• 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.

Encounter with Parker PD

M

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
imported post

ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
But with the OC incident, the thing I did was that I legally Open Carried my weapon which an ignorant someone brought to the attention of the LEOs, who in turn verified that I am legally allowed to possess a firearm.
Click to expand...
I fully support you picking your battles. I think the point people are trying to make (particularly for lurkers) is that the LEO doesn't have probable cause or RAS just because an ignorant person brings it to their attention.Nor to establish you're "real military" before you verbally ID'd yourself as such. What business is it of theirs if you're on your way to a paintball match?

To further Rabbit's example, if I'm verbally disciplining my children in public (which any parent of 5 and unders can testify happens FREQUENTLY) should I need to worry that an ignorant someone is going to call 911 about a man mentally abusing children? If the LEO arrives and my kids are sitting quietly on a bench while I complete my transaction wherever, does the LEO have probable cause to ask for my ID and see if I've kidnapped my kids from an imaginary ex with a restraining order against me? Should I need to worry about a CPS contact getting filed on me?

I agree, pick your battles. OC and parents whokeep their kids from beingterrors on society should benormalized.There areLEO behaviors or cultural norms I'm going to dig my heels in about. Wasn't it Ghandi who said "Become the change you want to see?"
 
C

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

I just hate to see people speak as if the officers are automatically adversaries. I'm in that "I've got nothing to hide..." group of people. I'll inform the officer that, although I may lawfully refuse, I am providing my ID to satisfy the request of the officer. This says to the cop.. He knows his rights.. but is going to play ball so we can all get out of here quickly and without a hitch. He knows his rights... and is politely providing ID for officer safety. Something like that.

Unless I'm truly busy or in a hurry. Then I really will just remind the officer that there is no lawful requirement to show ID or to engage in conversation.
 
I

ilovejetnoise777

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Parker, CO, , USA
imported post

cscitney87 wrote:
I just hate to see people speak as if the officers are automatically adversaries.  I'm in that "I've got nothing to hide..." group of people.  I'll inform the officer that, although I may lawfully refuse, I am providing my ID to satisfy the request of the officer.  This says to the cop..  He knows his rights.. but is going to play ball so we can all get out of here quickly and without a hitch.  He knows his rights... and is politely providing ID for officer safety.  Something like that. 

Unless I'm truly busy or in a hurry.  Then I really will just remind the officer that there is no lawful requirement to show ID or to engage in conversation.
Click to expand...

I totally understand what you're saying, I do. But here's the deal: officer safety does not override the constitution. They made a decision when they joined the PD. I made a decision to join the Armed Forces. I have to maintain worldwide deployability 24/7/365. I can't leave town without taking leave. So these are the costs I counted when I joined the Air Force. He knows being on the enforcement side of the law, you're making yourself a target to the bad guys. So with all due respect to all of them (and I don't say this condescendingly, I really do respect them) I am not going to show them an ID when I don't have to, just so they can feel safe talking to me. It's their problem if they don't feel safe, not mine. If they don't feel safe, they can go away. Simple as that.

While I completely understand the officer safety issue, I absolutely don't buy it. It's their issue not mine. This is equal to me complaining to my superiors that I don't want to deploy to Afghanistan because a certain portion of the population (not all) are out to kill me there so I don't feel safe going into a situation like that. They would first laugh at me and then quickly find an appropriate UCMJ article under which they would charge me and then kick me out.

I could still be nice an show them whatever, if I wanted to play ball but never so that I could help them feel safe.
 
C

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

"I totally understand what you're saying, I do. But here's the deal: officer safety does not override the constitution"

It is not unConstitutional to waive my rights to speedy trial, search, and my right to remain silent.

Officer Safety does not override @#$%, You know? I am free to tell whoever I want what I want.

Thank you for your extremely polite response. Very cool of you.

Discretion

Main Entry: dis·cre·tion
Pronunciation: dis-ˈkre-shən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 : the quality of being discreet : circumspection; especially : cautious reserve in speech
2 : ability to make responsible decisions
3 a : individual choice or judgment <left the decision to his discretion> b : power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds <reached the age of discretion>
4 : the result of separating or distinguishing
 
I

ilovejetnoise777

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Parker, CO, , USA
imported post

cscitney87 wrote:
"I totally understand what you're saying, I do. But here's the deal: officer safety does not override the constitution"

  It is not unConstitutional to waive my rights to speedy trial, search, and my right to remain silent.

Officer Safety does not override @#$%,  You know? I am free to tell whoever I want what I want. 

Thank you for your extremely polite response.  Very cool of you.
Click to expand...

What's unconstitutional is for the officer to think that he has a right to see my ID for open carry - not for me to waive any of my rights.

