Out for cop blood?

imported post

Hi there,

I've never posted here before, but I've been reading this forum (as well as Calguns) off and on for quite a while. In the interest of full disclosure, I am presently employed as a municipal police officer in California. I'm also an NRA member, OLL-based-rifle owner, and supporter of reformed concealed carry laws for law-abiding citizens.

For the most part, the regular members of both this website and Calguns sound like ordinary, law-abiding citizens. However, every now and then I see a string of posts or attitudes that disturb me -- most of you guys don't pull any punches, so I'm not going to either.

I just finished reading Demnogis' post "4th LEO encounter". I applaud him for his level-headed handling of the situation. He was wronged by an officer who did not understand the law and, in the end, was probably issued an 849(b)(1) PC certificate to "downgrade" his arrest to a detention, given his guns back, and sent on his way with an uncommonly explicit apology from the offending officer. Demnogis', in an extremely mature fashion, seemed willing to chalk it up to ignorance on the part of the officer and see value in the education he was able to provide to a few of his hometown PD's officers.

That's great. We need more people like Demnogis carrying openly, handling the inevitable law enforcement encounters maturely, and educating cops about this small facet of law. Eventually, through enough of those, more people will exercise their rights and more cops will understand those rights.

However, the rest of you who said you would "take the officers to the cleaners" and made childish comments about "getting rich" are a discredit to the open carry movement. You are the people who alienate otherwise friendly law enforcement officers. You talk about how these rampant violations of your civil liberties will not stop until you hit agencies and officers in their pocket books. WRONG.

Face the facts that open carry in California is NOT THE NORM. California's citizens - and police officers - are not accustomed to citizens lawfully and openly carrying firearms. Snide remarks (as I've read both here and on Calguns) about how California officers must not be as proficient with their weapons as officers elsewhere and, therefore, more war of armed individuals are ignorant. In Arizona, 9 our of 10 armed citizens are probably law-abiding people going about their business. In California, 9 out of 10 people carrying a gun are probably breaking the law. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact.

Many open carry advocates know the laws regarding concealed carry very well. They know the statutes, case law, published decisions vs. depublished decisions, dissents, and are familiar with local district attorney and police agency policies. That's great! That makes you great advocates for the cause.

Do you have any idea how many statutes the average beat cop needs to be familiar with? How much case law, court decisions, local policies, and police procedure each officer needs to know? Do you know the laws regarding the administration of a Brethalyzer test incident to a DUI arrest? Do you know how to field test suspected narcotics? Are you familiar with the laws regarding domestic violence and restraining orders violations? Do you know about Marsy's Law an it's provisions that concern law enforcement? I really doubt that you're familiar with all of that -- but the average cop is.

You have the luxury of knowing a very small body of law very well. You can choose not to carry and not deal with any of it. Police officers must know a very large body of law reasonably well just to wake up and go to work and feed their families. I do not have the luxury of NOT spending my off duty time reading case law and re-reading statutes I haven't used in a while just to make sure I don't "maliciously, intentionally" wrong someone when I stop them for a traffic violation that I remembered incorrectly and subsequently arrest them for a host of narcotics and weapons violations.

There is a very clear, very obvious difference between an officer who intentionally, maliciously violates your civil rights and the cop who misunderstands the law. No, there is no mistake of law exception for the police just as ignorance of the law is no defense for a criminal defendant. However, there is a gray area. Just as there is discretion for police officers when dealing with a criminal offender, there is discretion for citizens who have been wronged by the police. Would you support an officer who supported ALWAYS issued a traffic citation in EVERY instance? Or ALWAYS made an arrest any time he was supported by probable cause? I doubt it. Usually citizens want cops to "have a heart" or "understand". And most of us do. Most of us give breaks and use discretion when not otherwise prohibited by law.

