A NC oc'ers first encounter with LEO

imported post

Glock 19 wrote:

springerdave wrote:

I had a similar encounter a while back. I learned from that. Now I carry a recorder and the knowledge that I didn't have at that time. The burden of proof is on LE. If I break no laws I should not be harassed by LEO. Wash, Rinse and Repeat and let them fall on their own sword.springerdave.

Click to expand...

with all do respect sringer this ocer in NC was not harassed, the officers were called to chk it out ...why some one was carrying.

This is why some LEOs come at ocers with an attitude because the ocer wants to puff out his chest and act like a jackass, so if you are polite and show no signs of being an ass then i feel your encounter should in theory come out positive...

Click to expand...

No? You seem pretty certain his 4A rights (search and seizure) were not violated. Yet, the information in thatOP, while not conclusive, leans further in the other direction--towards 4A violation of his person and his gun. Remember that his consent did not come until after the LEO declared he was going toseize his gun.

I think the only way one couldconclude he was not harassed is because he didn'tfeel harassed, not becauserights violations didn't occur. And "feeling harassed" has the liability of hinging on the person's perceptions and his knowledge of his rights.

The real question is what would have happened if he hadpolitely, verbally stood on his 4A and 5A rights? Wouldthere have been additionalbut unpleasantspeech from the cop? Temporary hand-cuffs?

Being nice to a rights-violator so that he is pleasant while violating your rights is no measure of harassment.

imported post

Oh & btw I have since bought a lanyard to keep my cc permit & ID in. SO next time I'll be very polite AGAIN but I'll not be so easily disarmed.

imported post

REX681959 wrote:

Just to let you know one of the reasons I basically disarmed myself was I put myself in the officer's place & knowing I had to put my hand near my gun to get to my wallet it would have made me nervous. Now you have to remember this is a small town & this was probably the LEOs first encounter of this type also. Both LEOs were VERY polite & we actually had a long conversation about handguns & OC. The 2nd LEO REALLY liked my gun. Most cops are just like you & me going to work everyday & trying to get through it with as little hassle as possible.

Click to expand...

Ditto on the "most cops" thing.

imported post

Glock 19 wrote:

springerdave wrote:

I had a similar encounter a while back. I learned from that. Now I carry a recorder and the knowledge that I didn't have at that time. The burden of proof is on LE. If I break no laws I should not be harassed by LEO. Wash, Rinse and Repeat and let them fall on their own sword.springerdave.

Click to expand...

with all do respect sringer this ocer in NC was not harassed, the officers were called to chk it out ...why some one was carrying.

This is why some LEOs come at ocers with an attitude Because people stand up to authority? because the ocer wants to puff out his chestOr just OCing and wanting to be left alone to continue their lawful activityand act like a jackass, You mean like standing up to authority. so if you are polite and show no signs of being an ass then i feel your encounter should in theory In theory Communism works, in theorycome out positive...In theory if LEOs left alone OCers, there would be no encounters good or bad and free people would be allowed to go about their business.

Click to expand...

"Yes, just do as I say and everything will be all right, yes, yes...just walk to the railroad tracks and climb aboard the box car, no, nothing to worry about we are the police and we are here to help you....now hurry along...no more questions. Things will be alright..."

imported post

Glock 19 wrote:

Venator wrote:

Glock 19 wrote:

has nothing to do with being free its how you present yourself when you have an encounter with LEO's but you are so anti cop i don't think you get the idea,don't care if you are on the bath twp. board that over sees a chief and 3 or 4 officers. I respect your knowledge of the michigan gun laws and the 2A but dude get off your soap box and use some common sense that god gave you

Click to expand...

Pssssst...your ignorance is showing. But all is not lost. You can educate yourself.

Click to expand...

you are the ignorant one big guy..thats why as long as you are involved with mioc i will never pay to be a member. you need to educate yourself in common sense and people skills. you sir are a JACKASS!!!! and a loon

Click to expand...

It's MOC, Inc.not mioc and attacking the man is still a poor argument and a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. It's easy to attack a man whilehiding his identity behind a screen name.

But perhaps you should join so you can run for President in November of 2010.

Cheers,

Brian Jeffs

imported post

Glock 19 wrote:

has nothing to do with being free its how you present yourself when you have an encounter with LEO's but you are so anti cop i don't think you get the idea,don't care if you are on the bath twp. board that over sees a chief and 3 or 4 officers. I respect your knowledge of the michigan gun laws and the 2A but dude get off your soap box and use some common sense that god gave you

Click to expand...

Sorry but I must say that I do not appreciate your condescending tone or your belittling comments toward not onlya long standing member here on OCDO, but also the 2AM Michigan coordinator and all around front line fighter for 2A rights among many other things.

Do you know Brian? I do and he is NOT anti-cop.

Might I suggest to you to check your attitude at the door, before posting insults and disrespecting other members here.

imported post

Glock 19 wrote:

you are the ignorant one big guy..thats why as long as you are involved with mioc i will never pay to be a member. you need to educate yourself in common sense and people skills. you sir are a JACKASS!!!! and a loon

Click to expand...

