Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Pro-active with the police department?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    So I was thinking the other day about what I would do if/when I have a negative encounter with a law enforcement officer. My reactions were get business cards or names/badge numbers from all officers involved, get witness information, get the 911 call (if there was one), get the event writeup (or whatever it's called), and then file a complaint. Well that got me thinking, what if we were pro-active and sent the police department a nice, polite letter requesting that they make sure ALL of the officers are properly trained and informed on the laws pertaining to OC, firearms in general, and KNOW the limits of thier jurisdiction (i.e. DO NOT violate my rights.). And of course to tell them NOT to freak out on law-abiding citizens just because they have a gun. Maybe we could even include all the statutes relating to firearms and all the cases that are pertinent?

    Now I know some people's reactions might be something like:

    "if it isn't broken, don't fix it."

    But this may be a ticket toavoiding negative encounters with law enforcement. What does everyone think?


    edit: grammar...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Sounds like a great idea.

    And ask to meet in person too in order to discuss issues.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I understand and appreciate the desire for a "peaceful" approach. The police are supposed to be the good guys, after all.

    But, if they don't already respect the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, I don't think polite discussion is going to change their mind. This isn't just about guns. Its about the 4th Amendment, which governs every encounter they have with a citizen while on the job. If they aren't respecting the 4A with OCers, it is by no means a stretch to think they are "loose" with the 4A during encounters with other citizens.

    You don't owe them the effort, especially if they already lightly regard or disregard the 4A. Quite the contrary, it is they who owe you:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Terry v Ohio quoting Union Pacific v Botsford.

    Read that again, word by word. No right. Held more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free fromall restraint and interference. Unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    Meaning, unless they know to dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, its hands off, buster, until you have verified the law one way or the other. Consensual encounter or observe from a distance only.

    That the court in Terry picked that exact quote speaks volumes. There must be a few hundred quotes from which they could have selected. If they wanted, they could have picked something less forceful, something watered down. But they didn't. They picked that one. And inserted it into the very case the police will incorrectly apply whenthey illegallydetain you over your gun.

    Now, with that said, some OCers did get results by contacting and educating the police. The OCers seemed to avert trouble with police. There is nothing terribly really wrong with theeducate-first approach.On the other hand, there have departments that had to be brow-beatenbefore they finally stopped.

    Who knows, in your case it might work. Be ready if it doesn't.
    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.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    I like this idea for a lot of the reasons that others do not.

    It is a note letting them know that you KNOW your rights, in advance. It lets them know that their two most common tactics, lying and intimidating, are already pre-empted.

    "We know it is not a crime, and you have not a leg to stand on. We will sue your ass for it. You now have prior knowledge, so any actions contradicting it will be even more damning than they already would have been."

    Of course, in nice candy-coated ass-kissy tones instead.

    Such a letter should be written with citations of laws under which you have recourse for their actions. Polite, but still saying that you know where you stand, do they?

    I just made an ironic typo...

    Police and Polite, just one letter difference, but so often worlds apart...
    "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.

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

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I understand and appreciate the desire for a "peaceful" approach. The police are supposed to be the good guys, after all.

    But, if they don't already respect the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, I don't think polite discussion is going to change their mind. This isn't just about guns. Its about the 4th Amendment, which governs every encounter they have with a citizen while on the job. If they aren't respecting the 4A with OCers, it is by no means a stretch to think they are "loose" with the 4A during encounters with other citizens.

    You don't owe them the effort, especially if they already lightly regard or disregard the 4A. Quite the contrary, it is they who owe you:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Terry v Ohio quoting Union Pacific v Botsford.

    Read that again, word by word. No right. Held more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free fromall restraint and interference. Unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    Meaning, unless they know to dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, its hands off, buster, until you have verified the law one way or the other. Consensual encounter or observe from a distance only.

    That the court in Terry picked that exact quote speaks volumes. There must be a few hundred quotes from which they could have selected. If they wanted, they could have picked something less forceful, something watered down. But they didn't. They picked that one. And inserted it into the very case the police will incorrectly apply whenthey illegallydetain you over your gun.

    Now, with that said, some OCers did get results by contacting and educating the police. The OCers seemed to avert trouble with police. There is nothing terribly really wrong with theeducate-first approach.On the other hand, there have departments that had to be brow-beatenbefore they finally stopped.