If you don't want interactions between cops and open carriers to be confrontational, then help defuse them. Don't further the reputation of some open-carriers (in some jurisdictions) as cop-baiters and money-grubbing lawsuit chasers wiling to sue over the smallest infraction (real or perceived) of your civil rights. Be strong, articulate advocates for yoru cause, and you will influence people. Otherwise, you will only alienate those cops who WANT to be on your side, who WANT to see you exercise your (and our!) rights, but don't want their name, family, and good reputation dragged through the mud in a federal civil rights lawsuit for a mistake.

Demnogis- you were definitely wronged, and could probably sue for an unlawful arrest. However, I respect your apaprent decision not to. I hope you followed it up with letters to both the police department and the police officers association regarding your contact and applicable laws.

I apologize for this being long, but I spend most of my days as an ardent 2A supporter and it pisses me the hell off when my colleagues and I are painted as the enemy. I hope that should I ever run into an open carrier, the contact would be a brief but friendly discussion -- but unfortunately, the initial call and circumstances might not be so simple and clear cut, and I would hope the open carrier would be civil and cooperative so that I can later return to the PD and preach the good news of the second amendment, instead of my partner later saying, "Man, that guy was a raving nutcase! Good thing we digitally record all of our stops!"

imported post

First, let me welcome you to the forum. It's always nice to see new interest, and get fresh opinions.

john_1284 wrote:

There is a very clear, very obvious difference between an officer who intentionally, maliciously violates your civil rights and the cop who misunderstands the law.

Click to expand...

First, I agree wholeheartedly. However, let's not create a false dichotomy.

I believe there is an array of LEO behavior. At one extreme, they can make an honest mistake. At the other extreme they intentionally, maliciously persecute law-abiding, good people.

I believe the officer in Demnigos' incident falls somewhere between the two extremes, but probably closer to the "innocent mistake" end of the array.

I don't believe the officer acted maliciously, but he definitely acted negligently. The officer was rude and adamantly proclaimed he knew the law in regards to open carry, when he in fact did NOT. His ego and negligence led him to worsen the violations of Demnigos' rights.

You mention that it is part of your job to know a lot of law. I agree it is an extremely heavy burden. (In fact, I think more training/education should be required before employment, and continuing education requirements should include lots of seminars on PC and case law.) However, that IS part of the job, and I'm fairly certain EVERY LEO knew this going into the job. The tough reality is that if you don't like it, find a different line of work.

The officer in Demnigos' case was making law up - e.g. "recording me is illegal" and "loaded magazines are illegal". What I think seperates an innocent mistake from a negligent one is how the officer handled being told he was mistaken. despite having ample opportunity and warning, he proceeded to make an arrest on those false permises.

The officer's apology was of questionable sincerity, becuase of a few little words he prefaced his apology with: "What this is, is a technicality. You were right and I was wrong..." That's a sorry excuse for an apology where I come from.

I'll end by simply repeating the sentiments I expressed in Demnigos' thread:

Normally I value a sincere apology, and believe in second chances. However, if it was Demnigos that was mistaken, he would (with 99% certainty) be in jail right now - no apologies accepted. I think it is fair to hold our public servants to AT LEAST the same standard we are: ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Click to expand...

imported post

john_1284 wrote:

However, the rest of you who said you would "take the officers to the cleaners" and made childish comments about "getting rich" are a discredit to the open carry movement. You are the people who alienate otherwise friendly law enforcement officers. You talk about how these rampant violations of your civil liberties will not stop until you hit agencies and officers in their pocket books. WRONG.

Click to expand...

As we saw with Dan in Virginia, his civil rights did not stop being violated by the same police department even after a sizable settlement. I personally doubt we would fare any better - when taxes can be raised endlessly to cover the costs of printing the Constitution on toilet paper and employing those who carry an extra roll wherever they go.

In California, 9 out of 10 people carrying a gun are probably breaking the law. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact.

Click to expand...

Probably/=/fact. If "the law" includes all unconstitutional infringements upon the 2A, then certainly, many law-abiding citizens in every other way, are breaking the law. But they should be protected by the supreme law of the land, which from what I've seen, officers are almost always sworn to protect and defend - in other words, above all infringements.

