Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Loveland Update

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Here’s an update on the case in Loveland for The People of the United States.

    As you know, the ACLU of Colorado did research and wrote a letter to the Loveland Chief of Police and the DA laying out a 4th Amendment case. The Reporter Herald newspaper reported that, after receiving that letter, the chief said that his officers did the right thing.

    As the DA, when I asked him how his investigation was going, simply referred the matter to the Loveland Police internal affairs, I asked the FBI to investigate. On the phone, the FBI agent displayed an incredible ignorance of the law. I wrote a letter to him explaining his error and asking him again to investigate. No response to date.

    On 8/24/09, I sent the following fax to the DOJ. I faxed again on 8/28/09 and called on the voice line. No response. If you care to, maybe you would help me to keep on ‘em.

    U.S. Department of Justice
    Civil Rights Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
    Criminal Section, PHB
    Washington, DC 20530
    202-514-3204
    202-514-8336 fax


    I have asked the District Attorney and the FBI to investigate. Responses were unsatisfactory. That this case is so common emphasizes its importance. Please investigate.

    Below is a brief description of events. While I would not suggest to limit your investigation in any way, I refer you to especially to 18 USC 241.

    On October 7, 2008 three Loveland Colorado officers did offend The People of the United States and the State of Colorado, the citizens of Loveland, Colorado, and me individually by:

    1. “responding” to a call that said a man with a gun had been seen. In this, they infringed the right of The People to keep and bear arms.[/i] “Responding” gave the message first to the caller and then to any observers that the carrying of a firearm in public view is somehow suspect. This did infringe the right of The People to keep and bear arms[/i] And,

    2. Employing methods and utterances designed to dominate and intimidate, which methods and utterances, or those like them, they had previously discussed among fellow officers, superiors, and instructors, both in Loveland and elsewhere, detained me, seized my sidearm, unload it, examined it, demanded my identification, “ran” my drivers license number and the serial number of my sidearm, and recorded the serial number of the sidearm. In this, they
    a. infringed the right of The People to keep and bear arms,[/i]
    b. violated my individual right to keep and bear arms,
    c. violated my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and
    d. weakened the rights of all of the People to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

    3. In committing the above offenses, they also
    a. violated the free speech right of The People. For,
    i. The carrying of a firearm in public view is speech.
    ii. In discouraging an individual from carrying a sidearm in public view, they caused a chilling effect on such dialogue that often occurs as a result of this act, and


    b. they further violated my individual right to free speech in that, at the time of their offenses, I made holsters for sale. In so far as they discouraged me from carrying my sidearm in full view, they prevented me from most effectively displaying my wares.

    I have many documents, including the police Incident Report, which I will gladly make available to your investigator.

    Sincerely,

    Today, I sent the following fax to the DA. You might want to help me to keep on him too.


    To: Mr. Larry R. Abrahamson, District Attorney
    Via. Fax at 498-7250

    This fax consists of 1 page including this cover. Please acknowledge receipt.

    Dear Mr. District Attorney:

    I have not received answers to my questions about the May 6, 2009 letter I received from your Mr. Phelps. While I do still want those answers, it is a further matter that I wish to address here.

    During the incident of October 7, 2008, in addition to other offenses, it seems clear to me that the officers did commit robbery as they took my gun from me over my objections. I ask you again to investigate. Please do not allow this matter to be referred to internal affairs at the Loveland Police Department as you did in the matter back in May. This is like asking the foxes to investigate the matter of the disappearing chickens.





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    I just got a phone call from the DOJ. They acknowledge receipt of my faxes and say that I can expect a written response within a month. Perhaps we can still keep on them to let them know that there are many people across the nation who are taking this matter seriously.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    On 10/2/09, I received the attached fax from the DOJ. Here is my fax response to them:

    "This fax consists of 6 pages including this cover. Please acknowledge receipt.[/i]

    To: U.S. Department of Justice
    Civil Rights Division
    Criminal Section, PHB

    Via. Fax at 202-514-8336

    I received your September 29, 2009 letter in the U.S. Mail on 10/2/09. It is inadequate in several ways:

    1. In your first paragraph

    a. You state “. . .you allege that Loveland police officers infringed your first and second amendment rights. . .”[/i] “Infringe” is involved only in the second amendment. “violate” is more fitting for the rest of the amendments. “Infringe”, according to the Encarta dictionary, is defined as “to encroach. . .especially in a minor or gradual way.”

    b. You apparently missed reference in my fax to the violation of my rights under the 4th amendment (See my item #2). I request that you also investigate the possible violation of my 5th amendment rights (same item 2).

    c. You state that they searched me. I did not say that they searched me[/i]. Please read my item 2 again.

    2. Regarding your second paragraph:

    a. You state that you are “responsible for enforcing federal criminal civil rights statutes. . .under color of law.” I believe that this is[/i] a color of law case. I suggest that you read 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. (These are[/i] federal civil rights color of law statutes are they not? I could be mistaken, just being a layman, but it seems to my reading that they are.)

    b. What your activities are generally[/i] about is irrelevant. This citizen demands that you enforce the law.

