• 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.

12 Jul 10 - Ruck Hump - Open Carry - Police Called (VIDEO LINK)

architect

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
392
Location
Falls Church, Virginia, USA
A question of duty

This is a question for those present and former officers who repeatedly affirm that an officer is duty-bound to investigate any MWAG call.

Isn't it logical that an LEO's duty extends as much to investigate whoever placed what turns out to be an unwarranted MWAG call? Perhaps one where they are fully aware no crime has been committed, perhaps simply to annoy the LAC? You know, like a hate crime? Filing a false report? Diverting public resources from legitimate enforcement?
 
Last edited:

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
This is a question for those present and former officers who repeatedly affirm that an officer is duty-bound to investigate any MWAG call.

Isn't it logical that an LEO's duty extends as much to investigate whoever placed what turns out to be an unwarranted MWAG call? Perhaps one where they are fully aware no crime has been committed, perhaps simply to annoy the LAC? You know, like a hate crime? Filing a false report? Diverting public resources from legitimate enforcement?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying that the LEO should investigate the complainant as well as the subject of the complaint?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
A month ago I got a call from an OV member that had Dog Hunters on his property.

He called the CO (Game Warrden) who came out, They made an excuse about hunting Coyotes and they were just getting their dogs.

I talked to the Officer later and it wasn't a pleasant conversation. He hadn't even taken an incident report even though a couple of dog hunters were close to being shot, were clearly breaking the law and the peoperty owner had asked him to.

His exact words were "I'm not required to".

Actually, he's right. he was not legally required to.

Same with giving ID. You're not required to!
I wonder how many people give their SSN on their CHP application?
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I would bet the number is high!

I'm kind glad you said that because I expected to get the "No One" answer, which wouldn't be true.

Lots of people do it. Some because they don't know any better, some because they think it will go through faster and some because they think honest people have nothing to hide.

Same reason people show ID when they don't have to.
 

ElevenBravo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
90
Location
Roanoke Virginia
Of course police are able to lie, it would be difficult to catch criminals if you were honest with them.
Honest, hard work and diligent investigation should be the only fruits of labor, trickery and deceit are the tools of the criminal. I see something wrong with these standards.
 

ElevenBravo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
90
Location
Roanoke Virginia
Maybe it was the orange flag that gave you away .
DAMN! I am hating myself now, all this time.. I thought it was the lime green shirt that I was wearing that day! Thanks for setting me straight! :) [sarcasm] Everyone knows, anyone in a lime green shirt is not wearing it for safety, it is so he can evade the police with prime efficiency after the commission of a crime! [/sarcasm]
 

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
This is a question for those present and former officers who repeatedly affirm that an officer is duty-bound to investigate any MWAG call.

Isn't it logical that an LEO's duty extends as much to investigate whoever placed what turns out to be an unwarranted MWAG call? Perhaps one where they are fully aware no crime has been committed, perhaps simply to annoy the LAC? You know, like a hate crime? Filing a false report? Diverting public resources from legitimate enforcement?

Architect,
I understand what you are saying. One issue is that most citizens do not understand gun laws enough to know what is legal, illegal, or someone who is/is not a threat (isn't that one of the goals of the VCDL to educate). When they are calling in MWAG, they do not have any criminal intent and are usually not lying about what they saw (although they usually exaggerate it). I don't think anyone is trying to annoy the LAC when they call. Now, if it could be determined that they are accusing you of brandishing, or any other crime, and it can be overwhelmingly determined that you were not, then you might have a case for criminal charges on them.

Proshooter- I agree with your post.

11-B,

You were laying on/near the roadway when the undercover officer saw you? I must have missed that information somewhere. If that's the case, then he has every right to detain you. He could say that he was investigating your physical or mental well being. Dressed like that, armed, laying on or around a busy highway with a camera might be suspicious enough to stop you to determine if you are a danger to yourself or others.