Do you have any idea how many statutes the average beat cop needs to be familiar with?

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be a matter of information overload or not enough time to study the law. The Constitution should override in favor of the individual who is not harming anyone, however I've read stories far too often of tyrants who act absolutely certain that it's practically anything goes when it comes to taking away freedom, property, and dignity of law-abiding gun owners. I guess they were crossing their fingers during the U.S. Constitution bit of their sworn oaths.

Usually citizens want cops to "have a heart" or "understand". And most of us do. Most of us give breaks and use discretion when not otherwise prohibited by law.

Click to expand...

I hope I speak for all of us when I say we just want cops to understand that we employ them to follow their sworn oaths. If breaks and discretion in favor of the law-abiding citizen and the supreme law of the land are prohibited by law, those very laws are unlawful orders not to be obeyed.

Welcome.

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

In California, 9 out of 10 people carrying a gun are probably breaking the law. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact.

Click to expand...

Probably/=/fact.

Click to expand...

It's probably not factual, but it probably is fairly accurate, since there are lots of street gangs and it's super easy for them to get weapons... weapons which are illegally obtained, illegally carried, and sometimes used in violent crimes.

It's also not relevant.

This site is about open carry, not concealed carry. FBI studies show that violent criminals were found to always conceal, and very rarely use holsters. (See the FBI study here: http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62

You can bet that 999/1,000 people openly carrying are probably NOT breaking the law. That's not a fact, but probably a fair estimate.

imported post

Some very good points here.

I'll preface by stating that I have many family members in Law Enforcement, and almost chose that route for myself. I have lots of respect for those that respect the job and those that hired them.

Many officers (even those in my family) state that after awhile, they tend to gain an Us vs. Them mentality, and they must constantly remind themselves that not everyone out there is a criminal. Some are better at this than others. But it's when an officer goes out day-to-day and treats everyone as if they were a no-good criminal that us law-abiding citizens get upset.

Officers need to get a grip on reality - and the reality is that there are over 400,000,000 legally possessed firearms in this country, ranging from derringers to full-auto carbines and semi-auto .22s to .50 BMGs. While I'm aware that there are as many as 6x that possessed illegally (according to some DoJ studies), there are a TON that are possessed legally. That's more than one for every man, woman, and child living in this country. One in every three people you run into is a gun owner, which means there's a potential for every third person to be presently armed.

I, too have no pity on an officer who doesn't know the law. It is incumbent on themselves to know it to the fullest extent possible. I, as a systems administrator, must continually push myself to maintain certifications in many aspects of my field on an annual basis. I have to take (and pay for myself) exams, and study for them - each year. Not only that, but I also take continuing education credits at a local college as well as go to national conferences to maintain savvy in the field. Why wouldn't an officer feel the need to do the same?

imported post

john_1284 wrote:

...However, the rest of you who said you would "take the officers to the cleaners" and made childish comments about "getting rich" are a discredit to the open carry movement. You are the people who alienate otherwise friendly law enforcement officers. You talk about how these rampant violations of your civil liberties will not stop until you hit agencies and officers in their pocket books. WRONG...

Click to expand...

(italicsabove are mine)

First, a sincere welcome.

Second,I disagree strongly with both of your assertions.

Rampant (if defined as"repeated" or "excessive") is in the eye of the beholder. Naturally, whenthe beholder is a non-sworn citizen the bar is lower than it is in the eyes of a LEO - whether he is one who is unconciously enforcing a non-existent law, or one who is intentially doing so because he realizes how protected he is from ramifications due to police culture and the state of the law.

I don't know about your agency, but if you have done much reading here, it should be evident to you that police departmentsadmit that theirrepresentative did something ill-advised or extra-legal about 10% of the time, at the absolute best.

Tell us - if your union had that kind of success rate with grievances, what attitude would your fellow officers have about "management"?

