usmcbess
Regular Member
imported post
Very typical of my encounters while OC.
Very typical of my encounters while OC.
-
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.
-
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.
OC incident in KC
- Thread starter peterarthur
- Start date
W
Waveceptor
Guest
That assumption would be false. Reading the law as it is written on the link, states that an Officer has the right to detain you if he or she reasonably believes that you have or will commit a crime. The key words there (Reasonably believes) or reasonable suspicion. If an officer can articulate a crime is or will be commited he can detain and assertain your informaiton. And you have to give it. Remember it is not what you think it is what he thinks. There are millions of laws that you will never ever think to know that you can and will be detained for. So don't get too cocky around officers. They may have moments. But, if they know their job, they will find someway of getting you.
HYRYSC
Regular Member
You may be right, but if they know their job, then they will be aware of the laws regarding OC and should not hassle a law abiding citizen.
cshoff
Regular Member
Key phrase being: "If an officer can articulate..."
Saying, "I stopped you because you were openly carrying a firearm" in a jurisdiction where OC is lawful is NOT reasonable suspicion.
peterarthur
Regular Member
Precisely. If they can articulate suspicion of a crime, i.e., "A man of your description was reported waving his gun around at the QuikTrip and speaking angrily," or "We had a 211 (armed robbery) down the street and you fit the description of the perp", I am MORE than happy to help out an investigation. I want the police to follow up on leads, make arrests and put bad guys in jail. But if they start blustering about me having to present ID without some legal reason, i.e., articulable suspicion, I will have to take my chances and stand up for my rights, even if I risk arrest or even a beatdown, which is EXTREMELY rare for a law abiding citizen. If I remain civil and polite at all times while firmly asserting my rights (with no attitude), they have no reason or motivation for violating my rights. The people who get into trouble do so because they think that since they have done nothing wrong, they can speak to the LEO in any manner they choose. While the first amndment technically covers this, the penal codes favor the police. If you want respect, give it to the LEO, even if and especially when he does not deserve it. Be the better man and avoid cuffs...
W
Waveceptor
Guest
Or a elderly lady shopping in walmart notices a 6 foot tall white male roughly 225 pounds strutting down an isle with a gun strapped to his side, and is in fear that she may become the victim of a crime. Sounds reasonable to me.
Also remember there is no law stating that you can in fact carry a gun around. There just is not any law saying you cannot.
Also remember there is no law stating that you can in fact carry a gun around. There just is not any law saying you cannot.
9026543
Regular Member
Right to keep and bear arms--exception.
Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/\const\a01023.htm
Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/\const\a01023.htm
Last edited:
randyj
Regular Member
Just curious..
We are a nation of laws. Generally speaking...laws set forth those things that are ILLegal for the citizens to do. You're not seriously suggesting that there should be a specific law for every individual thing that we're ALLOWED to do are you? I wouldn't think you are...that would be pretty silly on the face of it.
If in fact you're not saying that...then try to more fully articulate the point you're trying to make.
My point is...IF there is NO law AGAINST it...then it's legal.
My other observation is how you try to paint the OC person as one who is "strutting" or otherwise trying to say "look at me...I'm cool..I'm a tough guy...just look at my gun", when the reality is (most of the time) the very opposite is true.
When I open carry...the attitude for me is..."there is nothing there. I'm just taking care of my normal everyday business. Nothing to see here...move along."
We've had positive experiences with the Elderly among us...expressing their thanks and letting the OC's know that their presence (with the weapon) was appreciated, and that it gave them an added measure and sense of security.
As a sidenote...at my local Sam's Club...the Manager there is very pro OC...and when he responds to customer's concerns regarding other customers OC'ing..he takes the opportunity to explain to them that it is their right to OC...and that Sam's Club policy is to support local gun laws. He then politely lets them know that at that particular moment he will not be making contact with the OC person, BUT...that if after talking with the concerned customer...they still have SIGNIFICANT concerns or feelings of lack of safety etc...he would at that time initiate contact with the OC person to try to resolve the issue.
IMO...this is the way issues like this should be handled. EDUCATE the people!!!
We are a nation of laws. Generally speaking...laws set forth those things that are ILLegal for the citizens to do. You're not seriously suggesting that there should be a specific law for every individual thing that we're ALLOWED to do are you? I wouldn't think you are...that would be pretty silly on the face of it.