    3. Regarding your third paragraph:

    a. You obviously did not[/i] “carefully review” the information which I furnished.

    b. Investigation involves more than just reviewing a document sent to the investigator by a layman. According to Encarta Dictionary, it means “to carry out a detailed examination or inquiry, especially officially, in order to find out about something or somebody.”

    c. I expected, and still do expect, an investigator to contact me to discuss what documents I mentioned (in the last paragraph of my fax) that I have and which of those (s)he needs for the investigation.

    d. You state that my complaint does not involve a prosecutable. . .”

    i. I did not intend my initial fax as a formal complaint. I was merely trying to describe very briefly[/i] what happened and tell what constitutional amendments I thought they infringed/violated and how they did that. A formal complaint would be the responsibility for your investigator to fulfill upon completion of the investigation.

    4. Regarding your paragraph 4: You seem to be suggesting a civil case. This is irrelevant. The case for you to investigate is a criminal color of law[/i] case.

    I expect your investigator to contact me before 10/10/09 to discuss the many documents that I have and which of those (s)he wants. Should I remain dissatisfied at that time with the service I have received from your office, I shall again address my displeasure to the President. And, I shall then also contact my Senator.

    You might consider email or fax as snail mail takes too long.

    Sincerely,

    Bill Miller
    Copies of previous faxes follow
    Fax copy to President Obama with all previous faxes"




  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    In the days following the violation of my rights by the Loveland Police (see http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum13/28597.html), I remarked to friends that any three cops who would do such a thing are capable of lying to get a warrant, kicking one's door down, planting evidence, and shooting a person dead in his bed claiming they thought that big stiff thing inhis hand was a gun.

    Well, here's verification of step one and suspicionof a nation wideconspiracy? I wonder how many such incidents have gone undetected.

    http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?id=25811

    Let's get onto the DOJ, folks. Let's demand they spend some of our tax money to investigate what the cops are doingaround the country under the pretense of "officer safety," being "tough on crime," "just doing out job," etc.. OK?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    I want to begin by saying that I am a law enforcement officer (LEO) in Colorado and consider myself to be very conservative and supportive of the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms. I deal with armed citizens on a regular basis and support their rights to be armed. Prior to starting my career in LE, I was a practicing member of the CCW community and continue to believe that an armed citizen beats an unarmed victim in every situation.

    I don't know all of the details of this encounter in Loveland so it is impossible for me to tell you exactly what I would have done or what should have been done in this situation. Remember that every story has at least two sides. In this story, what is missing is the perspective of local LE. My goal of this post is to provide input into what a LEO, many of whom are of the same mindset as me, go through when responding to this type of call.

    It is likely that this call came in through a call to dispatch as a man with a gun and at least two patrol officers were assigned to respond. Who knows what other details where given in the initial call? We never have all the details, only those reported by the caller on scene. We know that the call was to a public place, which immediately gives officers a reason to fear for the safety of the public as well as their own. I know this is not what most open carry advocates want to hear but in the light of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and numerous other active shooter incidents, this is the hand that has been dealt. LEOs cannot wait until a victim has been injured or killed to respond and address the situation. If they do, they are faced with being accused both through the crimininal and civil court system.

    The typical LEO that I know is married with children. It is important to each and every one of them to come home safe at the end of their shift to the ones that love them. When faced with what may be a deadly threat, they must take the appropriate action to ensure they will survive the encounter. No officer with good officer safety in mind will stand and talk to someone they have never met while that person has a firearm (a real life threat) in plain view without removing the threat for the duration of the contact. If we did so in this day and age, everyone would carry a gun in the open and LEO casulties would likely be much higher than they already are. In my experience, this is where the CCW laws are extremely beneficial to both the citizen and LEO. A check through dispatch will typically tell the officer that the citizen is likely not a threat if a valid CCW is in place. In this situation, the weapon is likely to be returned and the contact ended, in my case usually with a handshake. Contact by LEO does not happen because the local police or sheriff can't bear to have armed citizens. LEO is forced into this situation to ensure that the public is safe. In a perfect world, only the good guys would have guns and be willing to show them. In the real world, we are forced to treat everyone presenting a possible threat as a such until it has been determined otherwise. Suing the officers for their reaction only brings about more stress to a person who has sworn to protect and serve their community. These are individuals who are willing to lay their lives on the line to protect the members of their community. Remember, we live in a world where violence demands that citizens protect themselves. Don't attack the individual LEOs to bring about change. They are forced to react to the environment they live in. To ensure that your rights are protected, vote for individuals who are committed to protecting your second amendment rights. Remove the ones that aren't.

    That being said, I would like to share my opinion on open carry vs. concealed carry. I have been the shopper in Wal-Mart who has seen the guy shopping with his gun on his hip in plain view. At the time, I had at least two loaded firearms concealed on my person, ready in case a threat presented itself. My children were with me, but guns are nothing new to them. They watch me holster up every time I leave the house. I was not offended that this person chose to carry openly, though I questioned his philosophy. Afer watching him for several minutes, it was clear that this guy was shopping with his wife and children and was clearly only trying to exercise his rights as a citizen and show to everyone that he was not a weak target. In his mind, I am sure this person believed that he was prepared to protect his family and stop any threat that he encountered. From a tactical standpoint, I knew I had the advantage, had I been a bad guy. I knew what he was carrying and where he would reach, while he had no idea that the guy standing three feet behind him was armed and likely more prepared for battle. If something bad is going to happen, the bad guys are likely scouting ahead to find any threats that must be immediately eliminated. Concealment is an advantage, use it as such. Play your hand too early and you lose any advantage you may have had. My community is a strong CCW area. I take comfort in the fact of knowing that when the sh** hits the fan and I draw my weapon, there are likely others present who are also ready and prepared to fight to ensure the good guys prevail.