    Who knows, in your case it might work. Be ready if it doesn't.
    Quite understood, we don't owe them an explanation for doing nothing wrong.

    I would see this kind of letter as more of a "You have been warned, you have no excuse for crossing the line."

    Wouldn't you rather do that with a piece of paper, than 6 cranked up JBTs with glocks and flashing lights??
    "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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    I understand and appreciate the desire for a "peaceful" approach. The police are supposed to be the good guys, after all.

    But, if they don't already respect the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, I don't think polite discussion is going to change their mind. This isn't just about guns. Its about the 4th Amendment, which governs every encounter they have with a citizen while on the job. If they aren't respecting the 4A with OCers, it is by no means a stretch to think they are "loose" with the 4A during encounters with other citizens.

    You don't owe them the effort, especially if they already lightly regard or disregard the 4A. Quite the contrary, it is they who owe you:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Terry v Ohio quoting Union Pacific v Botsford.

    Read that again, word by word. No right. Held more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free fromall restraint and interference. Unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    Meaning, unless they know to dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, its hands off, buster, until you have verified the law one way or the other. Consensual encounter or observe from a distance only.

    That the court in Terry picked that exact quote speaks volumes. There must be a few hundred quotes from which they could have selected. If they wanted, they could have picked something less forceful, something watered down. But they didn't. They picked that one. And inserted it into the very case the police will incorrectly apply whenthey illegallydetain you over your gun.

    Now, with that said, some OCers did get results by contacting and educating the police. The OCers seemed to avert trouble with police. There is nothing terribly really wrong with theeducate-first approach.On the other hand, there have departments that had to be brow-beatenbefore they finally stopped.

    Who knows, in your case it might work. Be ready if it doesn't.
    Quite understood, we don't owe them an explanation for doing nothing wrong.

    I would see this kind of letter as more of a "You have been warned, you have no excuse for crossing the line."

    Wouldn't you rather do that with a piece of paper, than 6 cranked up JBTs with glocks and flashing lights??

    Both of your points are VERY well taken.

    Citizen, you are right on the money when you say we don't owe it to them, and I agree. There is NO REASON we should have to write a letter to the police department just to get them to respect our rights. They should KNOW the laws (even though they have "immunity"... god that's such a BS excuse to not know how to do your job...) whether we tell them what they are or not. Also, they should respect citizens' rights and only enforce to the extent of the law (after all that's what we pay them to do right?). However, they DO have Immunity from knowing the law, and they don't always respect citizens and their rights. So in order to better inform them and to mold our police force back into what it is supposed to be, I would like to try the peaceful approach for now and see if it works.To me, asimple letter to the departments is worth not having to file a lawsuit against anyone.

    ixtow, that is the EXACT reason I want to do something like this. To keep from having that encounter where there are 8 police officers pointing their guns at me and throwing me to the ground/cuffing me... all for NO REASON other than they don't know the law or don't agree with my expressions.

    Although,I hope to make it more of an underlying tone that says "I will take legal action against you if my rights are violated; you have been warned" but I still want it to be there. The biggest thing is I would rather have peaceful encounters with ALL the police officers I come across. By writing this letter to them, I'm hoping to encourage the sheriff/ chief / whateverto sit all of his officers down and MAKE SURE they know the law and what their limitations are. Plus this will give all of them a heads up that there are people that DO know the law and will be exercising their rights, so don't be alarmed if you see a guy walking through town with a holstered pistol, or get a call from a deranged citizen saying "OMG there is a guy with a gun walking down Virginia St.!!! No he's not holding it or waving it around or pointing/shooting at anyone, he just has it holstered and on his hip... But he has a GUN!"

    ...Plus there is the added benefit of the letter, and the "refresher course" the sheriff gives his deputies ALL being on record which I think would be handy in court, if thingshad to gothat way.



    Edit: How about some Officers' perspectives on this letter? Anyone? I would like to get an opinion from "the other side" of this.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Gun or not, I'd appreciate the police learning 4th and 5th amendment procedures.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    jrwalker wrote:
    ixtow wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    I understand and appreciate the desire for a "peaceful" approach. The police are supposed to be the good guys, after all.

    But, if they don't already respect the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, I don't think polite discussion is going to change their mind. This isn't just about guns. Its about the 4th Amendment, which governs every encounter they have with a citizen while on the job. If they aren't respecting the 4A with OCers, it is by no means a stretch to think they are "loose" with the 4A during encounters with other citizens.

