• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Negative LEO/IKEA Encounter

B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

T Vance wrote:
Bikenut wrote:
What I found .... "interesting" ... is that the officers were playing a little game of trying to help the person of interest (T Vance in this case) not only find something to be guilty of but to also help them find evidence of guilt.............. all by allowing the one being questioned to assume something was being said that wasn't, and had never actually been, said.
Could you pleaseclarify what you mean in my situation? I'm not following you.
The officers allowed you (and will allow any other person in a situation where confronted by an authority figure) to assume you MUST answer/comply with their requests simply because they are the authority figure.

For example (not taken from your personal experience but offered as a generic encounter):

LEO asks- "Can I see your ID?"
This is really a question but most folks "assume" it is an order simply because of who is asking.

LEO says- "Wait while I write you for trespass."
Again, most folks would assume that the officer has already enough evidence of trespass or he/she would not be writing it up. Allowing that to happen (because it is an authority figure doing it) without questioning it would mean the person allows themselves to be guilty... at least right at that moment... and fighting it later will be much more difficult than questioning it right then.

So it is a mind game being played hoping the one being questioned will fall right into being led down a path of assumption ending in being arrested/cited for something extremely difficult to prove otherwise later.

In short, it is a game of asking questions that are known will be assumed to be orders just because the one asking the questions is an authority figure... ie.. a police officer.

The good thing is that folks like you who know the law and counter questions (that are cloaked in the unspoken assumption of being orders from an authority figure.. ie.. a police officer) with questions that require answers directly from the law and not the officer himself/herself stop the "game".

Example:
LEO asks- "Can I see your ID?"
Again, this is just a question.

I reply- "Am I required to show you my ID?"
That requires an answer directly from the laws governing the situation at hand regardless of what the individual officer thinks or how he/she wants the interview to go. That "stops" the "game".

I had a conversation with an officer a while back where I was being given the officer's unfavorable opinion of open carry. The officer was in uniform in a place where there were other uninvolved people around listening intently.
The uniform alone carried the unspoken message that someone in authority didn't like ordinary folks to openly carry guns around. Everyone heard that unspoken message... myself included... some folks heard it even if only on a subconscious level.
When I had a chance I said in a voice that carried to everyone who was listening... and everyone was listening carefully hoping to hear me get my rear chewed:

"Open carry in Michigan is legal............... isn't it?"

And he replied "Yes."
Everyone heard him say "Yes."
So everyone heard someone in uniform, someone in authority, say that open carry is legal. Which countered all of his "opinions".

It is a mind game being played to gain advantage by some officers who understand that most folks consider a question from someone in uniform as the same as an "order".

So in your situation you knew the law and, more importantly, didn't play the "game" but kept the encounter focused upon the law.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Bikenut wrote:
Again, most folks would assume that the officer has already enough evidence of trespass or he/she would not be writing it up. Allowing that to happen (because it is an authority figure doing it) without questioning it would mean the person allows themselves to be guilty... at least right at that moment... and fighting it later will be much more difficult than questioning it right then.

Good post by you above, other than I disagree with your opinion here. A person exercisingtheirright to remain silent DOES NOT, as far as I know, EVER "allow themselves to be guilty". You are guilty of trespass if, in fact,you are lawfully asked to leave a property and, in fact,you unlawfully refuse to comply and you stay on the property.

An officer can say they will cite or arrest you for anything and your silence does not make you guilty, to any degree whatsoever,of whatever they may follow through and cite or arrest you for.
 

cabman1

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
985
Location
Jackson , Michigan, USA
imported post

Sorry to hear about that t. It seems they are targeting people that arnt breaking the law.Becuase its easier they really dont wanna solve any crimes the just want to get paid.Just remind them they work for you not the other way around
 

THway

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
252
Location
Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
imported post

ROFFL!!!1 That was you... i was wondering what all the po po's were doing at IKEA and not the dunkin donuts across the street.... its those krazy gun people again....

STOP SCARING ALL OF THE PEOPLE!!!!1 think of the kids

roflcopter9grpm2.png

 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
imported post

T Vance wrote:
Edited my post because I remembered something the officer said, which wasn't much , but I thought I'd add it.

"LEO 1 - Look, you are obviously know the laws, otherwise you probably wouldn't be carrying a gun like that. You sure seem like you are a smart guy. "
T Vance - great job on remaining cool "under fire" (verbal repartee, as it were). I hope that I am able to do the same when confronted by this type of situation.

IMHO - A statement like that is de-escalating, and when said in agreement like above, usually means that they are trying build rapport with you. I get this stuff all the time in "management-speak" from big corp environment.