>edited for spelling<

imported post

john_1284 wrote:

In Arizona, 9 our of 10 armed citizens are probably law-abiding people going about their business. In California, 9 out of 10 people carrying a gun are probably breaking the law. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact.

Click to expand...

I might tend to agree a little bit with the above statement, but we are not dealing with the entire population of "armed people", we are dealing with those people who OPEN CARRY

Rephrase the statement from above justa little:

In Arizona, 9 out of 10 OPENLY armed citizens (more like 999 of 1,000) are probably law-abiding people going about their business. In California, 9 out of 10 people OPEN CARRYINGa gun are probably going about their business.

As a law enforcement officer, can you tell me when the last time you ran into a gangbanger walking around with a weapon carried openly in a holster for the world to see? I doubt that you have ever run into an armed criminal with a weapon exposed, unless he was in the process of using it.

Criminals hide their guns. Only (99.999% of the time) Citizens display theirs.

imported post

I don't think we are out for cop's blood, but the cop that makes the law up as he goes along (to the detriment of lawful open carriers) is not to be coddled into behaving. He has two choices - continue to lay down the law as he see's it and to hell with the rights of the citizens OR he could make a call to someone who should know the exact statutes and get a definitive answer. I like option 2 better because (A) The cop is not making the law up as he sees it and (B) the definitive answer will let the lawful carrier depart without further hassle, and it will stick in the officers mind for the next time this happens.

The cops that don't care about the people they are supposed to serve (option 1 above) are the ones that won't be educated by the side of the road, they will be educated in front of a judge's bench.

And welcome to OCDO from me as well!

imported post

For what it's worth John,

I think you may be delving in to posters who talk a bit more than they actually "do". Forums always have people blowing off steam, but not actually following through. I'd bet that 50% or more of the comments you take as overly reactive are from posters that have never sued the pants off of anyone who they felt tresspassed against them. That's the nature of human condition. After you toss those out of the mix for consideration, you might have a little left that is actually villianizing of cops, but in the scope of things, it goes both ways on that.

imported post

John, welcome to the forum. While I (and many here) may not agree with some of the finer points in your post, it's good to hear "from the other side". This is the kind of dialogue that can lead to a better understanding by all parties. Thanks for the post.

I spend most of my days as an ardent 2A supporter and it pisses me the hell off when my colleagues and I are painted as the enemy. I hope that should I ever run into an open carrier, the contact would be a brief but friendly discussion

Click to expand...

And I hope that you understand that not all LE are as reasonable, tempered, or respectful as you. Cops are human too, and prone to ego issues like anyone else, actually more so, as they are used to wielding the power of the state.

imported post

John, welcome to these forums.

Although I've never OCd in publicI have great sympathy for the "cause" and appreciate the nuance of OC vs CC. Ideally, CA would allow both.

I also applaud your taking public issue with the "take the officers to the cleaners" attitudes that are sometimes displayed here. While some of that may be just macho expression of sympathy for those who take the brunt of educating LEOs,at least some of it has to reflect a genuine antipathy to the situation we find oursleves in.

It is unhealthy for everyone.

OCers need to recognize that, whether they like it or not, they are part of a civil rights movement. And, as the saying goes, you can always spot the pioneers, they are the ones lying face down in the dirt witharrows in their backs.

OCers need to learn to be "turn the other cheek" when confronted with bad cop behavior. Set a good example and it will pay off in the end.

imported post

Welcome John,

I'm also an 830.1a PCer.

California, her penal code, and those who enforce it are in for a rude awakening once the courts get done defining the 2A's "Bear".

I hope you'll join me in making our department's transition smoother by helping them recognize that people have the Right to carry arms for self defense (DC v Heller) especially when the state has no responsibility generally for any individual's safety (Castle Rock v Gonzales and Warren v DC).

In the mean time officers can be aided by becoming familiar with the following cases by the US Supreme Court and keeping them in mind when dealing witha gun carryinglaw abiding citizen and the discretionary People v DeLong 12031 "e" PCloaded inspection.

