadedguns all the time and having been trained to treat all guns as if they are always loaded, reasonablysuspectthat it is likelythata gun worn on the person is liable tobe loaded.Them pesky laws give them plenty of reason to make an enforcement contact. The gun is not now visible. Cops know how easy it is for visible guns to become invisible. The cop has an unreasonable desire to know what is in his environment and to go home unperforated at the end of his watch.(where is Cal-Osha when you need them to protect workers).The Supremes have told this cop that if he reasonably suspectsthat a crime may have been committed and the person in front of him is likely to be involved that he can do a minimally invasive feeling of the outside of the person's clothing to ascertain whether or not that person is armed (Terry anyone?). The cops do a frisk, find nothing, hand out some unsolicited but well meaning advise and go away. Where's the beef? You don't like the way this plays out? Take it up with your legislators and the Supremes.

Not that openly carrying a gunis a crime in itself but under our current set of tribal mores it is certainly an incident worthy of investigation under the community caretaker role police play. (you don't like this, change your community. I know, I know, that's what you are trying to do.)

Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making,running dog lackies of The Man.
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:
Don't matter if he is your best friend, FILE A COMPLAINT!

If police subjugate your rights then your only option is to pursue legal action against them.

Do it for OCing men and women everywhere.

There are other options. How about using the opportunity for education. Do you want your waiter happy to serve you or do you want him giving you grudging service and spitting in your burger when you can't see him.

Would youcomplain if the cop gave you a bit of a lecture about your bad driving and set you loose with out a ticket? Do you bitch about sexual harrasment laws when you don't tell that really funny joke at work? Do you sue everyone who steps on your toe?

The world is shades of grey not black and white. That black and white world view is what has gotten us this over legalistic world we are saddled with now.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
pullnshoot25 wrote:
Don't matter if he is your best friend, FILE A COMPLAINT!

If police subjugate your rights then your only option is to pursue legal action against them.

Do it for OCing men and women everywhere.

There are other options. How about using the opportunity for education. Do you want your waiter happy to serve you or do you want him giving you grudging service and spitting in your burger when you can't see him.

Would youcomplain if the cop gave you a bit of a lecture about your bad driving and set you loose with out a ticket? Do you bitch about sexual harrasment laws when you don't tell that really funny joke at work? Do you sue everyone who steps on your toe?

The world is shades of grey not black and white. That black and white world view is what has gotten us this over legalistic world we are saddled with now.

If I catch the waiter pissing in my soup, I want him fired. This will ensure that any future waiters will know NOT to do something so stupid in the future.

If I catch a police officer violating my rights, I want him disciplined, retrained, or gotten rid of if that doesn't work.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
What is there to beef about?...
What the hell are you thinking? Stop posting your crap opinion.













Before you fly off the handle, realize that I posted the above statements to prove a point. If you were paying attention, I used almost the exact wording the cop used toward Armed-CA. Not so nice, huh?

The cop was being an @#$%... unless they really are friends, and Armed-CA finds that sort of talking-down-to acceptable... Even then, when on duty, he's a cop before a friend, and should check his attitude. Nobody should have to put up with a public servant treating them like that.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
What is there to beef about? There was obviously a relationship betweenArmed-CA and this cop. It seems to be a friendly one. The cop spoke as if to a friend and although he seems to have been advising our hero to not use the law as he is allowed to, I'm having trouble finding any rudeness, vulgarity or conduct unbecoming that is actionable. By pushing him to file a beef you are pushing him into damaging a useful friendship. Rather than pissing in this guy's boot, how about using this "teachable moment" to everyone's benefit...

(my emphasis above)

I agree with you AND CA_Libertarian, but choosing the route to take is difficult.

It does seem that the officer treated him as not much of a friend or acquaintance, but why go into guerilla attack mode if it can be avoided? I think the OP can gain some ground here without laying waste (figuratively) to the officer and the police department.

Usually, someone starting out OCing has this kind of interaction (mine was a 3 cop stop at gunpoint) and unless you've undertaken OC fully informed and determined to shred anyone who does something unprofessional or illegal to you, you're gonna pause and carefully analyze what the next step should be. I think that's only natural.

To the OP: I would have an informal conversation with LEO1, letting him know that you have decided that it's important to exercise a right that many think does not exist, making it clear that you have no intention of debating with him about the matter. Decide your path forward based on the tone and content of the conversation.

You could have an opportunity to educate the department, and working up a training class on the matter (as someone here in Ohio has done), or you could be told you'll be "dealt with severely".

Either way, don't give up. The cop wasn't the only one "kept from important things".