  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    Benjamin Franklin: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Nightwatcher, thanks for your community service!

    You assume that the badguy is smart, cunning, and methodical, when in reality the garden variety BG is dumb, cowardly, and looking for an easy target. If they were so smart and had the brainpower to truly formulate a real plan of ingress/attack/egress, then they would most likely have real jobs (CEO's most likely)and would not be a BG in the first place.

    Granted there are those BGs out there that are truly intelligent, cunning, and methodical. Those guys are usually serial killers, sexual predators, etc, who don't attack in public places.

    Time and time again, we hear testimonies of the BG's scattering at the first sign of an armed response. We watch footage of BG's fleeing even at the sight of a pissed off storeclerk armed only with a baseball bat.

    I think the reason this "tactical disadvantage" argument comes up so much is because thats what we see on TV; the BG getting over on the GG. Its not news if the BG just runs away. Fictional TV shows/movies also portray the BG as a "criminal mastermind", when that just ain't so!

    Sorry to hijack the thread. Billy, keep fighting the good fight!!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    NightWatcher wrote:
    Suing the officers for their reaction only brings about more stress to a person who has sworn to protect and serve their community. These are individuals who are willing to lay their lives on the line to protect the members of their community. Remember, we live in a world where violence demands that citizens protect themselves. Don't attack the individual LEOs to bring about change. They are forced to react to the environment they live in. To ensure that your rights are protected, vote for individuals who are committed to protecting your second amendment rights. Remove the ones that aren't.



    I have to say--I disagree with this position. There are many people working in the position of a LEO who do mistreat the people, and who do intentionally target gun owners even though there has been no "complaint"--you can read through this board any length of time and see exactly how many are treated--there is the occasional "good" encounter--but by and large the encounters are anything but "good"--and OC'ers are confronted by belligerent, and nasty people who think that just because they wear a badge we have to stand by and allow our rights to be trampled, allow ourselves to be belittled and treated with contempt and never open our mouth to say a word and just take the treatment and go on our way as if nothing happened.

    If a LEO violates even a single Constitutional right--that LEO should be held both financially and where possible, criminally accountable for it. A single violation is one too many--and one will lead to another and another and another...

    It isn't about "attacking" individual LEOs---I don't believe an OC'er would ever initiate a contact with the police and I can tell you from my personal experience--the less contact I have with them, the better. Many LEOs don't like it when a citizen tries to exercise their rights, many try to intimidate OC'ers into cooperation when there is absolutely no obligation to do so, and many simply can't stand it when a citizen will stand their ground and refuse to answer questions or consent to searches.

    If an OC'er is accosted by a LEO and that LEO threatens, intimidates, assaults or violates the Constitutional rights of the citizen--then I say by all means a full, formal complaint should be filed, as well as a complaint to the DOJ, and where possible--and financially feasible, a lawsuit against the officer/officers involved.

    It is about making it clearly understood that the people will not stand by while our rights are violated with near impunity and then the department winks at the officer behind the scenes and gives him/her an at-a-boy, keep it up while speaking out both sides of its collective mouth.

    It is about holding the police accountable for their actions--because by and large they tend to think they are above the law, and can do/say anything they want and get away with it. Now not all of them are like that--but enough of them are as to make it impossible to trust any--and that is the sad fact of the society we live in. Why do you think so many OC'ers carry recorders around with them in order to provide another layer of protection against police abuse. The recorder can provide incontrovertible evidence of mistreatment, and anyone who carries a gun--should also carry a recorder and where legal--keep it going at all times while carrying.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    "The recorder can provide incontrovertible evidence of mistreatment, and anyone who carries a gun--should also carry a recorder and where legal--keep it going at all times while carrying."

    Lately, I've been wondering why this oughta be limited to people who carry.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    mahkagari wrote:

    Lately, I've been wondering why this oughta be limited to people who carry.
    It should not be limited to those who carry...every citizen should start doing it where legally possible--and it is a sad state of affairs when we have to resort to carrying digital recorders around just to protect ourselves from out of control police officers....and yet that is exactly what it is very quickly coming to.




  11. #11
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    mahkagari wrote:

    Lately, I've been wondering why this oughta be limited to people who carry.
    It should not be limited to those who carry...every citizen should start doing it where legally possible--and it is a sad state of affairs when we have to resort to carrying digital recorders around just to protect ourselves from out of control police officers....and yet that is exactly what it is very quickly coming to.