The Supreme Court has said the police cannot constitutionally:

· Detain people just because they are carrying a gun (Florida v. J.L.[/i])

· Demand identification from people walking about town (Kolender v. Lawson[/i])

· Seize citizens’ personal property in order to view serial numbers (Arizona v. Hicks[/i])

Again welcome, and thank youfor adding to the understanding and support many here feel should bemutual between law abiding citizens exercising their self defense Rights and the state's peace officers.

We all want the same thing; peace, safety,and crime reduction (and to not become a victim).

Also check out californiaopencarry.org.

This art work by oleg volk:

imported post

After reading your post I see both sides. I would feel bad to see a cop lose his job or department sued for a cops honest mistake. That is not our aim. Although, in certain cases there are officers who we may show our case law to and are completely ignored, and taken off to jail to worry all night and day and stress and lose hair about knowing our certain face to face with a judge and a DA who just might also not be familiar with open carry. That is very scary, and for a LEO to fully ignore what we are telling them is sometimes hard not to want to "lash back" with litigation, thats America in its simplist form.



"Don't further the reputation of some open-carriers (in some jurisdictions) as cop-baiters and money-grubbing lawsuit chasers wiling to sue over the smallest infraction (real or perceived) of your civil rights"

I agree and disagree, if we did not follow litigation in the past, there would have been no memos to many polic departments in California making every LEO aware that what we are doing is legal and to not arrest us. In other words, no matter how many emails or calls we make to Police Departments asking about their knowledge on open carry and just being ignored, all it takes is one civil suit to make EVERY LEO aware and not ignore us.

Don't get me wrong, I am not for baiting misinformed LEO's. If it were me and a LEO apologized and let me go in a timely fashion without further duress, I would gladly accept that apology and might ask him to tell his fellow LEO's.

imported post

john_1284 wrote:

I'm (a) supporter of reformed concealed carry laws for law-abiding citizens.

...I spend most of my days as an ardent 2A supporter...

Click to expand...

You and I may believe that concealed carry is part of the Second Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens but the Supreme Court has hinted otherwise in Robertson v Baldwin:

In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated:

“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;..."[127][/suP]
​

Click to expand...

I hope you toowill "protect and defend" the Right of the People what ever form it takes.


conceal this:lol:

imported post

john_1284, Welcome to the forum. I hope you can contribute to future discussions, we have quite a few LEO's that post regularly and they've proven insightful.

I dislike this us vs. them mentality, I hope it changes. Keep in mind that there are a lot of people on the forefront of the freedom movement that are libertarian types. These people (self included) want total freedom. Which would include abolishing "Victimless Crimes".

So long as I'm approached, accosted by, detained, questioned, tazed by, investigated by, agents of the state for doing something legal or without victim , I'll continue to view LE in a negative light. I hope LE goes back to policing.

john_1284 wrote:

No, there is no mistake of law exception for the police just as ignorance of the law is no defense for a criminal defendant.

Click to expand...

Have you heard of Qualified Immunity or the "Blue Wall of Silence". LE is not given the same treatment citizens are given.

imported post

And here is a decent article from Police Chief Magazine



[align=left]

[/align]

[align=left]Chief's Counsel
Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports

By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts

[suP]1[/suP] Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,[suP]2[/suP] it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."[suP]3[/suP] [/align]

State laws vary regarding both open and concealed carrying of firearms, but courts are usually sensitive to officer and public safety concerns over the presence in public of firearms. Mere possession may not be sufficient to authorize police action, but in circumstances where the gun presents an imminent threat because of shots just fired, or likely to be fired, and thereby presents a "suggestion of threats of violence, acts of violence, impending criminal activity, or concern for public safety," a court is likely to find there was reasonable suspicion for a threshold inquiry.[suP]4[/suP]


