-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
from dt marshal
- Thread starter arolfsen
- Start date
AWL
New member
imported post
So basically he is saying that the fact that you are OC'ing is probable cause to take your weapon and run you through the system... and he takes that position after clearly saying that he is aware that the act of OC'ing is not a crime... am I missing something here?
So basically he is saying that the fact that you are OC'ing is probable cause to take your weapon and run you through the system... and he takes that position after clearly saying that he is aware that the act of OC'ing is not a crime... am I missing something here?
imported post
no, what he is saying is that if some whack job calls the police, and it's in his jurisdiction, that the responding officer has a duty to ensure that the person that is oc'ing isn't a career criminal. at some point the responding officer has to appear to be diffusing the situation. they have to conduct some sort of interview to appease both the legally oc'ing person and the person that made the 911 call
no, what he is saying is that if some whack job calls the police, and it's in his jurisdiction, that the responding officer has a duty to ensure that the person that is oc'ing isn't a career criminal. at some point the responding officer has to appear to be diffusing the situation. they have to conduct some sort of interview to appease both the legally oc'ing person and the person that made the 911 call
Daddyo
Regular Member
imported post
Whenever an officer is dispatched, a report has to be filled out and he has to put something on the report. Also the person who called 911 usually is given the option to have the officer report back his findings. So he is gonna have to talk to you and do something.
To me, this is enough backing to start being a little more bold about OC. After they get enough calls, the officers will eventually push "man with a gun in a holster just walking around" to the bottom of the response list.
Whenever an officer is dispatched, a report has to be filled out and he has to put something on the report. Also the person who called 911 usually is given the option to have the officer report back his findings. So he is gonna have to talk to you and do something.
To me, this is enough backing to start being a little more bold about OC. After they get enough calls, the officers will eventually push "man with a gun in a holster just walking around" to the bottom of the response list.
Neo
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Wow, arolfsen! Thank you for posting this letter.
By the way, I'm a newcomer to OC in general...what happened to the opencarryalabama website?
Wow, arolfsen! Thank you for posting this letter.
By the way, I'm a newcomer to OC in general...what happened to the opencarryalabama website?
imported post
Daddyo wrote:
Daddyo wrote:
i carry the letter with me when i do.Whenever an officer is dispatched, a report has to be filled out and he has to put something on the report. Also the person who called 911 usually is given the option to have the officer report back his findings. So he is gonna have to talk to you and do something.
To me, this is enough backing to start being a little more bold about OC. After they get enough calls, the officers will eventually push "man with a gun in a holster just walking around" to the bottom of the response list.
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
imported post
Weeellll... I'd comply with an officer in these circumstances. I would, however, do a FOIA (well, it's not called that in Alabama but you know what I mean) request and get the information related to the incident. If the officer didn't have RAS or PC to stop and check me out, then I would file a case in federal court against the department.
The fact is, the police can't legally stop you just to check if you are a felon. They probably figure that most people won't pursue legal action.
Weeellll... I'd comply with an officer in these circumstances. I would, however, do a FOIA (well, it's not called that in Alabama but you know what I mean) request and get the information related to the incident. If the officer didn't have RAS or PC to stop and check me out, then I would file a case in federal court against the department.
The fact is, the police can't legally stop you just to check if you are a felon. They probably figure that most people won't pursue legal action.
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
imported post
arolfsen wrote:
As I said before: You'd have to look over the documents submitted by the cops and see if they did, in fact, have RAC or PC. You see... there is this pesky little thing called the 4th... But no, just because they stop you doesn't mean they have violated the law. It would require looking at all the circumstances surrounding the incident.
arolfsen wrote:
Depends. Mere possession of a firearm is not RAS or PC that a crime has been, currently is, or will be committed. Other circumstances would need to be articulated. The call itself is really irrelevant unless the caller has said the person was doing something actually illegal.if they recieve a call about a man with a gun, they sure as hell can.
As I said before: You'd have to look over the documents submitted by the cops and see if they did, in fact, have RAC or PC. You see... there is this pesky little thing called the 4th... But no, just because they stop you doesn't mean they have violated the law. It would require looking at all the circumstances surrounding the incident.