    I have heard from certain LEO's who feel that we as OC'ers are out to make a big payday by trapping LEO's into violating our rights.... and this frustrates me that I am unable to effectively explain to my own LEO (biological) brother that our goal as a group and myself as an individual is to PROTECT MY RIGHTS FROM VIOLATION--- It is NOT an overt attempt to trap/deceive/coerce/force someone to do something. Yes, carry a recorder if for no other reason than to have an independent witness to the encounter.



    Edit to add on 12/8/09: The above is NOT to be construed in any way, shape, manner, or form to suggest that I don't trust or respect my brother. I do agree with him that there are a few on these boards that may be bad guys that don't share the predominate goal of furthering our lawful and peacefull carry of firearms. I disagree with him that MOST of us are just out to get a big payday in the courts after successfully proving that their rights were violated during an encounter with LE.

    Yes, I have carried a digital recorder. I don't carrythe recorder all the time. The reason that I have carried the recorder is to provide an independant witness of any event that may occur while I am lawfully carrying a firearm, whether that event is an incident with another person or Law Enforcement.



    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    28

    Post imported post

    "NightWatcher" - - Excellent summary. Thank you.

    Let those that do not deal in this area have their own opinions. They can easily be worth what was paid for them.

  13. #13
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    NightWatcher wrote:
    No officer with good officer safety in mind will stand and talk to someone they have never met while that person has a firearm (a real life threat) in plain view without removing the threat for the duration of the contact. If we did so in this day and age, everyone would carry a gun in the open and LEO casulties would likely be much higher than they already are....

    In the real world, we are forced to treat everyone presenting a possible threat as a such until it has been determined otherwise.
    You're missing the point entirely. It is not a crime to OC. That ends the discussion. It doesnt matter if a sheeple calls 911. No crime = no stop. OC is not sufficient cause to initiate a LEO encounter. An officer "with good officer safety" may wish to disarm the person but that does not give them the right to do so.

    Also, your point that LEO casualties would be higher if everyone OC'd has no basis in reality. OC does not create criminals.

    Your point that "Contact by LEO does not happen because the local police or sheriff can't bear to have armed citizens" certainly does not fit the reality in Aurora. APD constantly discourages OC simply because they dont like people to do it.

    It does not matter what takes place "in the real world" or in a post-Columbine environment. LEO have no right to treat law abiding citizens as criminals. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    I have nothing against cops. I have friends who are cops and they are great officers. But I'm not going to give bad cops a pass on behalf of the good ones. Why is it that every involuntary encounter I have had with the police regardless of whether or not I was carrying, involves them trying to intimidate me into allowing searches of my property (house, car), them threatening me, making up laws, actively discouraging legal activity (like OC), and so on? I am a law abiding citizen who has never even gotten a speeding ticket. I do not deserve to be treated like a criminal.

    EDIT: Sorry Billy for taking up this thread
    "There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs of freedom" -- Garet Garrett, The Revolution Was (1938)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    No need for you, entartet17, or for you,Evil Earnie, to apologize. Your remarks are "right on" and much appreciated by me.

    And, they have not taken us so much off topic. For, you have shone light upon the crux of the issue. Apparently, LEOs have got the idea that their oath "to protect and serve" compels them to ignore the Constitution, which they have also, if I am not mistaken, sworn to uphold. Where and how have they come to this misunderstanding of their oath and how shall we endeavour tocorrect this?

    Please post your ideas.

    In aradio open forum on November 29, 2008 during which my case was discussed, the half dozen top cops present all claimed officer safety as justification. Following that forum, I sent them all a memo pointing out that all right thinking people want our police officers and the public to be safe and said that they must find a way to accomplish that while still protection the rights of all the people. I got no response. I am now about ready to file a 1983 case pro se.

    Loveland's outside attorneys, in response to the ALCU's letter, made an offer of "training" which I rejected as I saw it as inadequate, especially in the absence of any monetary offer and lack of specificity regarding the training and because the ACLU attorney refused to negotiate assertively on these points. I have recently approached Loveland's attorneys to revisit that offer. I have asked them to respond to my counter offer by 4:00 pm on 11/30/09.

    And, I have been on the FBI and, following their (FBI's)refusal, the DOJ Criminal Civil Rights office to investigate. They refused.

    I am trying to limit my postings. Too often, it seems, my name appears for too long as the last posting on threads I have started. I don't know why this happens, but it seems unseemly somehow. So, would someone please post something?

    Thanks



  15. #15
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    NightWatcher wrote:
    I want to begin by saying that I am a law enforcement officer (LEO) in Colorado and consider myself to be very conservative and supportive of the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms. I deal with armed citizens on a regular basis and support their rights to be armed. Prior to starting my career in LE, I was a practicing member of the CCW community and continue to believe that an armed citizen beats an unarmed victim in every situation.

    I don't know all of the details of this encounter in Loveland so it is impossible for me to tell you exactly what I would have done or what should have been done in this situation. Remember that every story has at least two sides. In this story, what is missing is the perspective of local LE. My goal of this post is to provide input into what a LEO, many of whom are of the same mindset as me, go through when responding to this type of call.