Anonymous Tip
In a 1990 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that, through corroboration of its detail, an anonymous tip can be enough to give rise to the reasonable suspicion required for a stop.[suP]5[/suP] More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.[suP]6[/suP] Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.[suP]7[/suP] In that case the Court ruled that it was irrelevant that the defendant fled when the officer got out of his car and ordered the defendant to approach him.[suP]8[/suP] The tipster need not deliver an ironclad case to the police to justify an investigatory stop; it suffices if a prudent law enforcement officer would reasonably conclude that the likelihood existed that criminal activities were afoot and that a particular suspect was probably engaged in them.[suP]9[/suP]


Clearly, not every report of a citizen is worthy of belief or sufficient to justify a response by an officer. A caller could, for example, intend merely to harass someone by making an anonymous call to police and claiming someone had a gun hidden in his or her vehicle or on his or her person.


The ultimate issue on the report's usefulness is whether the contents (and other attendant circumstances) create a reasonable suspicion that a dangerous situation exists, creating authority to detain or frisk or both. It certainly helps if the report contains particular facts that do one or more of the following:

• Create a suggestion of threats of violence in this situation
  
• Are themselves acts of violence
  
• Indicate impending criminal activity
  
• Raise a reasonable concern for public safety

Of course, in the many jurisdictions where carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, this analytical step may be obviated and inquiry will proceed to the next issue, the likely veracity of the information source. In the case of an anonymous tip, the question will be whether corroboration of detail goes beyond the mere description of a person already in public.


Examples of Appropriate Police Actions
Examples may be helpful here. Police officers would be acting reasonably in stopping and frisking an individual after receiving information on the street from a known bystander that the person was displaying a handgun on a street corner in a high crime area at 5:30 in the morning, or if it reasonably appears that a suspect is not only armed but also dangerous, as would be the case if the individual appeared to be reaching for his or her weapon. The possession of a firearm by a minor in many states may be viewed as presumptively illegal, and thus sufficient to justify an investigatory stop of the minor by the police, again provided the information source is sufficiently credible. A constitutionally reliable report of the sighting of someone carrying a sawed-off shotgun-especially in states where this is illegal-would likely justify an immediate investigatory stop. Loading a weapon in public, especially where there is no clearly lawful reason for doing so (to begin hunting or target shooting, for instance), and especially in a high crime area at night or during early morning hours, could provide the extra information some courts require in order to allow police officers to conduct an investigatory stop and frisk of a person reportedly in possession of a firearm.


Enforcement Guidelines
Where a police officer receives a report that a person is in possession of a firearm, but the weapon is not visible to the officer, the following options are available:

• Engage in a voluntary contact and simply ask the person if he or she has a firearm.

• If he or she confirms he or she is in possession of a gun, the officer may ask the person to voluntarily hand it over just while the interview takes place, or insist that they hand it over if there is a reasonable belief that the safety of the officer or public is in jeopardy, or that the person has used it in a crime or is about to do so.

• If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way.

• If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, but the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presents a danger to the officer or public, the officer may conduct a stop and frisk the person. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may hold it while conducting the field inquiry. As long as the person is properly licensed, and no arrest takes place, the officer must return the gun at the conclusion of the interview.

• If the officer has a warrant or has probable cause to arrest the person for a crime, the officer may conduct a thorough search (not merely a frisk) and take possession of any weapon.

• Where the person appears to be a minor and therefore too young to have firearm (in most states), the police may have reason to believe that a crime is being committed (unlawful carrying of a firearm) and may therefore conduct a stop rather than a mere encounter.

[size=-2]

From The Police Chief, vol. 72, no. 12, December 2005.


[/size][size=-2]

Click to expand...

imported post

Welcome to OCDO. Thank you for your post, fyi...you are nowofficially anactivist. As one who likes to see both sides of an issue, I am grateful for your post. Just aquickquestion and comment. You state...

If you don't want interactions between cops and open carriers to be confrontational, then help defuse them.

Click to expand...

From the LE perspective, can you explain how in greater detail, without surrending our rights? Especially for the LEO who insists he's right, and you're not. You see, as some have expressed in this forum, there simply wasn't any other way, from their non-LEO perspective.