P.S. - Armed-CA: you gave up a number of your rights during the interaction you described. That's normal too for a beginner, but you need to be more firm as time goes on.
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
grumpycoconut wrote:
What is there to beef about?...
What the hell are you thinking? Stop posting your crap opinion.

Before you fly off the handle, realize that I posted the above statements to prove a point. If you were paying attention, I used almost the exact wording the cop used toward Armed-CA. Not so nice, huh?

The cop was being an @#$%... unless they really are friends, and Armed-CA finds that sort of talking-down-to acceptable... Even then, when on duty, he's a cop before a friend, and should check his attitude. Nobody should have to put up with a public servant treating them like that.

My skin ain't that thin. I'm used to hearing grown up words and I've even used a few of them. My drill sergeants learned me real gud. For some reason or another some of my friends have even used grown up language with me too sometimes. As for whether or not the cop was being an @#$%... or not, absent a recording, can any of us really say? Now how about that bit about being a cop before being a friend. Do you really believe that? My paternal uncle the cop was once coldly prefessional with my maternal grandfather 50 years ago and the story is still told not only at my family's table but by old folks in town who knew both of these men before they died. You should try making friends (real friends not "this business cardmight get me out of tickets" friends)with a cop sometime. You must really expect inhuman performance from human cops. I might brag about being hard enough to write my own mom a ticket, but that's only because she can be a real b!#*% sometimes. And for all you know my opinion might very well be crap!

***Hey Citizen! I just confessed that cops sometimes let personal considerations color their official actions.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
The Supremes have told this cop that if he reasonably suspectsthat a crime may have been committed and the person in front of him is likely to be involved that he can do a minimally invasive feeling of the outside of the person's clothing to ascertain whether or not that person is armed (Terry anyone?).
I guess this is where I get iffy on the behavior of the police in question. A security guard reports this guy as carrying a loaded weapon, the guy leaves, goes home, and calls the cops to let them know where he is. The police show up and are under no expedient circumstance to immediately confront the suspect. They have ample time to consider the situation and review the penal code. They knock on the suspect's door, he answers and complies with their request to come outside to talk to them.

Now here is my question: at this point, do the cops reasonably suspect that a crime has been committed? I would answer no, and here is why.

The security guard couldn't have known if the gun was loaded unless he could somehow tell from the outside appearance of the gun. Any police officer should know that it would be rather hard to tell if a gun is loaded by observing it on another person. The police had ample time to review the law, so they should have concluded that the only crime the suspect could have committed would be carrying a loaded weapon. The suspect is behaving in a manner which a criminal typically wouldn't exhibit with his extreme cooperation. But despite all of this, the police conduct a Terry search for weapons.

Obviously this is a gray area in terms of having reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed, but I feel that they shouldn't have conducted the Terry search based on the information at hand.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
cato wrote:
Maybe we'll find out after the 48 hrs. thing runs out and he's 849ed ;)
What is this 48 hrs thing you write about?


making a joke I thought would be understood by most here (48 hrs)

photo by previously named:
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making,running dog lackies of The Man.


c'mon officer be straight with us don't beat around the bush, tell us how you really feel...:lol:

I do try to keep good relations with our "elitist, boot licking, political contribution making,running dog lackies of The Man" brother CCers on occasion however ;)



by mudcamper (with inspiration provided by B. Franklin)
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
grumpycoconut wrote:
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making,running dog lackies of The Man.
c'mon officer be straight with us don't beat around the bush, tell us how you really feel...:lol:
I somehow totally missed that post by grumpycoconut...

I'm not sure if the sentiment about CC'ers was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Either way, I like it. It fits in CA, at least. Now, if CC were decriminalized, I would disagree. It's not the method of carry that disgusts me, it is what people give up in order to get the permit.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
cato wrote:
grumpycoconut wrote:
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making,running dog lackies of The Man.
c'mon officer be straight with us don't beat around the bush, tell us how you really feel...:lol:
I somehow totally missed that post by grumpycoconut...

I'm not sure if the sentiment about CC'ers was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Either way, I like it. It fits in CA, at least. Now, if CC were decriminalized, I would disagree. It's not the method of carry that disgusts me, it is what people give up in order to get the permit.


It's fun to talk that way but very divisive for those who don't understand that position. I was a CCWer for about 6 years and drank the cool aid of "society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed" etc... and after 6 years I realized the CCW is a pain in the backside with keeping it concealed and I alsolearned to hate havingto hide my "rights".