If in fact you're not saying that...then try to more fully articulate the point you're trying to make.
My point is...IF there is NO law AGAINST it...then it's legal.
My other observation is how you try to paint the OC person as one who is "strutting" or otherwise trying to say "look at me...I'm cool..I'm a tough guy...just look at my gun", when the reality is (most of the time) the very opposite is true.
When I open carry...the attitude for me is..."there is nothing there. I'm just taking care of my normal everyday business. Nothing to see here...move along."
We've had positive experiences with the Elderly among us...expressing their thanks and letting the OC's know that their presence (with the weapon) was appreciated, and that it gave them an added measure and sense of security.
As a sidenote...at my local Sam's Club...the Manager there is very pro OC...and when he responds to customer's concerns regarding other customers OC'ing..he takes the opportunity to explain to them that it is their right to OC...and that Sam's Club policy is to support local gun laws. He then politely lets them know that at that particular moment he will not be making contact with the OC person, BUT...that if after talking with the concerned customer...they still have SIGNIFICANT concerns or feelings of lack of safety etc...he would at that time initiate contact with the OC person to try to resolve the issue.
IMO...this is the way issues like this should be handled. EDUCATE the people!!!
cshoff
Regular Member
It doesn't matter if it sounds reasonable to you. The only "reasonable" standard that must be met is the one that satisfies the requirements of the law. Luckily for all of us, the "fear" an elderly lady has towards a person lawfully carrying a firearm is NOT sufficient to meet that standard.
There is no law saying you can, in fact, breath, either. So, are you saying that your right to breath can be infringed by the government because someone finds your method or style of breathing to be offensive?
That isn't the way our system of laws and statutes work in this country. Our criminal laws are not permissive (stating what you can do), they are, on the other hand, restrictive (stating what you can't do).
cshoff- I appreciate all your knowledge and contributions. Who are you suggesting the officer has to articulate his reasonable suspicion to?
Also, as someone who has firsthand experience with this, are you aware these usually get written up as "Interfering with an officer/investigation" municipal ordinances, as opposed to state statute violations?
I was in an apartment doing nothing wrong when cops knocked on the front door. After we declined to answer, they opened the unlocked back glass door and walked in. When I refused to give my name, I was arrested. "Interfering with an Investigation". There was nothing articulate about these pricks coming into this apartment. On top of it all, a guy I know at the station tries to tell me - in typical copstryingtobullshitthehelloutofyou fashion - that if a cop asks your name, you must give it to him.
As a continued rant, you have little chance of winning such a case in municipal court. You have to pay a lawyer to lose there first, then pay him to appeal it, and pay every tax-stealing government body along the way. And if you win you're still down a decent bit of cash, not to mention the time and stress put upon so someone can know "your name, address, business abroad, and whither you are going...."
cshoff
Regular Member
Actually, at some point, he/she is supposed to articulate the reasonable suspicion to you. You have a right to know not only who your accuser is, but also what you are being accused of (Article 1, Section 18a of the Missouri Constitution - Also see RSMO 544.180). Our laws are designed to prevent you from being arrested or detained "willy nilly", and state laws that provide you protection from unlawful detainment do apply to political subdivisions within the state, whether they want to acknowledge that or not.
That is certainly a possibility, and probably easier to make "stick" being how the local police and municipal judges are usually "buddies" that scratch each others backs on a regular basis. But, like I alluded to above, nothing in a local ordinance provides a municipal jurisdiction with the authority to deny you your due process.
There is no doubt about it that municipal legal departments usually do their level best to bury you in mountains of legal fees if you choose to fight them, even if they were clearly in the wrong. When you get right down to it, you have two choices; you can either roll over and be a good little subject, or you can fight government entities that have wronged you in a court. This also highlights the reason why a lot of the folks who OC have resorted to carrying recording devices in addition to their guns and spare magazines.
The reality is, the more knowledgeable you are about your rights, and the more calmly and professionally you can assert those rights, the less likely you are to ever be wrongfully detained or arrested in the first place. On the other hand, if you resort to being a rude jerk that is confrontational from the word "go", you'll probably find yourself in front of a judge whether you technically broke the law or not.
peterarthur
Regular Member
At least we know that you are not a lawyer.