    It is likely that this call came in through a call to dispatch as a man with a gun and at least two patrol officers were assigned to respond. Who knows what other details where given in the initial call? We never have all the details, only those reported by the caller on scene. We know that the call was to a public place, which immediately gives officers a reason to fear for the safety of the public as well as their own. I know this is not what most open carry advocates want to hear but in the light of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and numerous other active shooter incidents, this is the hand that has been dealt. LEOs cannot wait until a victim has been injured or killed to respond and address the situation. If they do, they are faced with being accused both through the crimininal and civil court system.

    The typical LEO that I know is married with children. It is important to each and every one of them to come home safe at the end of their shift to the ones that love them. When faced with what may be a deadly threat, they must take the appropriate action to ensure they will survive the encounter. No officer with good officer safety in mind will stand and talk to someone they have never met while that person has a firearm (a real life threat) in plain view without removing the threat for the duration of the contact. If we did so in this day and age, everyone would carry a gun in the open and LEO casulties would likely be much higher than they already are. In my experience, this is where the CCW laws are extremely beneficial to both the citizen and LEO. A check through dispatch will typically tell the officer that the citizen is likely not a threat if a valid CCW is in place. In this situation, the weapon is likely to be returned and the contact ended, in my case usually with a handshake. Contact by LEO does not happen because the local police or sheriff can't bear to have armed citizens. LEO is forced into this situation to ensure that the public is safe. In a perfect world, only the good guys would have guns and be willing to show them. In the real world, we are forced to treat everyone presenting a possible threat as a such until it has been determined otherwise. Suing the officers for their reaction only brings about more stress to a person who has sworn to protect and serve their community. These are individuals who are willing to lay their lives on the line to protect the members of their community. Remember, we live in a world where violence demands that citizens protect themselves. Don't attack the individual LEOs to bring about change. They are forced to react to the environment they live in. To ensure that your rights are protected, vote for individuals who are committed to protecting your second amendment rights. Remove the ones that aren't.

    That being said, I would like to share my opinion on open carry vs. concealed carry. I have been the shopper in Wal-Mart who has seen the guy shopping with his gun on his hip in plain view. At the time, I had at least two loaded firearms concealed on my person, ready in case a threat presented itself. My children were with me, but guns are nothing new to them. They watch me holster up every time I leave the house. I was not offended that this person chose to carry openly, though I questioned his philosophy. Afer watching him for several minutes, it was clear that this guy was shopping with his wife and children and was clearly only trying to exercise his rights as a citizen and show to everyone that he was not a weak target. In his mind, I am sure this person believed that he was prepared to protect his family and stop any threat that he encountered. From a tactical standpoint, I knew I had the advantage, had I been a bad guy. I knew what he was carrying and where he would reach, while he had no idea that the guy standing three feet behind him was armed and likely more prepared for battle. If something bad is going to happen, the bad guys are likely scouting ahead to find any threats that must be immediately eliminated. Concealment is an advantage, use it as such. Play your hand too early and you lose any advantage you may have had. My community is a strong CCW area. I take comfort in the fact of knowing that when the sh** hits the fan and I draw my weapon, there are likely others present who are also ready and prepared to fight to ensure the good guys prevail.




    Well said and on point. If there were more LEOs like you, problems with respect to our rights would disappear. And I agree with CC vice OC with respect to element of surprise and response. Welcome to the forum and glad to have you in CO.

    But I should add that a person openly carrying a handgun presents much less threat to a cop than someone who is unlawfully concealing with intent to commit a crime. If I was going to rob the Citgo conv. store, I wouldn't OC. If I was going to shoot a cop, I wouldn't OC. It is illogical to assume OC implies anything other than an exercise of our rights--which predate the Constitution, to have the means to protect ourselves, not endanger others. Cops have no lawful authority to stop someone breaking no laws. If they do, they are subject to the consequences--and have earned them. If you stopped me for OC without the legal RAS to do so, I would sue you unless you demonstrated to me a reason for so doing that I accepted. Just OCing presents no such reason. And you have no more right to do that than if you thought I was going topublicly call for the overthrow of the United States governmentby force of arms. (Smith Act) "Reasonable" means 'reasonable.' Not capricious.Further to your

    "No officer with good officer safety in mind will stand and talk to someone they have never met while that person has a firearm (a real life threat) in plain view without removing the threat for the duration of the contact."
    If we ever meet, you'll be chatting with someone carrying a .45 ACP and you wouldn't know it. How does " in plain view" make you feel less secure than in a Fobus on my hip? Or my hand in my pocket on the butt of a Hi-Power? I sugget you rethink that argument in what is otherwise a good case for decent LEOs.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    mahkagari wrote:

    Lately, I've been wondering why this oughta be limited to people who carry.
    It should not be limited to those who carry...every citizen should start doing it where legally possible--and it is a sad state of affairs when we have to resort to carrying digital recorders around just to protect ourselves from out of control police officers....and yet that is exactly what it is very quickly coming to.


    I have heard from certain LEO's who feel that we as OC'ers are out to make a big payday by trapping LEO's into violating our rights
    But how do you trap someone who already has full on intent to violate your rights? The only thing the recorder does is provide a witness to the encounter and helps make sure the encounter--if it is a bad one, does not get covered up.