It was mentioned that holding onto someone's i.d. would turn a consensual encounter to a detention. I would have to disagree. I believe that that holding onto someone's identification during a detention will help reinforce the detention, however is not the case if it is consensual. If you offer your identification and hand it over to a LEO during a consensual encounter, that is your choice and you are choosing to allow him to have it. You can ask for it back at anytime, just as you can revoke or limit the scope of a search during consensual encounters.
 

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
Honest, hard work and diligent investigation should be the only fruits of labor, trickery and deceit are the tools of the criminal. I see something wrong with these standards.

Well sir, in the real world, at times it becomes necessary to use trickery to catch criminals. I believe it is still honest work since you are trying to hold someone accountable for their actions.

Ever watch the show To Catch a Predator? Catching pedophile sex offenders goes against your standards?
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Well sir, in the real world, at times it becomes necessary to use trickery to catch criminals. I believe it is still honest work since you are trying to hold someone accountable for their actions.
I think you need to spend the bucks for a better dictionary.

Police work may be necessary, important, good, crucial to a stable society, and any number of other positive adjectives, but when you lie, it is not honest. The ends may justify the means, but the ends do not change the definition of words.

If you can't accept a true and factual definition of the nature of your work, maybe you should consider a career change.

TFred
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
"Catching pedophile sex offenders goes against your standards?"

I think you and I both know that is not what he is stating and in fact has made it quite clear for all of the world to understand that he expects that criminals be caught. It is the means to the end that involve deceit, trickery, and behavior that would otherwise be illegal for anyone else or at least considered immoral that he takes exception to. Those are not the tools of honest men and women, they are no different than the tools used by the common criminal, but some of those charged with executing justice believe that it is better to resort to conniving behavior to transact a greater number successful prosecutions rather than worry about actually executing justice.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
"Catching pedophile sex offenders goes against your standards?"

I think you and I both know that is not what he is stating and in fact has made it quite clear for all of the world to understand that he expects that criminals be caught. It is the means to the end that involve deceit, trickery, and behavior that would otherwise be illegal for anyone else or at least considered immoral that he takes exception to. Those are not the tools of honest men and women, they are no different than the tools used by the common criminal, but some of those charged with executing justice believe that it is better to resort to conniving behavior to transact a greater number successful prosecutions rather than worry about actually executing justice.

That about says it all.
Most crimes are non violent and subject to current opinions.
At one time it was a crime for a black man to own a gun or get an education in Va.

Currently, it is a crime to give a false statement to a police officer. That would make that person a criminal...however, it is not a crime for a police officer to commit the same act to catch him for that crime.

Go figure.
 

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
That about says it all.
Most crimes are non violent and subject to current opinions.
At one time it was a crime for a black man to own a gun or get an education in Va.

Currently, it is a crime to give a false statement to a police officer. That would make that person a criminal...however, it is not a crime for a police officer to commit the same act to catch him for that crime.

Go figure.

Police use to be allowed to shoot you if you fled and they thought you committed a felony back in the day too... good thing things have changed huh? I am not for allowing criminals to go without punishment. Most crimes are non violent?? Yes you are correct, but all crimes have victims! Non violent crimes can hold major consequences for the victim, maybe more than a violent crime. Do a favor and don't use 9-1-1 since you are against their services.

Peter, immoral to you maybe, but I don't consider it immoral and most people I have talked to have agreed. Police can't be completely truthful if they want to catch criminals. If you can figure out a way to catch criminals without lying at times or using smoke and mirrors... then please write it down and sell it. You would be a millionaire.
 
Last edited:

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Ah, the things that were back in the day. Male landowners were the only voters, negroes were property, women had no say in the political system, states could enforce the requirements of various churches for monetary support or you could be jailed for speaking out against the president. What a wonderful time it was. Heck even the police could shoot you dead if you fled when they merely believed you'd committed a felony (perhaps an uppity negro having relations with one of the lighter shaded female citizenry). Don't you know things were better and more upright!

