Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: ESPN covers growing resistance to intrusive police tactics against gun owners and hunters

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/h...ory?id=4282016


    SNIP

    Wisconsin is one of 44 U.S. states that are "open carry" states, meaning citizens can carry a firearm as long as it is not concealed. There has been debate about how law enforcement officers should react to someone carrying a gun in public, so the state's attorney general tried to clear things up for officers and prosecutors.

    Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen cited the 1991 Supreme Court case of Florida v. Bostick as guidance for Wisconsin officers on the street or in the fields today.

    "An officer may approach and question someone as long as the questions, the circumstances and the officer's behavior do not convey to the subject that he must comply with the requests," said Hollen's memo. "The person approached need not answer any question. As long as he or she remains free to walk away, there has been no intrusion on liberty requiring a particularized and objective Fourth Amendment justification."

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    You know, I disagree with this line of thought more and more every time I read it.

    Most Americans teach their kids to respect and trust police officers. Yet now we have courts routinely finding no problem with these police officers engaging in actions that would be illegal if they were "demands" but not if they are "requests".

    Not only is it impossible to teach kids to distinguish this difference, is this really what the Law Enforcement Community as a whole wants the general public to become aware of and learn to do for themselves as well? Legal or no, refusing to answer, and walking away from a police officer engaging you in conversation is at the least rude, and if you are dealing with a bad attitude, may get you in serious trouble. And you absolutely can't teach your kids to respect and trust someone in some situations, but ignore and walk away in others. Sometimes getting what you ask for is not a good thing.

    It seems to me it would be a whole lot better to train the police officers to just obey the law, both letter and spirit, and not give them a ridiculous "demand vs. request" loophole that allows them to abuse the rights of law abiding citizens.

    TFred


  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Yeah, Wisconson.



    TFred wrote:
    You know, I disagree with this line of thought more and more every time I read it.

    Most Americans teach their kids to respect and trust police officers. Yet now we have courts routinely finding no problem with these police officers engaging in actions that would be illegal if they were "demands" but not if they are "requests".

    Not only is it impossible to teach kids to distinguish this difference, is this really what the Law Enforcement Community as a whole wants the general public to become aware of and learn to do for themselves as well? Legal or no, refusing to answer, and walking away from a police officer engaging you in conversation is at the least rude, and if you are dealing with a bad attitude, may get you in serious trouble. And you absolutely can't teach your kids to respect and trust someone in some situations, but ignore and walk away in others. Sometimes getting what you ask for is not a good thing.

    It seems to me it would be a whole lot better to train the police officers to just obey the law, both letter and spirit, and not give them a ridiculous "demand vs. request" loophole that allows them to abuse the rights of law abiding citizens.

    TFred
    I teach my kids to have respect for officers but never never never volunteer information without talking to us (the parents). We just have to be diligent about teaching our kids what right and wrong is and that even LEO's are not infallible.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Lets look at searches of boats during fishing too. I cannot even count how many times I was stopped, this certainDNR warden has demanded that I open my livewells for him after him boarding my boat without my permission.

    We used to have a guy named "Kroeplin" working the northern part of the state. I am sure the letters demanding that a warden was to be fired were 95% or more related to Kroeplins tactics. One evening I was prpepping my boat at the designated prep area of the launch, I start pulling forward to get into the launch and this clown cuts me off. I have words with him and he flashes his badge. I told him I do not give a flying "F" who or what he is, he almost caused a wreck!

    Within 30 minutes of me getting settled in my fishing spot, he powers up to me and starts harrassing me for my license, demands to check livewells Etc Ect. And did that to me 3 times in the next 2 hours until I got disgusted enough to leave the lake. After leaving the lake it still was not over. He showed up at my home demanding to check my livewells again.
    While Deer hunting with a bow, his favortie tactic was to wait at someone vehicle on the roadnear closing of the hunting day, if they walked out of the woods and the bow was not in a case, he would cite them for hunting after hours. people would fight the citation only to be found guilty by the county judge up here! there is no law stating a bow must be cased the very minute hunting hours end! but they would be cited and found guilty anyways.

    Snowmobiling season, he was Writing citations for "Non-stock exhaust system" for legal aftermarket systems, and people that would polish or havetheir stockexhaust system coated for sound dampening or rust protection would be wrongfully cited too.

    Now here is the part that really tweaks my beak, especially when in a boat! I have my merchant marine "Master Captains License" for a vessel of 100 tons or less, Unlimited offshore,with 3 approvedinlets on the Atlantic ocean. (Palm Beach, Ft Pierce, & Sebastian) I know more about maritime law and survival tactics than the DNR agents or the coast guard auxilliary does. And I am quite sure my logbook has more hours listed than them too! But since I am in fresh water now, it means nothing!!! I used to captain private yachts and charter boats on FL's east coast.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    However, if there is probable cause or if the gun would be evidence — for example, the hunter was carrying a center fire rifle during muzzleloader season — then there's no question that a hunter must hand over a gun for inspection or even impoundment.
    And if I'm just walking through the woods with a long arm (not hunting) where do I fall? If I'm not hunting do I still have an obligation to comply with orders from a game warden to hand over my weapon for inspection? I doubt my AK or other weapon would meet any hunting standards, but I'm not hunting. Is it illegal to carry a non-regulation weapon during hunting season?

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    You know, I disagree with this line of thought more and more every time I read it.

    Most Americans teach their kids to respect and trust police officers. Yet now we have courts routinely finding no problem with these police officers engaging in actions that would be illegal if they were "demands" but not if they are "requests".

    Not only is it impossible to teach kids to distinguish this difference, is this really what the Law Enforcement Community as a whole wants the general public to become aware of and learn to do for themselves as well? Legal or no, refusing to answer, and walking away from a police officer engaging you in conversation is at the least rude, and if you are dealing with a bad attitude, may get you in serious trouble. And you absolutely can't teach your kids to respect and trust someone in some situations, but ignore and walk away in others. Sometimes getting what you ask for is not a good thing.

    It seems to me it would be a whole lot better to train the police officers to just obey the law, both letter and spirit, and not give them a ridiculous "demand vs. request" loophole that allows them to abuse the rights of law abiding citizens.

    TFred
    I had a very heated argument about this with an Assistant State Attorney who was teaching the Constitutional bit at the Police Academy.

    It was his opinion that a good Police Officer was the one who pressed the limit, and got as close to crossing the line as he could get away with. The 2 weeks of his teaching we all about how to cover your ass and make intrusions and constitutional violations look ok, or have a plausible excuse.

    I mentioned to him that this makes the police look like the people's enemy, not our protectors. He just laughed at me and told me I would be expelled if I kept up that kind of anti-government talk.

    But, it would seem, I'm right. When the police take every opportunity to cross the line, or just brush up against it; we can't possibly perceive them as our friends or someone we should trust.

    He had a Fed background, and had a blatantly "Us vs Them" attitude towards the Civilians. In describing courtroom operations, he even refused to refer to the "defendant" as anything other than "the ******* who did it," and several other terms implying that court is just silly pain that keeps him from locking up anyone he feels like. My local County Courthouse often rejects the notion of "speedy and PUBLIC trial." No public allowed, period. No exceptions. And don't you dare mention it or your body will never be found.

    That attitude is very prevalent in every department in the State of Florida. It comes from the top down.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

Posting Permissions

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