    If LE does not like us recording them during interactions with them or filing a lawsuit against them--then don't mistreat us, don't violate our rights and think they can get away with it, and don't come up and act like a Rambo wannabe and think we are simply going to stand by while we are talked down to, mistreated, have our rights violated and treated with a level of contempt that you would not treat an animal with.

    So everyone,where legal, should carry a recorder and keep it going while out and about--the rights you protect will be your own.

  17. #17
    Regular Member jmar254's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    AHHHHHHHHH hey LEO's Please inform us just how many Bad Guys you've seen open carrying their guns.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672

    Post imported post

    I have never been a big fan of the "officer safety" defense. If officer safety is reason to disarm someone then every person LE comes into contact with should be searched, anything that could be used as a weapon confiscated, if a person is driving their keys removed from the vehicle, they should be handcuffed and locked in the back of the police car.

    After all you have no idea what a person is capable of or of what they will do in any given situation.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Beau wrote:
    I have never been a big fan of the "officer safety" defense. If officer safety is reason to disarm someone then every person LE comes into contact with should be searched, anything that could be used as a weapon confiscated, if a person is driving their keys removed from the vehicle, they should be handcuffed and locked in the back of the police car.

    After all you have no idea what a person is capable of or of what they will do in any given situation.
    I think every state should pass a "citizen safety" statute, which would permit a citizen to temporarily disarm a LEO if that citizen feels concerned for his/her safety during said encounter--but the officer can have the firearm(s) back after the encounter is concluded, provided the officer does not present any reason for the citizen to believe that the officer is a threat to either himself/herself or the other citizens.....

    if the tables were turned on them for a while, they might get the idea of how it feels to be on the receiving end....



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Grove Utah
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    NightWatcher wrote:
    I want to begin by saying that I am a law enforcement officer (LEO) in Colorado and consider myself to be very conservative and supportive of the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms. I deal with armed citizens on a regular basis and support their rights to be armed. Prior to starting my career in LE, I was a practicing member of the CCW community and continue to believe that an armed citizen beats an unarmed victim in every situation.

    I don't know all of the details of this encounter in Loveland so it is impossible for me to tell you exactly what I would have done or what should have been done in this situation. Remember that every story has at least two sides. In this story, what is missing is the perspective of local LE. My goal of this post is to provide input into what a LEO, many of whom are of the same mindset as me, go through when responding to this type of call.

    It is likely that this call came in through a call to dispatch as a man with a gun and at least two patrol officers were assigned to respond. Who knows what other details where given in the initial call? We never have all the details, only those reported by the caller on scene. We know that the call was to a public place, which immediately gives officers a reason to fear for the safety of the public as well as their own. I know this is not what most open carry advocates want to hear but in the light of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and numerous other active shooter incidents, this is the hand that has been dealt. LEOs cannot wait until a victim has been injured or killed to respond and address the situation. If they do, they are faced with being accused both through the crimininal and civil court system.

    The typical LEO that I know is married with children. It is important to each and every one of them to come home safe at the end of their shift to the ones that love them. When faced with what may be a deadly threat, they must take the appropriate action to ensure they will survive the encounter. No officer with good officer safety in mind will stand and talk to someone they have never met while that person has a firearm (a real life threat) in plain view without removing the threat for the duration of the contact. If we did so in this day and age, everyone would carry a gun in the open and LEO casulties would likely be much higher than they already are. In my experience, this is where the CCW laws are extremely beneficial to both the citizen and LEO. A check through dispatch will typically tell the officer that the citizen is likely not a threat if a valid CCW is in place. In this situation, the weapon is likely to be returned and the contact ended, in my case usually with a handshake. Contact by LEO does not happen because the local police or sheriff can't bear to have armed citizens. LEO is forced into this situation to ensure that the public is safe. In a perfect world, only the good guys would have guns and be willing to show them. In the real world, we are forced to treat everyone presenting a possible threat as a such until it has been determined otherwise. Suing the officers for their reaction only brings about more stress to a person who has sworn to protect and serve their community. These are individuals who are willing to lay their lives on the line to protect the members of their community. Remember, we live in a world where violence demands that citizens protect themselves. Don't attack the individual LEOs to bring about change. They are forced to react to the environment they live in. To ensure that your rights are protected, vote for individuals who are committed to protecting your second amendment rights. Remove the ones that aren't.

    That being said, I would like to share my opinion on open carry vs. concealed carry. I have been the shopper in Wal-Mart who has seen the guy shopping with his gun on his hip in plain view. At the time, I had at least two loaded firearms concealed on my person, ready in case a threat presented itself. My children were with me, but guns are nothing new to them. They watch me holster up every time I leave the house. I was not offended that this person chose to carry openly, though I questioned his philosophy. Afer watching him for several minutes, it was clear that this guy was shopping with his wife and children and was clearly only trying to exercise his rights as a citizen and show to everyone that he was not a weak target. In his mind, I am sure this person believed that he was prepared to protect his family and stop any threat that he encountered. From a tactical standpoint, I knew I had the advantage, had I been a bad guy. I knew what he was carrying and where he would reach, while he had no idea that the guy standing three feet behind him was armed and likely more prepared for battle. If something bad is going to happen, the bad guys are likely scouting ahead to find any threats that must be immediately eliminated. Concealment is an advantage, use it as such. Play your hand too early and you lose any advantage you may have had. My community is a strong CCW area. I take comfort in the fact of knowing that when the sh** hits the fan and I draw my weapon, there are likely others present who are also ready and prepared to fight to ensure the good guys prevail.