We don't need laws to describe legal actions. You have ZERO understanding of what laws are for. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to write laws describing all legal activities... (Why am I even engaging in this conversation anymore...? lol)And being engaged in a legal activity that some old lady (or police officer) does not LIKE or is SCARED of does not constitute a crime. She can CALL the police and report AMWAG but unless she describes some ILLEGAL activity (like waving it around or being armed while intoxicated), the police are under no obligation to respond.
peterarthur
Regular Member
And I only weigh 170, 5'10" and I don't strut. I swagger...
But that is only because of my 9 children... and beautiful wife, all of which probably know more about gun laws than you, apparently... heresyourdipstickjimmy
Regular Member
Perfect example of why NOT to OC in KC. As soon as that officer touched your shirt you should have picked up your phone, dialed 911, and requested an IMMEDIATE supervisor on-scene so you could file assault charges upon the officer. Sounds extreme, but it SHOULD have happened. That's a LEO that needed to lose his POST certification and the Mo DPS needs to have a ZERO-TOLERANCE policy for this kind of behavior.
Not a lawyer here, but you WERE NOT in any way obligated to follow his instructions or orders based upon what you wrote. He had no PC to run you for warrants, let alone speak to you. You forgot Rule #1 with LEO encounters....EVERYTHING is intended to illicit a criminal response or obtain evidence...LEOs are permitted to lie, so use your 5th Amendment rights and your 4th Amendment rights. You were unlawfully detained and interrogated...LEO admitted he had no reason to believe you had committed a crime, thus there is no PC for the LEO initiating the contact.
Not a lawyer here, but you WERE NOT in any way obligated to follow his instructions or orders based upon what you wrote. He had no PC to run you for warrants, let alone speak to you. You forgot Rule #1 with LEO encounters....EVERYTHING is intended to illicit a criminal response or obtain evidence...LEOs are permitted to lie, so use your 5th Amendment rights and your 4th Amendment rights. You were unlawfully detained and interrogated...LEO admitted he had no reason to believe you had committed a crime, thus there is no PC for the LEO initiating the contact.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
That is not "reasonable." It is a "fear."
That IS how law operates. That which is not denied is allowed.Waveceptor said:
peterarthur
Regular Member
In retrospect, I answered too many questions. I should have called it in and refused to answer him by asking my own questions. That is why I posted this. I have engaged hostile officers on a few occasions now and there is ZERO benefit to try and dialog with them. They are high on cop attitude and only want to find a way to "catch" you. If an officer is friendly and inquisitive, dialog might be ok but you must be careful if you proceed. They may be a hostile acting nice to "catch" you. When I see an officer now, I begin rehearsing my own questions in case they stop me. But the vast majority just nod sternly and keep moving. I don't even acknowledge them anymore. I just look at the next person in the crowd as if the LEO was just a random person in the crowd. Ignoring them, I think, causes them to ignore you mostly. If you engage in ANY way, you open the door for them to speak to you. I prefer to just avoid that altogether now.
heresyourdipstickjimmy
Regular Member
That's the ticket! Now make sure you have a copy of a pocket Constitution with you as well as the ability to record from your phone. They can prove useful when harassed in such an unlawful manner. There's a great youtube video on the 5th Amendment posted by a college professor that brings in a LEO to illustrate why one should NEVER speak to LEOs.
Some LEOs simply don't understand the law and fail to realize that their failure to understand the law can make them lawless just like those they hope to investigate. Once they cross that bridge there's no turning back and it's something some of us have had to remind Missouri LEOs about.
You'd be surprised how a LEO will react when they attempt to play the "officer safety" disarming card (which is illegal) and they're given the appropriate response (which usually gets them pretty angry). The casual response should always be a firm no citing the 4th Amendment followed by informing that they assume all liability of the firearm and/or injures that may occur from your being disarmed. It's more shocking if you toss out there that should they make the mistake of pointing the muzzle of your own firearm at you (LE or not) that it will be deemed an unlawful use of deadly force (aka deadly force assault) and RSMO 571 justifies the use of self-defense with deadly force...the reaction is priceless contemplation from most, however some will stretch that into threatening harm to a LEO which it clearly is not.