    You don't owe them the effort, especially if they already lightly regard or disregard the 4A. Quite the contrary, it is they who owe you:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Terry v Ohio quoting Union Pacific v Botsford.

    Read that again, word by word. No right. Held more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free fromall restraint and interference. Unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    Meaning, unless they know to dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, its hands off, buster, until you have verified the law one way or the other. Consensual encounter or observe from a distance only.

    That the court in Terry picked that exact quote speaks volumes. There must be a few hundred quotes from which they could have selected. If they wanted, they could have picked something less forceful, something watered down. But they didn't. They picked that one. And inserted it into the very case the police will incorrectly apply whenthey illegallydetain you over your gun.

    Now, with that said, some OCers did get results by contacting and educating the police. The OCers seemed to avert trouble with police. There is nothing terribly really wrong with theeducate-first approach.On the other hand, there have departments that had to be brow-beatenbefore they finally stopped.

    Who knows, in your case it might work. Be ready if it doesn't.
    Quite understood, we don't owe them an explanation for doing nothing wrong.

    I would see this kind of letter as more of a "You have been warned, you have no excuse for crossing the line."

    Wouldn't you rather do that with a piece of paper, than 6 cranked up JBTs with glocks and flashing lights??

    Both of your points are VERY well taken.

    Citizen, you are right on the money when you say we don't owe it to them, and I agree. There is NO REASON we should have to write a letter to the police department just to get them to respect our rights. They should KNOW the laws (even though they have "immunity"... god that's such a BS excuse to not know how to do your job...) whether we tell them what they are or not. Also, they should respect citizens' rights and only enforce to the extent of the law (after all that's what we pay them to do right?). However, they DO have Immunity from knowing the law, and they don't always respect citizens and their rights. So in order to better inform them and to mold our police force back into what it is supposed to be, I would like to try the peaceful approach for now and see if it works.To me, asimple letter to the departments is worth not having to file a lawsuit against anyone.

    ixtow, that is the EXACT reason I want to do something like this. To keep from having that encounter where there are 8 police officers pointing their guns at me and throwing me to the ground/cuffing me... all for NO REASON other than they don't know the law or don't agree with my expressions.

    Although,I hope to make it more of an underlying tone that says "I will take legal action against you if my rights are violated; you have been warned" but I still want it to be there. The biggest thing is I would rather have peaceful encounters with ALL the police officers I come across. By writing this letter to them, I'm hoping to encourage the sheriff/ chief / whateverto sit all of his officers down and MAKE SURE they know the law and what their limitations are. Plus this will give all of them a heads up that there are people that DO know the law and will be exercising their rights, so don't be alarmed if you see a guy walking through town with a holstered pistol, or get a call from a deranged citizen saying "OMG there is a guy with a gun walking down Virginia St.!!! No he's not holding it or waving it around or pointing/shooting at anyone, he just has it holstered and on his hip... But he has a GUN!"

    ...Plus there is the added benefit of the letter, and the "refresher course" the sheriff gives his deputies ALL being on record which I think would be handy in court, if thingshad to gothat way.

    Edit: How about some Officers' perspectives on this letter? Anyone? I would like to get an opinion from "the other side" of this.
    I see the breakdown in brain-usage that the Police have to handle as well.

    Deranged Citizen calls in with MWAG report.

    DISPATCHER is an idiot, or has an agenda that matches the Deranged Commie who calls it in....

    The Only contact the Deranged Citizen has had is with "the police" when they called, and were then told 'the cavalry is coming to save you from the evil MWAG!!!" Now, what does the dispatcher tell the responding Officer?

    Does the Officer get to make the call and not show up? After the tag-team of @sshole caller and @sshole dispatcher have reassured each other that 'This guy is going down!!!'

    How does that affect the image of the department? If the caller is told SWAT is on the way to deal with this MWAG who dares defy Liberal agenda; but then no one shows up?

    I'm willing to bet a lot of these negative call incidents are related to a manipulative dispatcher tainting the facts of the matter, and doing nothing at all but their best to create a problem where none exists.

