Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Why do law enforcement officers fear OC?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    Is it because they think all people who OC are bad and are just looking forward to a shoot out? WTF? They know it's legal yet still make an arrest when coming across someone who OC.

    They feel if everyone OC, they wouldn't feel like the top dogs anymore? I can't even imagine OC'ing in Fond du lac county. Those cops have nothing to do and I bet the whole department will come if someone OC'ed there.

    No offense to any LEOs in here by the way...

  2. #2
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    The AGs opinion applies from border to border. All the police in that county got the memo like all the others did. Just go carry, it's legal and they know it.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    I believe our relations with law enforcement need some improvement. Yet we also need to put our foot down. Police in this case are really nothing to "fear". I hope we develope a better relationship over time. If a police officer does aproach you act nice and cordial. You do not need to give any specific information I believe unless they have reason to believe you may or have committed a crime, as in the Terry case which I need to become more familiar with.

    Keep your hands away from your weapon, greet the officer and tell him you are lawfully open carrying and ask if there is anything you need to be concerned about. And also say right away that you don't concent to any search or seizure Where you go from there is up to you. Personally when I do run to the store I don't have time for an officer to check if I have any constitutional rights. If after I ask "do you have any reasonable suspicion that I have or will commit a crime" and more than likely they'll say no, then I'll ask if I'm free to go. Which he should say yes and you can leave with no information given, and with minimal wasted time out of your day.



    Ben

  4. #4
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Members of the LEO community are not automatically different (education, open minded, etc) than the general public. The general public mindset in WI is that OC is not normal and that those who OC must be up to no good....

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    BJA wrote:
    I believe our relations with law enforcement need some improvement. Yet we also need to put our foot down. Police in this case are really nothing to "fear". I hope we develope a better relationship over time. If a police officer does aproach you act nice and cordial. You do not need to give any specific information I believe unless they have reason to believe you may or have committed a crime, as in the Terry case which I need to become more familiar with.

    Keep your hands away from your weapon, greet the officer and tell him you are lawfully open carrying and ask if there is anything you need to be concerned about. And also say right away that you don't concent to any search or seizure Where you go from there is up to you. Personally when I do run to the store I don't have time for an officer to check if I have any constitutional rights. If after I ask "do you have any reasonable suspicion that I have or will commit a crime" and more than likely they'll say no, then I'll ask if I'm free to go. Which he should say yes and you can leave with no information given, and with minimal wasted time out of your day.



    Ben
    In the case of the city of Milwaukee I could see how this would be the general scenario because of their past practice.
    However, In some of the smaller towns and cities I would have to say that maybe taking the time to simply chit chat with the officer and for lack of a better phrase " do a little social work." This may prove to be one of our best weapons in the fight for our rights.
    If the officer has a conversation with you and feels you are a mature law abiding citizen simply exercising your rights, he will feel more at ease as well. The next time he gets a call for a man with a gun and he drives by the most you may get from him will probably be a wave.
    Lets be real here. Not all cops are asshats. Some actually support our cause and are simply doing their job as instructed by their superiors.
    I am sure there are just as many of them that are trying to allow us our rights as there are those who oppose.
    In the case where you run into one of those "asshat" cops, then by all means as soon as you have become aware that this isn't a friendly stop then by all means follow Ben's advice.

    " Keep your hands away from your weapon, greet the officer and tell him you are lawfully open carrying and ask if there is anything you need to be concerned about. And also say right away that you don't concent to any search or seizure Where you go from there is up to you. Personally when I do run to the store I don't have time for an officer to check if I have any constitutional rights. If after I ask "do you have any reasonable suspicion that I have or will commit a crime" and more than likely they'll say no, then I'll ask if I'm free to go. Which he should say yes and you can leave with no information given, and with minimal wasted time out of your day."

    But remember, when possible social work maybe our best weapon.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    soulless wrote:
    I can't even imagine OC'ing in Fond du lac county. Those cops have nothing to do and I bet the whole department will come if someone OC'ed there.
    I have OC'd in Fond du lac with no issues.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Members of the LEO community are not automatically different (education, open minded, etc) than the general public. The general public mindset in WI is that OC is not normal and that those who OC must be up to no good....
    That is why the more they see OC the more they are used to it.

  8. #8
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    They know it's legal yet still make an arrest when coming across someone who OC.
    No one has been arrested for Open Carrying since the AG memo
    If after I ask "do you have any reasonable suspicion that I have or will commit a crime" and more than likely they'll say no, then I'll ask if I'm free to go. Which he should say yes and you can leave with no information given, and with minimal wasted time out of your day.

    As a reputable attorney has relayed to me. A cop does NOT need to articulate to YOU what their reasonable suspicion is.

    I think what we've all seen since the AG memo is that there is a significantly greater amount of awareness.

    Other than the grand ave. mall cop who called the police on eluthera, I'm not aware of anyone else who has had ANY encounter with police. And we have hundreds and hundreds of known open carry instances out there.
    The general public mindset in WI is that OC is not normal and that those who OC must be up to no good....
    I disagree. Post AG memo, As stated above, I think the evidence that dozens and dozens of us OC all the time in everyplace from bed-bath-and-beyond to home depot to banks and everywhere in between and not ONE single instance of anyone freaking out or calling the police or anything.

