imported post
scot623 wrote:
Now I understand some LEO's are dicks and make unreasonble requests...this is not the LEO encounter we are talking about in this thread. This discussion is about an officer requestiing you to relinquish your sidearm to insure yours and his saftey(essentialy make him feel safer) while during a legal stop. If it is not an unreasonable request, why not just do it. And as far as him then wanting to be sure you are carrying a legally registered weapon, again, why not just let him do it. If every request by a LEO is met with a "@#$% you, I don't haveto" type of response, all it does is foster their negative attitudes towards all CPL/OC'ers.
There are many reasons why it's a good idea to assert ones rights.
A great one is that it's a matter of social engineering. The police have been doing it for years with things like, "
If you have nothing to hide, ...?", or, "I
f they give me an attitude (euphemism for "If they stand up for their rights.), then they are escalating things. (never mind that it's the officer stepping on the citizens rights)"
To surrender the sidearm is nothing more than bowing down, because the officer does not need any permission to take it. The only thing it accomplishes is a waive of ones rights. True, there are many officers who will go easier on a person if that person is submissive (and it IS submissive, not "polite", or "respectful") however, the sad part about that is that it indicates that officers will treat people with less regard if that person is not only aware of their rights (you would think and officer would appreciate a person knowing more about the law than most) but also takes measures to keep them intact. . Just because you think you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean a search won't turn up something that can cause you trouble. Just because you strive to be a law-abiding citizen, doesn't mean, "you'll be fine if you let the street cop come in and search your home for illegal drugs. ".
You come on here and talk like this, yet there is a recent thread where a person was recording a LEO encounter, and the officers not only warned each other about the potential for the suspect recording the encounter, but actually taking ILLEGAL steps to stop that from happening, even to the extent of ILLEGALLY seizing the recorder, and turning it off. This is not the only time something like this has happened, and not only is it illegal, but it indicates attempts to cover up illegal behavior by the officers involved. This in turn creates an very dangerous environment where people are even more distrusting of LEO's and therefore more resistant.
In the days of old, the general citizenry got along fine with LEO's and were on friendly terms. It's unfortunate that more and more (even people who used to be of the mindset of, "
Cooperate with the officer because he's working for our benefit.") are starting to realize that doinig that in today's world is not such a good idea. People are starting to develop the mindset (through experience of their own and others) that, "
Even though I've got nothing to hide, it's better to take a speeding ticket, than to let the officer search my car."
Officers need to understand that people generally want to trust them. Unfortunately, when given that trust, many officers use that trust to trick people into waiving their rights or, the officers just outright violate the people's rights while breaking the law in the process. What they should also understand is that, "While people are going to go along for a period, those people will eventually figure out that the officer is not "working for their benefit." but instead working to see if there is anything to arrest them for." When the officers outright violate peoples rights, and break the law, it erodes trust in LE in general (It may not be fair, but due to the position of authority and privilege that LEO entertain, it is unavoidable). It also breeds a lack of respect for the law itself since even those tasked with upholding it instead violate it, and it then becomes arbitrary.
It used to be that the general belief was that the only people who wouldn't consent to an unwarranted search were those that had something to hide. Now, even those people who don't have something to hide are reluctant to do so, because they have too much access to information.
There is a member on this board whose family members were brought up on trumped up charges, just because the local prosecutor realized that he had a clear case for a civil rights lawsuit. The prosecutor couldn't go after him, so he tried to go after his family. This same department admitted to erasing the on board video of the incident (thereby destroying evidence). This is corruption, and it happens enough that ordinary people who aren't of the type to be considered "rabble rouses", are starting to stand up for their rights.