WTH is wrong with you? You really are coming off as a hot head mental case.

You need to slow your roll.

imported post

Glock 19 you are out of line period. You do not understand the right guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights... I suggest you go back and read them over and then rethink your position.

I am also tired of the personal attacks on a man who has given more time to the RTKBA and our rights in general than just about anyone else I know.

Remember what Ben said...

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

imported post

Hmmm, this is going south fast. I wanna try and salvage this conversation.

If Ia person with basic knowledge of his rights is stopped or detained, and he knows he has done nothing wrong, a red flag should go up. If I provide ID, then I am now a person. My ID is my identity. It is not my flesh and blood. If I do not have an ID, I do not exist until ID is established. You cannot write a citation to someone without a name and address! If we follow the tactics of Jesus, by answering a question with a question (politely and stating lawful grounds), then the burden of proof of a violation and ID is on them. Jesus was polite but firm, yet they killed Him. He was asked if He was the Son of God. He said if you believe that I am, then I am (short translation). They could find no fault in Him because He did not identify Himself. It was the people who killed Him, not the government, because they had identified Him. He told THEM who He was. Once He was identified, He was dead.

This is a no show state...am I correct? I tend to believe there is a reason behind this. If you ID yourself voluntarily, then you validate yourself as a ward of the state (you are now a "person"). But if you do not ID yourself voluntarily, and you have done nothing wrong, and they REMOVE your ID from you (violated your 4th), then you have retained your identity and nothing found after that can be held against you...correct?

Am I making sense or am I just thinking out loud here?

imported post

Is this OCDO or MGO?

imported post

American Sheepdog wrote:

Hmmm, this is going south fast. I wanna try and salvage this conversation.

If Ia person with basic knowledge of his rights is stopped or detained, and he knows he has done nothing wrong, a red flag should go up. If I provide ID, then I am now a person. My ID is my identity. It is not my flesh and blood. If I do not have an ID, I do not exist until ID is established. You cannot write a citation to someone without a name and address! If we follow the tactics of Jesus, by answering a question with a question (politely and stating lawful grounds), then the burden of proof of a violation and ID is on them. Jesus was polite but firm, yet they killed Him. He was asked if He was the Son of God. He said if you believe that I am, then I am (short translation). They could find no fault in Him because He did not identify Himself. It was the people who killed Him, not the government, because they had identified Him. He told THEM who He was. Once He was identified, He was dead.

This is a no show state...am I correct? I tend to believe there is a reason behind this. If you ID yourself voluntarily, then you validate yourself as a ward of the state. But if you do not ID yourself voluntarily, and you have done nothing wrong, and they REMOVE your ID from you (violated your 4th), then you have retained your identity and nothing found after that can be held against you...correct?

Am I making sense or am I just thinking out loud here?

Click to expand...

If you're driving and pulled over, you had better have a picture of yourself in your pocket that was provided by the state.

imported post

Ah but driving is a privilege requiring a license just as CC is... big diff from OC... IMOP

imported post

Glock 19 wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

+ 1 springerdave

I would not have given up my gun, he would not have gotten my License, & or my cpl permit. I would have been polite, but I would not have submitted.

Click to expand...

And that's why you, my friend, would be a target for the "barney fifes". if you are going to act like a jackass expect to be treated like one... get off the "I will not submitted" soap box

- 1 conservative85

+2 glock 19

Click to expand...

I never said I would act like a Jackass! You newbies, need to pay Attention to detail. For the record... I/we(citizens) don't have to step on egg shells so that these glorified security guards don't get offended by our exercizing the right to K&B.
Since the post has resorted to name calling, I think all you newbie cop wannabe gun freaks, should go start your own website. I think Glock19 you are either a iwishiwereacop, or your brother is fictitious, & you are really the cop.
Your attitude is Kill them with kindness, That's fine there is a way of killing them with kindness and not letting them (by accident or by design) step on your rights. I call it politeness with Tact! not kissing ass where it is not required. we are the innocent ones till proven guilty remember? I do not stand on a soap box, not since I stood on one from 1988-1992 while I directed traffic, one of my many duties as a LEO.
An officer by the way who was taught codes, conducts, and who was sworn to uphold the Constitution, as well as the laws, laws that were put in place to protect the citizens (against abuses) which I pledged to Protect, Assist, & Defend! Not to Push & Shove!
In these time with all the liberal/Socialist idiots running Michigan, and the country, the last thing we need is a bunch of ignorant people calling the police over every little thing turning in other Americans. There is a big difference between a man with a gun shopping, and greeting people with hello, and a guy running into a store with a gun drawn and demanding money.
The guy who called is probably the same guy who calls the police if you park in handicapp spot, or your not wearing a seatbelt. I think the guy who called knows more about his couch, and potatos, and probably belives that it's legal to speed while passing in a passing zone, but it's not leagal to carry. He assumes he knows the law when he really don't, which by his ignorance, or his unwarranted arrogance has negative repercussions, on an innocent oc'er like the one in this post. He was minding his own business, and either felt that by kissing the cops ass they'd be friendly, or didn't have the tact & confidence to kindly refuse to possibly incriminate himself.
Believe it or not the founding fathers put the 4th & 5th in the constitution for cases as little as this one, and as big as Ruby Ridge.

imported post

If you attained a DL, then you signed away your identity to the state while driving, since driving is a privilege. You gave away your identity to participate in the privilege of driving. Therefore, you voluntarily donate your identity to the state. Scary proposition.