OCing in AZ, NV,and NH was an eye opening experience as well as discovering this site several years ago and it helped to bring be back from the dark side.Citizen, I believe helped most in this transformation and rediscovery of myold personal beliefs - thanks pard!! resulting in my championing CA UOC two years ago as a small step back toward Liberty and personal responsibility for Californians!
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making,running dog lackies of The Man.

Tongue firmly in cheek.

OC vs CC should be strictly a fashion choice.

Personally I hate trying to conceal anything bigger than a J frame or a S&W 908.
 

grumpycoconut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
221
Location
The Left Coast, , USA
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
grumpycoconut wrote:
The Supremes have told this cop that if he reasonably suspectsthat a crime may have been committed and the person in front of him is likely to be involved that he can do a minimally invasive feeling of the outside of the person's clothing to ascertain whether or not that person is armed (Terry anyone?).
I guess this is where I get iffy on the behavior of the police in question. A security guard reports this guy as carrying a loaded weapon, the guy leaves, goes home, and calls the cops to let them know where he is. The police show up and are under no expedient circumstance to immediately confront the suspect. They have ample time to consider the situation and review the penal code. They knock on the suspect's door, he answers and complies with their request to come outside to talk to them.

Now here is my question: at this point, do the cops reasonably suspect that a crime has been committed? I would answer no, and here is why.

The security guard couldn't have known if the gun was loaded unless he could somehow tell from the outside appearance of the gun. Any police officer should know that it would be rather hard to tell if a gun is loaded by observing it on another person. The police had ample time to review the law, so they should have concluded that the only crime the suspect could have committed would be carrying a loaded weapon. The suspect is behaving in a manner which a criminal typically wouldn't exhibit with his extreme cooperation. But despite all of this, the police conduct a Terry search for weapons.

Obviously this is a gray area in terms of having reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed, but I feel that they shouldn't have conducted the Terry search based on the information at hand.

#1 The responding cops were given plenty of information that led them to believe that something funky was afoot (technical legal terms).

#2 Street cops almost never have/make/take the time to do legal research before they get rolling on a radio call. You go, you get there, you gather information, you sort out the players, you try to make sense of it. That's just the way it is.

#2.5 Anyone who believes that cops should know all the applicable laws and supporting case law should keep in mind that California's penal code (the compact version) is 2 1/2 inches thick and is printed in really little letters. The vehicle code is 5 inches thick and is really good if you run out of cinder blocks to hold up your car.

#3 All of the above was made moot because the "suspect" ratted himself out and gave more consent than was good for him. I don't know about you but if someone offers me a cookie I takes it.

#4 There's nothing grey about it. We the people expect the police to investigate our concerns. Citizens call and cops come. That's why I once had to investigate suspicious white powder on the sidewalk one easter morning. It was flour laid out in bunny foot prints.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
cato wrote:
grumpycoconut wrote:
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making,running dog lackies of The Man.
c'mon officer be straight with us don't beat around the bush, tell us how you really feel...:lol:
I somehow totally missed that post by grumpycoconut...

I'm not sure if the sentiment about CC'ers was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Either way, I like it. It fits in CA, at least. Now, if CC were decriminalized, I would disagree. It's not the method of carry that disgusts me, it is what people give up in order to get the permit.


It's fun to talk that way but very divisive for those who don't understand that position. I was a CCWer for about 6 years and drank the cool aid of "society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed" etc... and after 6 years I realized the CCW is a pain in the backside with keeping it concealed and I alsolearned to hate havingto hide my "rights".

OCing in AZ, NV,and NH was an eye opening experience as well as discovering this site several years ago and it helped to bring be back from the dark side.Citizen, I believe helped most in this transformation and rediscovery of myold personal beliefs - thanks pard!! resulting in my championing CA UOC two years ago as a small step back toward Liberty and personal responsibility for Californians!
Cato, where are you located? I think we need to hang out :)
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:
...#2.5 Anyone who believes that cops should know all the applicable laws and supporting case law should keep in mind that California's penal code (the compact version) is 2 1/2 inches thick and is printed in really little letters. The vehicle code is 5 inches thick and is really good if you run out of cinder blocks to hold up your car...
Haven't you heard? Ignorance of the law is no defense! Nobody knows every law on the books, except maybe someone with a photographic memory and WAY too much time on their hands...

I think LEOs should stick to enforcing the laws they know, and stay away from making shit up to persecute lawful behavior they disagree with. Simply feeling that the person's behavior should not be legal is not grounds to violate their rights.

Unless they're an immediate danger to the public, leave them alone until you research the laws enough to know if they are in fact committing a crime.
 
Top