I guess I will wait until after we hear from IKEA. I am tempted to fire off a letter to them, firm but fair, about not doing business with them until they change their practice and tell others them same.
 

hopnpop

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
630
Location
Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
imported post

Kudos, T. Great LEO handling. I keep imagining myself in that situation and I don't think I would have maintained such a composure. I would have been red-faced, with sweat running down it, and epileptic butterflies in my belly. I would probably be verbally vigilant, but being put under such a spotlight would've stressed me in a big way, and my body doesn't let me hide that real well.

What bothers me most about this whole event is

1) "the store" felt the need to involve LEOs without saying anything to you directly first. If they were truly (and unjustly) fearful, I could see the phonecall being made and the store employee admitting to being afraid to approach you directly, resulting in sending an (one) LEO to ask you to leave.

...but then there's the timing. You'd already spent a lot of time in the store, why didn't this interaction take place sooner?

2) the one LEO that should've been sent, merely was there to ask you to leave. I'm pretty pist that they sent 2-3 LEOs and, of course, their handling of the situation. All they had to do was ask you to leave, nothing more. I don't see why they felt the need to cat-and-mouse you and use the tactics they did. Very poorly done, JEERS to Canton PD!! :cuss:



Now, the store employee. Even if he didn't want you back the store, he should have more professional about it. Especially with no prior interaction between you and he, his standing behind the LEO and announcing that he doesn't want you back in the store period, even unarmed, is infuriating. He never asked you to leave, never asked you to leave your gun in your car, nothing - just out of nowhere come the LEOs which he stands behind and gets mouthy. What a little byotch. I swear, people suck. ...Not even being given a chance to disarm so you could at least finish your shopping and get you entertainment cntr pieces - what a load.

This scenario is infuriating any friggin way you look at it, from all angles. I can only imagine your anger and frustration. I'm riled up and I'm only sitting here with my coffee reading about it!! If this isn't IKEAs policy, if corp. is like most places and their policy coincides with state laws, then this pissant should lose his job.

Great handling of the situation, T. Keep us posted as to what corp. has to say.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

DanM wrote:
Bikenut wrote:
Again, most folks would assume that the officer has already enough evidence of trespass or he/she would not be writing it up. Allowing that to happen (because it is an authority figure doing it) without questioning it would mean the person allows themselves to be guilty... at least right at that moment... and fighting it later will be much more difficult than questioning it right then.

Good post by you above, other than I disagree with your opinion here. A person exercisingtheirright to remain silent DOES NOT, as far as I know, EVER "allow themselves to be guilty". You are guilty of trespass if, in fact,you are lawfully asked to leave a property and, in fact,you unlawfully refuse to comply and you stay on the property.

An officer can say they will cite or arrest you for anything and your silence does not make you guilty, to any degree whatsoever,of whatever they may follow through and cite or arrest you for.
Thank you.

I apologize for not being more clear with my explanation... what I was addressing throughout was the psychological aspect of an encounter at the time of the encounter.

The actual guilt, or lack of it, under the law wasn't what I was trying to address... I was trying to point out the little psychological game the officers were playing and how that game is intended to lead someone into thinking they just might really be guilty......... after all, someone in uniform just said they were guilty.

And I was trying to show that after the game is over and the person has allowed themselves to be played by the "game" and to be led into an arrest/citation it is much more difficult, and expensive, to try to prove innocence later in court.

T Vance did the perfectly correct thing by not playing the "game" and continually redirecting the whole encounter right back to the law itself with questions of his own that the officers had to answer... answer according to the law, not according to the "game".

In a situation like this where the store employee calls the police to remove a patron they don't want in the store the only thing that is necessary is for an officer to tell the patron to leave. That's it. And make no mistake... the responding officer(s) already asked the store employee if they had asked the patron to leave before confronting the patron.

There is no reason to play a game of: "Let's see if we can confuse this guy enough to find a reason to jam him up."

I still am disturbed that our own police officers would use this carefully crafted ploy on someone they already know to be abiding by the law. I am encouraged that more law abiding folks are aware of their need to keep encounters focused on facts and on the law .... and not the "game".
 

springerdave

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
665
Location
Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
imported post

T, I didn't mean to insinuate that I owed you a lunch, rather just a gesture of good will for you next time you are in the area. Anyway GOOD JOB! Ditto what Hopnpop said about being fershizzled inside when confronted by LEO. My first time I was trying hard not to go jail and still be emphatic about my rights. Lunch is still on and we'll swap war stories, you on?springerdave.
 
Top