Bearing arms is a right. Therefore you can retain your identity if you are innocent of a violation (while on foot). But I would dare say, that it would be a reasonable challenge to the supreme court, to separate the possession of a gun in a vehicle from falling under the same guidelines of driving (transporting guns). It seems there should be a separation of rights vs. privileges here. The way I see it is that you are performing two separate activities here...driving, and exercising your 2nd.

imported post

American Sheepdog wrote:

If you attained a DL, then you signed away your identity to the state while driving, since driving is a privilege. You gave away your identity to participate in the privilege of driving. Therefore, you voluntarily donate your identity to the state. Scary proposition.

Bearing arms is a right. Therefore you can retain your identity if you are innocent of a violation (while on foot). But I would dare say, that it would be a reasonable challenge to the supreme court, to separate the possession of a gun in a vehicle from falling under the same guidelines of driving (transporting guns). It seems there should be a separation of rights vs. privileges here. The way I see it is that you are performing two separate activities here...driving, and exercising your 2nd.

Click to expand...

Now that I think about it, It's a major can of worms!

imported post

American Sheepdog wrote:

If you attained a DL, then you signed away your identity to the state while driving, since driving is a privilege. You gave away your identity to participate in the privilege of driving. Therefore, you voluntarily donate your identity to the state. Scary proposition.

Bearing arms is a right. Therefore you can retain your identity if you are innocent of a violation.

Click to expand...

I agree...almost, if your pulled over in Michigan the officer still has to have PC to ask for a drivers license. They just can't pull you over for no reason, and ask for the DL.

You do tho sign...waive your rights to a field sobriety test, or a breathalyzer.

Oh I'd like to add also I would argue that driving is a privilege. Remember the 9th and the 10th
We could make it a right, it is not enumerated to the United States, so it is left to the state and or the people.

imported post

That's why you ask immediately, "Did I do something wrong officer?"

Trust me...he will have, or make up some PC. If the violation was speeding, you could ask to see the readout on the radar set. Otherwise, It's his word against your unknowing perception of his integrity. Hand over your DL if you don't like handcuffs. You fall under the "privileged" status. But I would be polite and ask questions. Even if you know you are guilty of some traffic violation...which by the way, a citation is in lieu of arrest. It's a promissory note to pay, or show up before a magistrate/judge. Under your signature, if you know you are innocent, write, "This signature copywrighted...all rights reserved."

Dude you want to throw them for a loop, do it. It basically says that they cannot use your signature for monetary gain. I've heard of it working before. But it will probably cause some confusion and throw them for a loop for a minute or two and be disregarded. But your signature is yours and it cannot be used for personal gain.

It's kind of like the Florida attorney who, on the back of his check to a major retailer wrote:

By signing this check you agree not to send me any corporate mailings or advertisements or you are liable to pay me 2 Million dollars. He got mail...and 2 million dollars because the retailer signed a CONTRACT and cashed the check.

imported post

American sheepdog, i will say that i agree with you on many of your posts, as i am also learning to stand my ground, as i was taught to respect the police and do as they say, as they are there to help us..... of coarse that was 30 yrs ago...

Now i have hada change of opinion as i have had several interactions with the police. I have found that the police are a information gathering force, to use the information, and to twist.it as they see fit to go into the mold that they want to use.

(( GLOCK 19)) might i suggest that you take a step back and (reconsider )your posts that you have made. You will find that the majority of us here strongly believe in our rights

1) you are new here, 2) Brian, that you have CRAPPED on has done more to further the Open Carry movement in Mi. then you have.3) I don't care if you don't like Brian, or the way he is doing things,

4) I or (we)will show you the same respect that you have shown, or will showBrian by posting all of this above mesage on the forum ... We are all hear to learn & further our knowledge of the law & our rights

5) IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU HAVE A BEEF WITH SOMEONE( PM them)If you want feel free to PM me, if you need to....

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

Is this OCDO or MGO?

Click to expand...

I was getting ready to post that.

Get out of my head!!!

imported post

First, I have nothing against any patriot on this channel. I think all considerations are valid and deserve civil discussion.

As for police, I can tell you I never walked up to somebody and said, "Hey sir, you don't have to talk to me if you don't want to and you can just walk away at will and you have the right not to ID yourself."

Police are trained interrogators and detectives. They have to be able to get information from a person, and investigate a possible violation/crime. Nothing wrong with that. That's why we must know our rights if we are to be on a level playing field with them. It's difficult to slight an officer for getting the information he did if we ourselves are ignorant of the law. If I've heard it once, I've heard and said it a thousand times...ignorance of the law is no excuse. I've taken a lot of folks to jail who did not know something was against the law...like flicking a cigarette butt out the window during a traffic stop. Littering...$75.00! Littering within 500 feet of a waterway...up to $5000.00!