Every officer I spoke to regarding this said they will absolutely want to check my ID if I'm open carrying to see if I'm legally allowed to own a gun. That is what's unconstitutional because open carrying is as legal as, like someone else here said, carrying a cell phone. They don't ask for ID for that. Their justification for asking for ID for OC is that they need to feel safe and that I'm indeed allowed to have a gun. That's what they told me. So don't shoot the messenger here. I'm just sharing everything for everyone's benefit.
 
C

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

"What's unconstitutional is for the officer to think..."

Stopped reading your post right there. :uhoh: It's Constitutional for anybody to think anything.
 
I

ilovejetnoise777

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Parker, CO, , USA
imported post

cscitney87 wrote:
"What's unconstitutional is for the officer to think..."

Stopped reading your post right there. It's Constitutional for anybody to think anything.
Click to expand...


I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but it's obvious that you're on here to argue with people. It seems you have nothing valuable to offer to this forum.

I did a quick search on the other posts you have made on this website and you're arguing with other people as well, in a non-constructive way just like on here.

Please do not pollute this thread with your antagonistic comments - which I suspect you will do once again immediately upon reading this.
 
Gunslinger

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
entartet17 wrote:
ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
I just spoke with a Parker PD officer regarding those other officers asking me for an ID and he said that even though OC is perfectly legal, it's perfectly legal for citizens who are legally allowed to own a weapon. The reason they ask for an ID is so they can make sure that there is nothing that prevents you from legally owning a weapon. That's why you have to provide them with your ID when asked.

This made perfect sense to me.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what Parker PD says, the CANNOT demand your ID for OCing.

16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

According to People v. Archuleta, 616 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1980), The police may detain and require identification of a person if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is involved in criminal conduct.

In order to lawfully detain an individual for questioning: (1) A police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime; (2) the purpose of the detention must be reasonable; and (3) the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973); People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1989); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989); People v. Sutherland, 886 P.2d 681 (Colo. 1994); People v. Rodriguez, 924 P.2d 1100 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).

Also, according to Florida v. J.L. 529 U.S. 266 (2000):
"An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person."

The Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) said that detaining a man observed by police as openly carrying a rifle on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment.

And, of course, there's the well known case MATTHEW A. ST. JOHN v. DAVID McCOLLEY and THE SIX UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE ALAMOGORDO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, in which the United States District Court for New Mexico ruled:
"Moreover, Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.

"For example, in United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit found that an individual's lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure. In Ubiles, officers seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip that he was carrying a gun. Id. at 214. Officers did so even though no applicable law prohibited Ubiles from carrying a firearm during the celebration. Id. at 218.

"Holding that the search violated Ubiles' Fourth Amendment rights, the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers "that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason."
Click to expand...

Hey thank you for sharing this!

I did speak to two other Parker PD officers this morning about this whole ID for OC thing. I'll save everyone the time and post the talking points here:

1- They did acknowledge I don't have to show them ID or talk to them. In which case they would ask me to leave the area and even then I don't have to because it's a public place.

2- I asked them how is it any different than being pulled over simply for driving a vehicle to see if I'm legally allowed to drive a car. They said, "well it's not a felony to drive a vehicle when you're not supposed to." I understand where they're coming from, but I completely disagree.

3- Their whole premise seemed to have been centered around looking for behavior outside of the norm. Again, I see their point, but don't agree with it whatsoever. Just because most people are either unwilling or indifferent towards the carrying of firearms, doesn't make my behavior "out of the norm" when I do choose to carry. It is a right given to me and practiced by many for as long as the constitution has been around.

4- I told them, "what if when I was on the phone to my friend, I just gave the officers my ID and told them I don't want to talk to them and they can go do their check on me on their own and then leave me alone." They paused and said "well we'd think there is something fishy going on and would probably call in a third squad car for help." I did express my astonishment to that comment.
Click to expand...
It's a felony to drive a stolen car. The obscure chance of that is subordinate to the right to peaceful passage; hence, they can't stop you just to make sure you have legal right to drive the car. They also have no legal right to stop you, in CO, for OC unless they can articulate in a manner acceptable to the reasonable man that they suspect you have or are about to commit a crime. The point is you acted in a very appropriate manner--going beyond what you are required to do,but made it all a non-issue quickly. That was your choice and under the circumstances, I think a good one. Had the cops beena-holes, I would have handled it differently. But they weren't and I probably would have done much the same. AndI miss the smell of JP-4 early in the morning...;)
 
C

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

I didn't say anything wrong. You are telling me that it's wrong for me to give the officer information about myself. I'm saying it is not- people turn themselves in all the time. They volunteer their personal information- including their CHP status. You don't want the officer to Think that I volunteer my information for officer safety.

That's the bottom line.

Thought police, anyone? Our forefathers were weary of people like you. Early American colonialists were fighting a thought police of their own- religion. Where they came from- in Europe- you weren't allowed to Think a certain way. You Had to be Catholic or whatever the religion of the ruling King or Queen.