This is usually the point where most will wet themselves at the possibility of other means being present on or near your person. During casual conversations with some of the LEOs local to me, I've given them this wake-up-call scenario and asked if they could lawfully charge someone with a crime after reading just the black and white of the law. Not a single one could come up with a proper charge and one even commented that such an irresponsible act by a LEO is cause for disciplinary action and could result in permanent dismissal from LE, especially if the agency faces a lawsuit over the action having pointed a person's own firearm at them after disarming them.
Now that all said, I do not fault our LEOs for treating everyone like there's a weapon present, we're in a pro-2A State after all. However, I do expect the departments to train their officers in techniques to handle lawful carriers without violating the law. I as a law abiding carrying taxpayer should not have to personally educate LEOs to their own municipal ordinances or State statutes involving 571, nor should any of you. But when the chance arises, educating them is VITAL to keeping a good report with them so they see that we're not out to create a controversy, we want them to better understand what they're facing and how to deal with lawful carry.
Last edited:
peterarthur
Regular Member
Don't need a pocket copy (although I have many copies in my car and backpacks, thanks Heritage Foundation). I memorized it in junior high and I can quote most of it from memory (benefits of being a professional nerd as in an IT instructor
) I also have bookmarks in my internet browser on my iPhone for municode and several other websites.And I have watched alot of videos from CheckPointUSA on dealing with police. His approach is to be the questioner and give them NOTHING that they ask for unless they have a legal leg to stand on. which they don't unless they state an RAS (and they never have).
I have had no LEO's attempt to take my weapon yet, but they will receive strong verbal, Constitution-quoting objections if they try it. I will not stop them but I will object LOUDLY and strenuously. And as a professional educator, I have neither the time nor the inclination to train hostiles. Maybe the polite inquiring ones if I feel sure I can trust them... but how can I?... I prefer to play it safe now and just stonewall them with my own questions. I won't even answer the question about being a cop anymore. I don't have to because I am not presenting myself as one. If being professionally dressed and groomed makes them think so, even though I don't have a badge on, that is their dilemma. One cop at my QuikTrip asked if I was a cop 2 days ago and I asked, "Do I know you?" and he said, "I don't think so" so I asked, "Then why are you talking to me?" He said, "I saw you were carrying," and I said, "Oh..." and walked off... lol. End of conversation. I didn't say it rudely, just matter of fact. He had a puzzled look when I left. I am sure one of the other LEO's will fill him in back at the station. I am in that store every day. But being the question asker turns the tables on them and puts them in their place: Servant answering the Master's questions. The Asker is the Master of the conversation.
CheckPointUSA on youtube...
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Just general for readers. Not challenging Phssthpok personally.
Holy smoke! What a way to get slammed to the pavement and cuffed.
I have written on this extensively before. I will only hit some high points here. Take what you read here and extend it further along logical lines.
Terry gives the initial hint. Whether RAS existed is the privilege of the courts to decide. Notice the use of the past tense--"existed." This means after the encounter. Nowhere have I read that the courts have extended their power and privilege to rule on RAS to a citizen so he can determine RAS and walk away if he is not satisfied about the officers RAS.
I have no information that a cop is required to give you his RAS.
I have no information that a cop cannot give you only part of his RAS to see if you will admit to something.
I have lots of information that cops lie to detainees. Google "permissible deception" for whether it is legal for cops to lie to people they are investigating. I have no information that says a cop cannot lie to you about his RAS.
There are rafts of court opinions that discuss various sets of circumstances and whether a given set of facts amounted to RAS. Care to try to out-guess an LEO, a professional, about what circumstances amount to RAS? Care to try to out-guess an LEO who can also lie, bend, or stretch the facts to include a few things he knows are more likely to be approved by the judge as being sufficient for RAS?
Do you know whether courts allow LEOs to draw reasonable inferences from facts? Want to be whether the LEO knows?
Care to guess how an LEO-friendly judge might rule? Oh, you don't know whether the judge you might face is LEO-friendly? Oh, you don't even know the judges, or which you might face?
If you start to walk away, and the cop grabs you, are you going to resist and risk an obstruction charge (if illegal in your state)?
The deck is well stacked against the citizen regarding RAS and detentions during the detention.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
The statute does not say when the cop has to do the articulation. As long as he can articulate it to the court, and the court accepts it as sufficient, your seizure will be ruled reasonable.