    I enjoyed reading your post. I think it was very thoughtful. I am sad at the response of some,who have cemented my views, hat many on this and similar websights are simply looking for trouble.

    Sad as it is few times persons rights are violated. It does not happen everyday nor is it intended very often. Of course that is my opinion as a person that has multiple dealings with Officers daily.

    The notion of disarming an Officer simply silly. I think it shows a lack of respect for the government and the Officer. Most states have laws against it. Those laws are put in place for a reason.

    Why dont you step up with these brave men? Do the job for a day or two and see what it is like dealing with some persons with a similar view. Having a weapon removed for a short time and then having it given back to you at the end of a short encounter is nothing more than Officer safety. It does NOT violate your rights. It only hurts your feelings.

    And sure make sure you have a recoreder, the cops have them as well. Then you will have your own recording of what you sounded like. I only hope you are proud of what you learn about yourself.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Grove Utah
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    NightWatcher wrote:
    I want to begin by saying that I am a law enforcement officer (LEO) in Colorado and consider myself to be very conservative and supportive of the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms. I deal with armed citizens on a regular basis and support their rights to be armed. Prior to starting my career in LE, I was a practicing member of the CCW community and continue to believe that an armed citizen beats an unarmed victim in every situation.

    I don't know all of the details of this encounter in Loveland so it is impossible for me to tell you exactly what I would have done or what should have been done in this situation. Remember that every story has at least two sides. In this story, what is missing is the perspective of local LE. My goal of this post is to provide input into what a LEO, many of whom are of the same mindset as me, go through when responding to this type of call.

    It is likely that this call came in through a call to dispatch as a man with a gun and at least two patrol officers were assigned to respond. Who knows what other details where given in the initial call? We never have all the details, only those reported by the caller on scene. We know that the call was to a public place, which immediately gives officers a reason to fear for the safety of the public as well as their own. I know this is not what most open carry advocates want to hear but in the light of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and numerous other active shooter incidents, this is the hand that has been dealt. LEOs cannot wait until a victim has been injured or killed to respond and address the situation. If they do, they are faced with being accused both through the crimininal and civil court system.

    The typical LEO that I know is married with children. It is important to each and every one of them to come home safe at the end of their shift to the ones that love them. When faced with what may be a deadly threat, they must take the appropriate action to ensure they will survive the encounter. No officer with good officer safety in mind will stand and talk to someone they have never met while that person has a firearm (a real life threat) in plain view without removing the threat for the duration of the contact. If we did so in this day and age, everyone would carry a gun in the open and LEO casulties would likely be much higher than they already are. In my experience, this is where the CCW laws are extremely beneficial to both the citizen and LEO. A check through dispatch will typically tell the officer that the citizen is likely not a threat if a valid CCW is in place. In this situation, the weapon is likely to be returned and the contact ended, in my case usually with a handshake. Contact by LEO does not happen because the local police or sheriff can't bear to have armed citizens. LEO is forced into this situation to ensure that the public is safe. In a perfect world, only the good guys would have guns and be willing to show them. In the real world, we are forced to treat everyone presenting a possible threat as a such until it has been determined otherwise. Suing the officers for their reaction only brings about more stress to a person who has sworn to protect and serve their community. These are individuals who are willing to lay their lives on the line to protect the members of their community. Remember, we live in a world where violence demands that citizens protect themselves. Don't attack the individual LEOs to bring about change. They are forced to react to the environment they live in. To ensure that your rights are protected, vote for individuals who are committed to protecting your second amendment rights. Remove the ones that aren't.

    That being said, I would like to share my opinion on open carry vs. concealed carry. I have been the shopper in Wal-Mart who has seen the guy shopping with his gun on his hip in plain view. At the time, I had at least two loaded firearms concealed on my person, ready in case a threat presented itself. My children were with me, but guns are nothing new to them. They watch me holster up every time I leave the house. I was not offended that this person chose to carry openly, though I questioned his philosophy. Afer watching him for several minutes, it was clear that this guy was shopping with his wife and children and was clearly only trying to exercise his rights as a citizen and show to everyone that he was not a weak target. In his mind, I am sure this person believed that he was prepared to protect his family and stop any threat that he encountered. From a tactical standpoint, I knew I had the advantage, had I been a bad guy. I knew what he was carrying and where he would reach, while he had no idea that the guy standing three feet behind him was armed and likely more prepared for battle. If something bad is going to happen, the bad guys are likely scouting ahead to find any threats that must be immediately eliminated. Concealment is an advantage, use it as such. Play your hand too early and you lose any advantage you may have had. My community is a strong CCW area. I take comfort in the fact of knowing that when the sh** hits the fan and I draw my weapon, there are likely others present who are also ready and prepared to fight to ensure the good guys prevail.



