imported post
Came off too argumentative. It looked, and was called, exactly what it was....a "confrontation".
While almost flawless as far as "technical" knowledge, (You had the statutes for both city and state guidelines down) I believe simply stating "I do not consent to a search" and "I do not consent to being detained" could have been done in a "friendlier" manner.
I like how whenever you start reciting the ordinance, the male cop tries to drown you out. It just confirms he has no clue as to what ordinance you are violating, but he sure knows you're wrong. How, he doesn't know. What ordinance, he doesn't know. You just are. Then you repeat the ordinance allowing you to do so, and he tries to talk over you again.
You could have asked him exactly what RAS he had to stop you and if he said "Well, you're carrying a damned gun!"ask him again how he has the right to stop folks for lawful acts. I would have pointed at the female officer and asked, "She's got a gun. Aren't you gonna stick your hands in her pockets or interrogate her?"
In reality, I probably wouldn't have. I wouldn't have been in"confrontation" mode to begin with. In "confrontation mode", things have a tendency to "escalate". (I'm not talking about physical escalation. I mean mental.) Whenpeople react indignantly,they have a tendency to makethemselves angrier thanthey already are. When that happens, they start to act angrier, which makes others react in a more confrontational manner, which angers the person more.....and "snowball!" it can just get ugly. Vicious circle.
I like your technical approach and the focus on your legality. You've got the "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" down. I think you would be better off carrying yourself in a more "informational" attitude instead of a "confrontational" attitude. Try: "I'm just here to exercise my rights, sir. What I'm doing is perfectly legal. If you don't think so, I'd appreciate you showing me the statute you think I'm violating."
Try more honey, less vinegar.
Just my 2 cent "critique".