    I agree that seeing someone OC is 'out of the ordinary' for a lot of folks, but DEFINITELY don't think people assume you must be up to no good. They ASSUME you are a law enforcement or government employee usually. Not that you are up to no good. That's the first question most people ask 'are you a cop?'

    The general public mindset in WI is that those who OC are 'good guys'.
    I can't even imagine OC'ing in Fond du lac county. Those cops have nothing to do and I bet the whole department will come if someone OC'ed there.
    lol... here is another example of what I talked about in another thread. Everyone in every location thinks that 'their' police department is somehow more overzealous than the next.









  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    I OC'd at Fleet Farm in FdL...no worries. I made it home safe and my dog is still alive.

  10. #10
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Members of the LEO community are not automatically different (education, open minded, etc) than the general public. The general public mindset in WI is that OC is not normal and that those who OC must be up to no good....
    If that mindset is correct then all uniformed cops are up to no good! go figure.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    lockman wrote:
    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Members of the LEO community are not automatically different (education, open minded, etc) than the general public. The general public mindset in WI is that OC is not normal and that those who OC must be up to no good....
    If that mindset is correct then all uniformed cops are up to no good! go figure.

    If only the general public was aware enough to understand the point you are making...
    Part of the falacy is that wehave the police to protect us so we do not have to be concerned with protecting ourselves.:?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cudahy,Wi., , USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Because they dont like the idea we are better shots and we have better guns.

    Pat

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    soulless wrote:
    Why do law enforcement officers fear OC?
    Why are they called enforcement officers? Better, sworn law officers and remove force from their lexicon.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    soulless wrote:
    Why do law enforcement officers fear OC?
    Why are they called enforcement officers? Better, sworn law officers and remove force from their lexicon.
    Beg to differ, Doug.

    Better to capitalize it--enFORCEment officers--so nobody can miss what some of themare really about. Maybe help a few morepeople de-program themselves from the PR image spin of Officer Friendly whose entire purpose is to Protect and Serve. (barf).
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I think that LEO's fear of guns in the hands of the public is a result of their environment not necessarily their training or attitudes. Because they are involved 24/7 with the lower order of society many of them bcome suspicious of all society. As a result of their environment guns become a specter of death. They can't accept that there are "bad" guns and there are "good" guns. To them all guns are killing machines with them in their sights. They type cast the law abiding gun carrier with the "scum' they deal with.

    Fortunately we have the privlege of having some LEO's on this forum that do know the difference and my hat is off to them. All we can do with the rest is through our conduct and communications win them over a little at a time. That will happen as we have more "cook outs" and open carry activity and demonstrate that we are peaceful. What we do have to be concerned about is that some "Rambo" doesn't go off "half-cocked" and screw it up for us. I know from my 60 years of hunting experience that there are people out there that shouldn't be allowed to get within twenty feet of a loaded firearm, yet because of what they think is their new found freedom a number of them will strap on a gun and "strut their stuff". Recently there was such a situation when a bicyclist who obviously did not know the state firearm lawsstrapped on a gun and strayed into a school zone. He broke two laws. He carried an uncased firearm within 1000feet of a school and he carried an uncased firearm on a vehicle. Fortunatelythe infractionsturned out good for us, but what would have happened if the muggers weren't there and some overzealous cop arrested him for encroaching on the two laws. That is why we must stay "squeaky clean". That is the only way we will win over LEO's that fear guns in the hands of the public.



  16. #16
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    I know from my 60 years of hunting experience that there are people out there that shouldn't be allowed to get within twenty feet of a loaded firearm, yet because of what they think is their new found freedom a number of them will strap on a gun and "strut their stuff".
    So you support mandatory training before people can exercise their constitutional right to OC?

  17. #17
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    I know from my 60 years of hunting experience that there are people out there that shouldn't be allowed to get within twenty feet of a loaded firearm, yet because of what they think is their new found freedom a number of them will strap on a gun and "strut their stuff".
    So you support mandatory training before people can exercise their constitutional right to OC?
    It's an interesting question, but I think I'd agree there are people who shouldn't be allowed within 20 feet of a loaded firearm too. More precisely, I would prefer NOT to be around them if they are within reach of a firearm. I've seen them at shooting ranges too many times. Usually trying to impress a girl, or their friends, or lacking those-- trying to impress themself. The training part is irrelevant in their cases because I don't think any amount of training will help them!

    No, I don't support mandatory training.

    But getting back to your question-- as you know, unless you were born before 1973 you DO have to go through mandatory training before you can exercise your constitutional right to hunt in Wisconsin. So it's a real, not just a hypothetical question you raise. I foresee someone arguing someday that this precedence will somehow be used to try to institute mandatory training before we can CCW. I'm somewhat shocked that mandatory training prior to hunting hasn't been challenged. At least I'm not aware of any legal challenge to it. Maybe someone ought to before the next attempt at passing a CCW law. (The way things are going for CCW that gives them plenty of time.)