I do hope my dripping sarcasm hasn't soiled your "back in the day" rug NovaCop. Trading the lower likelihood that law enforcement would shoot you for fleeing when suspected of a felony (when no life was in danger) for law enforcement broadly behaving in the same manner as the criminal element that they are tasked with investigating and bringing to justice is no just trade. Neither act is just, but don't you know greater ticket and fine revenue and increased numbers of "successful" criminal prosecutions are just the things people blabber on about with glee. Nevermind that the means to what has been termed as justice do not represent upright and just behavior themselves.
 
Last edited:

architect

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
392
Location
Falls Church, Virginia, USA
most citizens do not understand gun laws enough to know what is legal...I don't think anyone is trying to annoy the LAC when they call.

I'm with you on the first part, this can be cured to some extent with education and familiarity, one of the reasons some of us OC. I disagree with the second. I suspect a substantial minority of MWAG calls, at least in the politically-aware NOVA area, are intended to harass, "Well! I'll just show him!" Some of these have been reported in this forum.

As long as LE doesn't treat these like the burning bags of poop on the doorstep that they resemble, they are taking a political position against LACs.

I'm not suggesting an arrest is necessarily warranted, even when it is clearly intentional, but it sure smells like hypocrisy when an LEO questions a LAC on the faint possibility of a crime, and ignores the person who is harassing him.

The question remains, if one side of a MWAG call "must" be investigated, why is it not equally as imperative to investigate the other side of the call if turns out to be a false report? The only way the actual intentions of the complainant are ever going to be known is with this investigation.

For context, think about getting a call about a man shoplifting. You check him out, and it becomes clear that there was no possibility of a crime being committed. If you suspect that the caller made the report to harass, do you talk to him?
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
The question remains, if one side of a MWAG call "must" be investigated, why is it not equally as imperative to investigate the other side of the call if turns out to be a false report?
Since openly carrying a firearm is not in itself a crime, I believe the impetus should lie on the officer and the person reporting the incident and not on the "suspect", a term I use loosely because if you're not doing anything illegal, there should be no concern to be stopped, detained, questioned or otherwise by an enforcer.

I would argue that ANYONE issuing such a complaint/report should be given a written warning the first time and then fined in the event of a future such report for wasting valuable investigative time that the officer could be putting to use elsewhere.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Since openly carrying a firearm is not in itself a crime, I believe the impetus should lie on the officer and the person reporting the incident and not on the "suspect", a term I use loosely because if you're not doing anything illegal, there should be no concern to be stopped, detained, questioned or otherwise by an enforcer.

I would argue that ANYONE issuing such a complaint/report should be given a written warning the first time and then fined in the event of a future such report for wasting valuable investigative time that the officer could be putting to use elsewhere.
The problem is that while carrying is not a crime, brandishing is. Most people don't know the difference, how do you prove they falsely reported it with malicious intent?

It's still not against the law to be stupid.

TFred
 

architect

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
392
Location
Falls Church, Virginia, USA
how do you prove they falsely reported it with malicious intent?

Ah, but it is not required that the responding officer have proof of a crime to interview someone, only RAS. The RAS is, "someone complained about another person for no reason, they appeared to be showing hostility. I suspect that a hate crime may have occurred so I am going to ask them about it?"

While I understand the wylde007's perspective, I wouldn't want our dedicated public servants to push things quite as enthusiastically as he suggests, even with the most obnoxious anti.

This is how I dream it:

"Hello, ma'am, are you the person who called in about a man with a gun?"

"Why yes officer. Thank you for responding so quickly. That's him, the fat guy with the orange button right over there."

"Yes, ma'am, I've already spoken with him. Are you aware that openly carrying a firearm is not against the law in Virginia?"

"Yes, but I don't like people who carry guns in public."

"I see, and why is that?"

"They are all a bunch of ill-bred rednecks who have a tendency to start shooting everything in sight when they're not marrying their cousins. What are you writing there?"

"This is a written warning, ma'am. Next time you commit a hate crime it will be a summons."
 
Last edited:

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
Jack Lauterback's mom said:
"They are all a bunch of ill-bred rednecks who have a tendency to start shooting everything in sight when they're not marrying their cousins. What are you writing there?"
I couldn't resist.
 
Top