Well, Sir, I do have something valuable to contribute. I am here to say that there is nothing wrong with informing an officer of your carry status. Not informing out of fear.

But I get it... "Cops are bad.. they hurt innocent people.. blah blah.. they do this.. they do that wrong.. "

So we shouldn't give them anything. Right?
 
entartet17

entartet17

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
206
Location
Aurora, Colorado, USA
imported post

cscitney87 wrote:
I didn't say anything wrong. You are telling me that it's wrong for me to give the officer information about myself. I'm saying it is not- people turn themselves in all the time. They volunteer their personal information- including their CHP status. You don't want the officer to Think that I volunteer my information for officer safety.
Click to expand...
I dont want to speak on behalf of ilovejetnoise777, but it's pretty clear from his post that he wasnt saying anything about your right to waive your rights. You are free to do whatever you want. He was saying that the police cannot violate his (or anyone else's) constitutional rights.
 
I

ilovejetnoise777

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Parker, CO, , USA
imported post

entartet17 wrote:
cscitney87 wrote:
I didn't say anything wrong.  You are telling me that it's wrong for me to give the officer information about myself.  I'm saying it is not- people turn themselves in all the time.  They volunteer their personal information- including their CHP status.  You don't want the officer to Think that I volunteer my information for officer safety.
Click to expand...
I dont want to speak on behalf of ilovejetnoise777, but it's pretty clear from his post that he wasnt saying anything about your right to waive your rights. You are free to do whatever you want. He was saying that the police cannot violate his (or anyone else's) constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Hey thanks for your comment. I thought I was being very clear too.

I guess it doesn't matter how eloquently or how clearly one expresses his thoughts as long as the person being spoken to is evidently lacking the faculties to comprehend what is being said but instead is only interested in creating a platform in order that he may air his opinions. I refuse to be suckered into a never-ending exchange with a person like that.

It seems like he finally got it though. So maybe he'll move on to someone else's thread, so those of us who are not into personal attacks but just like to discuss issues without maligning people can keep posting their 25cents on here.

I do want to say thanks to all the others though for teaching me a thing or two about this issue. Apparently there is a cop who is very pro open carry and those other cops I spoke with were going to see if they can hook me up with him so I can talk to him and see what someone who believes like I do and also is a cop thinks about this topic. It will be a good source of information from the Law Enforcement side of things. I can't wait to talk to him and find out how he balances this whole issue. If/when I do, I'll post on here.
 
C

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
entartet17 wrote:
cscitney87 wrote:
Click to expand...



I guess it doesn't matter how eloquently or how clearly one expresses his thoughts as long as the person being spoken to is evidently lacking the faculties to comprehend what is being said but instead is only interested in creating a platform in order that he may air his opinions. I refuse to be suckered into a never-ending exchange with a person like that.

It seems like he finally got it though. So maybe he'll move on to someone else's thread, so those of us who are not into personal attacks but just like to discuss issue
Click to expand...
Your post is just DRIPPING with irony!
 
I

ilovejetnoise777

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Parker, CO, , USA
imported post

cscitney87 wrote:
:)
Click to expand...

Goodness gracious! Go away.

I registered here to share my experience, get some feedback and it all was fine until you came in with your antagonistic attitude.

At no point in this thread did I refer to the officers as "bad guys" or whatever. At no point, did I say to you that it's unconstitutional to think (you cut my words out)...
You don't know me, you don't know my background, what I believe in....dude you know nothing about me.
What the heck is your problem? Just go away. I don't care about what you have to say because you assume things that are not true about what I'm saying on here, you make up strawman arguments and then go off on me.

Whatever it is you're having a hard time with I don't know and now I don't care.

Just go away ok? You can express the same opinions you have without being so combative and belittling all the time. I don't appreciate that. I just want to have a mature exchange here.

So please if you can stop this hissing and arguing, we can all talk about what this thread is supposed to talk about. Enough already.

Understand this: STOP!!! If you can't stop, then go away.
 
I

ilovejetnoise777

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Parker, CO, , USA
imported post

mahkagari wrote:
ilovejetnoise777 wrote:
Understand this: STOP!!! If you can't stop, then go away.
Click to expand...
Trolls are like teeth.
Click to expand...

Yes that was my bad. I should have never responded to him. As soon as he said that we all speak as if cops are the enemy, I knew that he was on here to argue because I sure as heck didn't ever refer to them as adversaries. On the contrary, I went out of my way to indicate that I have much respect for them and was reasonable with them. I never made this discussion about any one person. It was always a technical, theoretical exchange. In other words, I always wanted to talk about what it should be, what the law is...not how to handle an OC encounter in the quickest and most painless manner. That's a whole different topic.

If anything though, this whole incident encourages me to train my kids all the more diligently in the area of respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top