    I enjoyed reading your post. I think it was very thoughtful. I am sad at the response of some,who have cemented my views, hat many on this and similar websights are simply looking for trouble.

    Sad as it is few times persons rights are violated. It does not happen everyday nor is it intended very often. Of course that is my opinion as a person that has multiple dealings with Officers daily.

    The notion of disarming an Officer simply silly. I think it shows a lack of respect for the government and the Officer. Most states have laws against it. Those laws are put in place for a reason.

    Why dont you step up with these brave men? Do the job for a day or two and see what it is like dealing with some persons with a similar view. Having a weapon removed for a short time and then having it given back to you at the end of a short encounter is nothing more than Officer safety. It does NOT violate your rights. It only hurts your feelings.

    And sure make sure you have a recoreder, the cops have them as well. Then you will have your own recording of what you sounded like. I only hope you are proud of what you learn about yourself.

  22. #22
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    flicker wrote:
    It does NOT violate your rights. It only hurts your feelings.

    Then you will have your own recording of what you sounded like. I only hope you are proud of what you learn about yourself.
    No offense, but this is the exact logic that has produced the terrible situation gun owners are in. How do you think gun control started?

    People said, "oh, bans on short barreled shotguns dont infringe rights," "You dont 'need' an automatic weapon," "It's ok if we pass registration laws because that's not infringement," "it's not a violation of the 2A to ban high capacity mags," and on and on.

    And you're saying disarming someone isn't infringement because of "officer safety"? Are you kidding me? Banning guns altogether sure would enhance "officer safety" under your logic. Infringement is infringement no matter what you call it.

    Do you think cops have the right to come into your house for no reason? Of course not. It's protected under the 4th Amendment. And our right to bear arms is equally protected under the 2A (even though it hasn't been incorporated) and it is definitely protected under the Colorado Constitution. A cop does not have the right to disarm someone who is not committing a crime.

    I'm not anti-cop and I'm not looking for trouble. I'm exercising my constitutional rights.


    "There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs of freedom" -- Garet Garrett, The Revolution Was (1938)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Grove Utah
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    and many a violent group begins this way.

    YAWN.

  24. #24
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    flicker wrote:
    and many a violent group begins this way.

    YAWN.
    Nice argument. Anyone who believes in protecting gun rights is some crazy militia member plotting to violently overthrow the government, right? Give me a break.
    "There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs of freedom" -- Garet Garrett, The Revolution Was (1938)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Grove Utah
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    NightWatcher wrote:
    Suing the officers for their reaction only brings about more stress to a person who has sworn to protect and serve their community. These are individuals who are willing to lay their lives on the line to protect the members of their community. Remember, we live in a world where violence demands that citizens protect themselves. Don't attack the individual LEOs to bring about change. They are forced to react to the environment they live in. To ensure that your rights are protected, vote for individuals who are committed to protecting your second amendment rights. Remove the ones that aren't.



    I have to say--I disagree with this position. There are many people working in the position of a LEO who do mistreat the people, and who do intentionally target gun owners even though there has been no "complaint"--you can read through this board any length of time and see exactly how many are treated--there is the occasional "good" encounter--but by and large the encounters are anything but "good"--and OC'ers are confronted by belligerent, and nasty people who think that just because they wear a badge we have to stand by and allow our rights to be trampled, allow ourselves to be belittled and treated with contempt and never open our mouth to say a word and just take the treatment and go on our way as if nothing happened.

    If a LEO violates even a single Constitutional right--that LEO should be held both financially and where possible, criminally accountable for it. A single violation is one too many--and one will lead to another and another and another...

    It isn't about "attacking" individual LEOs---I don't believe an OC'er would ever initiate a contact with the police and I can tell you from my personal experience--the less contact I have with them, the better. Many LEOs don't like it when a citizen tries to exercise their rights, many try to intimidate OC'ers into cooperation when there is absolutely no obligation to do so, and many simply can't stand it when a citizen will stand their ground and refuse to answer questions or consent to searches.

    If an OC'er is accosted by a LEO and that LEO threatens, intimidates, assaults or violates the Constitutional rights of the citizen--then I say by all means a full, formal complaint should be filed, as well as a complaint to the DOJ, and where possible--and financially feasible, a lawsuit against the officer/officers involved.

    It is about making it clearly understood that the people will not stand by while our rights are violated with near impunity and then the department winks at the officer behind the scenes and gives him/her an at-a-boy, keep it up while speaking out both sides of its collective mouth.

    It is about holding the police accountable for their actions--because by and large they tend to think they are above the law, and can do/say anything they want and get away with it. Now not all of them are like that--but enough of them are as to make it impossible to trust any--and that is the sad fact of the society we live in. Why do you think so many OC'ers carry recorders around with them in order to provide another layer of protection against police abuse. The recorder can provide incontrovertible evidence of mistreatment, and anyone who carries a gun--should also carry a recorder and where legal--keep it going at all times while carrying.
    Sadly I would agree that there are some onBOTH sides causing most of the trouble for those that want to obey the law and live a happy life as they see fit.

    I would not believe everything someone claims on these websites. No one has any accountability nor is it really possible to follow up and find the truth.

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
  •