    It would be good to present a case for educating the dispatchers in the letter. That wasting Police time and Taxpayer Money could easily be saved by removing prejudice/ignorance from dispatches, and having them ask key questions, such as "Is the MWAG committing a crime with the G, or is he just walking around minding his own business, doing nothing wrong?" Dispatchers have the power to frame a circumstance falsely, and one with an anti agenda would be more than glad to abuse their position; anti's always do.
    "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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    ixtow, VERY good point. I had not thought about that before. I think I might start drafting something up this afternoon. Any other brilliant ideas?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum36/26497.html

    This thread is about a guy detained in his own neighborhood. The dispatch log (not sure if it's posted, but I've read it) shows the dispatcher not embellishing at all. The MWAG call was repeated with "holstered weapon" and "not used in threatening manner". But the guy was still detained by multiple officers, had his gun unloaded, and was treated unprofessionally and probably unlawfully.


  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    SNIP Deranged Citizen calls in with MWAG report.
    Hey!!!! Watch it with that capital "C", would, ya!
    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.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    I think he got it right.....:P

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    timf343 wrote:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum36/26497.html

    This thread is about a guy detained in his own neighborhood. The dispatch log (not sure if it's posted, but I've read it) shows the dispatcher not embellishing at all. The MWAG call was repeated with "holstered weapon" and "not used in threatening manner". But the guy was still detained by multiple officers, had his gun unloaded, and was treated unprofessionally and probably unlawfully.
    I'm not suggesting that this doesn't happen. But that there are 2 points of accountability in this process, not just the responding officer(s).

    I didn't feel the need to re-iterate how I think cops are a bunch of pricks looking for an excuse to harass people.... :-P I think that is pretty much a given at this point.
    "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.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    OK point taken, just wanted to be clear on it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    Well I haven't had a chance to sit down and start writing something up yet, but I might be able to get some of these ideas floating around in my head down on paper this weekend while visiting some family. Let's get some bullet points going that would be good to include in this letter.:celebrate

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    jrwalker wrote:
    Well I haven't had a chance to sit down and start writing something up yet, but I might be able to get some of these ideas floating around in my head down on paper this weekend while visiting some family. Let's get some bullet points going that would be good to include in this letter.:celebrate
    1) Open Carry is perfectly legal, does not require any permit, and does not constitute Probable Cause, or Reasonable suspicion.

    2) Officers (and their respective departments and superiors) conducting seizures of property and persons for whom there is neither Probable Cause nor Reasonable Suspicion cannot invoke Sovereign Immunity as a defense.

    3) I, and many others, intend to frequently partake of the Civic Freedom to Openly Carry Firearms.

    4) We expect that your Dispatches will be trained in methods to identify the difference between 'panty-wetting ****** bags' and an circumstance under which it would be reasonable to send an Officer. We also expect that both Officers and Dispatchers will not abuse their position to falsely present a caller's complaint as something criminal when it is not. Dispatchers should determine if an actual crime is being committed; just like any other call. Police Officers should not enforce their feelings, political views, or personal interests. The usage of the word 'gun' is not Carte Blanche to throw out SOP. If SOP includes such a notion, then it invites significant liability, in Legal Recourse, Reputation, and Public Image. The latter of which the Police cannot afford to lose much more of.

    5) We make these statements and Requests in the spirit of Education. If a memberof the Public is unaware of the legality of Open Carry, it does not create a justification to abuse authority. Educate the caller, educate your dispatchers, educate your officers.

    6) There is no excuse for law breaking by the very people sworn to uphold and enforce it. We do not wish to resort to legal recourse after-the-fact, nor be involved in the dangerous circumstances that egotistical or misinformed Officers may create.

    7) We would prefer to prevent criminal police actions before they happen. It is not only dangerous to the public as a whole when the police partake of vigilante enforcement of whatever-they-feel-like, but it also disposes of the department's trustworthiness. The Citizens do not trust or respect a UIniform that disobeys the same laws it is meant to enforce. None of us want that.

    8) We do not see rescinding our God Given and Constitutionally Protected Rights as the answer. The suggestion that we get CCW Permits and hide our guns is not acceptable. It is an option, not a requirement. Conversely, it is you who are charged with the requirement to respect We the Peoples' Rights.

    That would be my rough draft.

    I would be deliberately redundant on some points.
    "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.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    SNIP I would be deliberately redundant on some points.
    Lawsuit.Voice-recorders. Personnel file. Voice-recorders. New Citizen's Review Board coming soon. Lawsuit. Voice-recorders.


    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.

Posting Permissions

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