You also state you are "an ardent 2A supporter", soplease, don't wait for the day you run into an OC'er to "preach the good news of the 2A" to your colleagues. Do it today! Be active today! Post your own bulletin on CA UOC in your dept today! Contact other depts.and poston their bulletin boards today! Actively engage those officers you know to be less pro 2A than you are today!

Not for the benefit of the movement, but for the benefit of an innocent, law-abiding, civil rights expressing citizen who is risking their freedom, potentially substantial amounts of $$$$ money in legal defense, and their, I'm sure, personal well being (ie incredible stress on themselves and their spouses) from wrongful activist DA or City Attorney prosecution. Not to mention the public humiliation when being detained for lawful activity.

In the words of a once great commercial...we thank you for your support.

imported post

If more officers took their oaths seriously, we wouldn't have the problems that we have. Unfortunately, many cops relegate their oaths to the status of toilet paper and don't care.

I will post more later, I am on my way out the door.

imported post

Welcome!

Glad to see one more police getting into the conversation openly. If you are smart, level headed, thick skinned, knowlegable, can turn the occasional phrase and are a wee bit thick headedyou will have a lot of fun here. Ya might even learn a few things and think a few different things.

Your intro says you can use the English language ok and your words show that you've done some thinking on the topic. Both things earn you some credit. Your points are clearly written and easily understood. Those complimentary things being said, here's a few little things to remember as you play in the sand box.

1. Some folks here will not like you no matter what you do or say. Ain't nuthin you can do about it.

2. Some folks here will take you to task for being a appologist everytime you try to get them to see it from a cop's point of view. Ain't nuthin you can do about it.

3. Some folks will be unreasonable in your eyes not matter what. Ain't nuthin you can do about it.

Things you can do.

1. Stay smart, stay correct, stay reasonable, keep your rhetorical saber sharp.

2.Declare shenanigans on cops who do wrong. Wrong needs to be addressed just like right needs to be praised. Remember rule #1 of a good after action review. Ain't no thin skins here. It all comes out eventually be it good, bad or ugly.

3. If you claim fact be ready to back it up. Nothin' gets the sharks circling faster than opiniondressed in fact's clothingor unsubtantiatable statements proclaimed as gospel.

4.Refrain from being a bitch. If someone pisses onyour boot, piss back. Just do it smarter and better than they did.

5. Restrain yourself from acting the dick (unless it's really called for or it's just plainfunny).

6. Be proud of beingthe jack booted thug that you are! You worked for it and earned it.

7. Have fun gol durn it. The more you play the more funner it gets.

Good hunting!

imported post

john_1284 wrote:

Hi there,

Face the facts that open carry in California is NOT THE NORM. California's citizens - and police officers - are not accustomed to citizens lawfully and openly carrying firearms. Snide remarks (as I've read both here and on Calguns) about how California officers must not be as proficient with their weapons as officers elsewhere and, therefore, more war of armed individuals are ignorant. In Arizona, 9 our of 10 armed citizens are probably law-abiding people going about their business. In California, 9 out of 10 people carrying a gun are probably breaking the law. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact.

Click to expand...

Firstly, welcome to the forum. It is important as they say to come out and speak about instead of flame. The more you are here the better you will learn and perhaps help us in our cause.

The part in bold is what we consider a "statistic" and needs to be backed up with cites. If it is not a fact provable by cite, you should try to stay away from using them as it is likely merely an emotional statement disguised as fact.

You don't know me or my situation I am sure, but let me tell you that when I was detained in Alhambra that the officers, well, all but one, acted and responded in an extremely professional way. Sure they violated my rights and conducted an illegal detention, search, and seizure. The problem that I have is that they even testified that they had no RAS to believe I had, was or would do anything illegal.

They still illegally searched me trying to find something they could get me with. This is not behavior that I appreciate and believe should not only be discouraged but punished.

You are entitled to your opinions, and I welcome you as long as you are here to learn and not only preach.

Welcome.