    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    hugh jarmis wrote:
    I know from my 60 years of hunting experience that there are people out there that shouldn't be allowed to get within twenty feet of a loaded firearm, yet because of what they think is their new found freedom a number of them will strap on a gun and "strut their stuff".
    So you support mandatory training before people can exercise their constitutional right to OC?
    It's an interesting question, but I think I'd agree there are people who shouldn't be allowed within 20 feet of a loaded firearm too. More precisely, I would prefer NOT to be around them if they are within reach of a firearm. I've seen them at shooting ranges too many times. Usually trying to impress a girl, or their friends, or lacking those-- trying to impress themself. The training part is irrelevant in their cases because I don't think any amount of training will help them!

    No, I don't support mandatory training.

    But getting back to your question-- as you know, unless you were born before 1973 you DO have to go through mandatory training before you can exercise your constitutional right to hunt in Wisconsin. So it's a real, not just a hypothetical question you raise. I foresee someone arguing someday that this precedence will somehow be used to try to institute mandatory training before we can CCW. I'm somewhat shocked that mandatory training prior to hunting hasn't been challenged. At least I'm not aware of any legal challenge to it. Maybe someone ought to before the next attempt at passing a CCW law. (The way things are going for CCW that gives them plenty of time.)



    I guess the only reason why mandatory training is required for hunting in WI is because most new hunters are kid under 18. I had to take my hunter's safety course for 3 days.. 8 hrs per and 95% were kids under 16. I don't have much of a problem with mandatory training before allowed to hunt, but for CCW... no way!



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    308Panther wrote:
    Because they dont like the idea we are better shots and we have better guns.

    Pat
    or that more of us are around. The cops may feel a bit intimidated by us?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    Stoney-Point wrote:
    I OC'd at Fleet Farm in FdL...no worries. I made it home safe and my dog is still alive.
    nice.. now this is funny. I'm Asian. I can already sense the public will look at me a bit differently... Whatever it is, I'm a good guy and that's all I care...

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Article I section 26: The people have the right to hunt, fish and trap, and take game subject only to to reasonable regulation as preescribed by law. April 2003.

    Fortunately Article I section 25 does not have --subject only to reasonable regulation-- attached to it.

    Part of the "reasonable regulation" of Art I sec 26 is mandatory firearm instruction for anyone born after 1973. I took my training in 1997. I was born in 1939. Believe it or not even though some members might consider me a @#%%$ know-it-all I learned some things I didn't know.

    No, Nik, I don't support mandatory firearm training in order to exercise the rights given by Article I section 25 but there certainly are a number of people with guns that could benefit fromvoluntary training. I learned very early in life that once you pull the trigger no power on earth can bring a bullet back. There is no "push the reset button" and start the game over. Dead is dead. The intent of my comment on my hunting experiences is that there are apparently a number of people that haven't got that message.

  22. #22
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    soulless wrote:
    I guess the only reason why mandatory training is required for hunting in WI is because most new hunters are kid under 18. I had to take my hunter's safety course for 3 days.. 8 hrs per and 95% were kids under 16. I don't have much of a problem with mandatory training before allowed to hunt, but for CCW... no way!
    Perhaps true, but the requirement isn't only that kids must have mandatory training. If you were born in 1974 you are not a kid, you're 33-34 years old. So, if you're recently discharged from the military, served a couple of tours in the infantry in Iraq or Afghanistan, 30 years old, and move to Wisconsin and wish to hunt but haven't taken that mandatory class.... you'll be sitting in there with the 12 year olds.

    I'm just pointing out ironies and inconsistencies. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  23. #23
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Fortunately Article I section 25 does not have --subject only to reasonable regulation-- attached to it.
    It's not in the wording, but it's just as good as attached-- by the court in cases such as Hamdan, et al....
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  24. #24
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    No, Nik, I don't support mandatory firearm training in order to exercise the rights given by Article I section 25 but there certainly are a number of people with guns that could benefit fromvoluntary training.
    Well truth be told, I think everyone "could" benefit from voluntary training. Then again I think every person on the road who already has a drivers license could benefit from anadvanced driving techniques class also.

    But I'll also say that, (and I've only been hunting since I was 10, so 24 years) I've never hunted with a person that I thought didn't "have any business with a gun".

    And I've never seen anyone, even the best of hunterswith 100% perfect muzzle awareness. But amazingly, deaths from hunting are not accidental discharge, they are heart attacks, and intentional trigger pulls that either are not aware of the backrop or sound shots.

    For all the people on here that know "gun owners that have no business owning guns" and thats just a micro-slice of the population of gun owners, where are all the news reports of accidental discharge into one's leg or innocent bystanders?

    Evidently EVEN the "morons that shouldn't have guns" are someone managing to not throw lead in unintended directions...

    Thats why I think all the talk about it is more elitist gun owners chest thumping than legitimate issues.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Well Nik: Maybe I am an eletist gun owner, but have you ever witnessed a member of your hunting party shot (fortunately not killed) by a drunk hunter(a stranger) ? I have.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •