*I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THIS IS NOT MEANT FOR STRICT LEGAL ADVICE, NO ONE SHOULD TAKE THE COMMENTS OR OPINIONS AS SUCH*
Is there anyone that knows a good breakdown of how to deal with a LEO when stopped about your CCW/OC?
Such as, what to say and how to respond to the LEO without it resulting in arrest or misunderstanding.
I have not yet been stopped/questioned/harassed yet, but if I do, some of your opinions and advice would help ease my concern.
Wow, that a-hole just disarmed you. THAT is a crime. To me it is and should be to every American. That LEO should have been suspended or penalized in some manner for acting illegal. THIS is what I have been preaching. LEOs have zero accountability and THAT is why they act illegally, that is why citizens have an overall distrust of most police, and THIS is why police don't know the law because many aren't motivated to do so because they have ZERO accountability.
Sorry for the rant but this was an out right travesty... As far as I am concerned this is no different than what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.
Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-08-2010 at 09:44 AM.
So I try to remember that, mostly, conversing with police is unproductive, frustrating for both parties, and legally dangerous for the "suspect" during an illegal detention. But do what you like. I cave in to the temptation regularly because I am the eternal optimist who projects my good intentions onto others. Good luck.
I understand and i appreciate your input. I have watched some of the ridleyreport but its NH and the laws there are less restrictive than MO. He is helpful but being NH, the laws may differ significantly which makes me uneasy about using his strict advice. I will definitely check out checkpointUSA and hopefully that will help as well. Thanks for the link.
As far as that vid goes, that was a horrible tragedy, but the cop was careless and overconfident and it cost him his life. Very sad.
Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-08-2010 at 07:02 PM.
I do not share your opinion here at all. Do not forget, that officer thought (wrongfully so) that he was witnessing a crime. He believed that open carry was restricted in St Charles city, he was wrong 100% but had he been right, he has a sworn duty to uphold the law. Add to that that he has said he was sorry to Doc and admitted he was wrong. That is a stand up man who made a mistake, one he will not make again as he now knows the law.
What happened in LA during the hurricane and aftermath was intentional and illegal disarming of citizens even in their own homes. They made no "mistake" they KNEW what they were doing and it was a violation of the law and did it anyway.
Cops get to make mistakes too, they just don't get to do the on purpose thing. Yes they can be made to pay for mistakes, but why when you know it was an honest one, he thought Doc was violating the law and while he was a little condescending, he did back off when Doc remained polite. He is now a better cop for it and a positive thing for OC came out of it.
If you have an hour http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Advice from an old fart is all it is, give it a look and see what evolves.
Go to flexyourrights.com
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead
Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin
However, I will honorably and politely disagree. The police demand respect as they are to uphold the law and by doing so they should know it. However I do understand that every piece of legislation cannot be memorized or kept track of, when it comes to these sort of things, I do believe cops should keep up with it. As firearm rights are exercised VERY often and is a VERY sensitive issue. So, i would think cops would ATLEAST keep up with that. I do respect the cop for recognizing his error and apologizing, however, when i happen to miss a speed limit sign, honest mistake or not, an apology hardly EVER gets ME off the hook when stopped. Why should it in this case?
Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-08-2010 at 10:08 PM.
Exercised very often? Uhm, not really, very few folks in this entire state open carry, it is extremely rare and up until a couple of years ago was basically almost non-existent. That officer was no spring chicken and it was obviously his first encounter with it, he spent 20 minutes looking for the law he was sure was violated, a pretty sure sign he is not very often he has had to deal with it at all. It might be the first time in a 20 year career.
He may also have served as an officer in a city in the metro area where it is indeed against the law and was enforcing a law in a jurisdiction that it did not apply, no different than you walking across one street and it becoming illegal.
You may never agree, but I think you will learn that just about 100% of the gun advocates would say this was nothing like Katrina and considering everything involved, it was handled poorly, not badly by the officers and that a mistake vs an on purpose violation is a sign of a totalitarian attitude by the police in contrast to a tyranny or police state. The beginning of the slippery slope, needs to be corrected and it appears from the "sorry" that it was a self repairing mistake, tyranny does not get repaired, it gets worse.
I'll admit you made a point. The officers actions in New Orleans differed much in their intent. So, I'll retract my exaggerated comparison. However, I will not retract my statement of illegally disarming a citizen, honest misunderstanding or not, is STILL a crime. I still believe officers in the field having FULL accountability is the key to reducing mistakes like these and improving relations with citizens.
Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-08-2010 at 11:37 PM.
I watched the vid again and I had to say this. The cop was VERY careless, ill informed, and quite arrogant. He didn't even know the CCW endorsement can be on a drivers license or where it was on the drivers license. THATS pretty common knowledge. And the cop really didn't become polite until after he started realizing he may be wrong. So, no sympathy from me Officer Incompetent!!Cops get to make mistakes too, they just don't get to do the on purpose thing. Yes they can be made to pay for mistakes, but why when you know it was an honest one, he thought Doc was violating the law and while he was a little condescending, he did back off when Doc remained polite. He is now a better cop for it and a positive thing for OC came out of it.
Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-08-2010 at 11:44 PM.
I have a question, why did the officer take the OCed firearm but not the CCed if it was for officer's protection, or were both firearms taken?
Cash I know you carry baggage from another forum and you are not capable of rational thought so it is not possible to effectively communicate why when a man makes a mistake and he admits it it makes him a stand up guy. I know you have never experienced this yourself as you do not remotely qualify, but that is what it is, admitting you made a mistake and trying to make amends.
I do not know him and I do not condone his behavior but it does not compare to the illegal activities during Katrina, did he break the law, yes, he made a mistake and violated Doc and Mikes civil rights. Is it a great example of why what Doc does is highly effective and changes things, yes it is. Was it good for OC, yes it was, should the officer be hung out to dry for it and lose his job, no, not in my opinion. There are far worse examples of police abuse than this and no I do not expect you to understand it at any level because all you ever want to do is cry foul.
Boo freakin Hoo, scapegoat elsewhere, we need it no more. It wasn't impressive the first time and it has not improved since.
Way to stay calm guys. It is astonishing to hear how little the officers know about the law.
And violation of your 4th amendment rights is justified for officer safety...? :/ Gotta remember that one...
And why hand over your ID's or volunteer that you were armed if CCW? You guys are too nice
But this was definitely different from Katrina. Illegal search and seizure but done in the name of officer safety temporarily. Forgiveable I suppose if done out of ignorance... as long as they don't do it again...
Last edited by peterarthur; 08-09-2010 at 10:29 PM.
I'll ask again for confirmation of stand-up guy status : DO YOU KNOW THIS COP? How can you call him a stand-up guy?
What baggage do I have? I'm only on one other gun forum, and I didn't know you were on that one either.
And also, what makes you think I'm not capable of rational thought? I can understand a hell of a lot more than you might think, and probably more than you. You are pretty rude on the internet, not that I want to hear you talk **** about another "I'll meet you in person to discuss this further" BS from you - because we already know how that would go.
He does not have a sworn duty to uphold contrived laws. He stopped him for suspicion of breaking a law that he thought was law? That is not "upholding the law."Originally Posted by LMTD
Yet it does not obviate the obvious. He stopped a person for violating something that he didn't even know was covered by statute. Admitting his mistake was the only correct part. The rest does outweigh it. He learned, but he was not "standup."Originally Posted by LMTD
The stop should not have been made, sans RAS. Since the cop obviously did not know the law, how could he have reasonable articulable suspicion of anything?Originally Posted by LMTD
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
It is not very often you hear of a COP apologizing for his mistake, most often it is a "tough shirt, it happens" attitude. This officer called Doc and said he was sorry, that is from the original thread. That is stand up guy behavior, but like I said, I know you will never understand.
It is not because of how I feel it is because of the feed back of the victim at the time.
so if the victim is not crying foul and the cop said he was sorry and things improved for OC, I think it was a win win that screwed up 20 minutes of Doc's life when the cop thought he was right and he found out he was wrong and manned up over it.
Those of you just looking for a payday will always see it wrong and thin Doc should have sued to try and become a millionaire but the reality is, almost nothing would have happened as a decent man whom apologized for his mistake would have a bad not put in his file and would be told next time do not say you are sorry as that is an admission of guilt, you have to pretend like you never did a thing wrong.
You way over rate yourself when you think you made me mad or are even capable of that, you can't manage it. You have never done a thing but say I am not for OC because you like to hear yourself say it is all I can figure. Because you have never added anything other than negativity to any conversation I have observed, you have never built any respect from me at all and that is a required element for me to give you any merit at all. If you have no merit then there is nothing for me to be angry about as people I do not respect can't bother me, I do not care what they think at all.
Perhaps you should concern yourself with your own thoughts instead of mine because I sure do not care what yours are at all. I only serve to correct them when they are obviously wrong.
#1 Well since you are trying to interpret a point made to another from a conversation you were not involved in, you are not expected to understand the meaning.
#2 LOL if that was the case then there would NEVER be anyone released "not guilty" now would there because a COP would never arrest anyone he did not KNOW broke a law as you put it, that is the only way to uphold the law. LOTS of laws change in 18 days, lots of cops will not know it and things that are illegal today will not be illegal then as well as things that are not illegal today will be in 18 days. Lawyers and judges can't keep up with it hence the appeals process yet you seek to condemn a cop for not knowing it, your reasoning lacks sound judgment in my opinion.
#3 a lady reported a "man with a gun" the officer has 0 choice in the matter, he is obligated to investigate it by law whether you agree with that is unimportant, it is factual. On doing so he saw an openly carried firearm, he thought that open carry violated an ordinance, he detained Doc based on that while he researched the ordinance so he could answer Docs question of "what law am a breaking?" at which point he discovered he could not come up with the number and released Doc letting him know he would research it further and get back to him. He had the legal right to detain Doc under probable cause reasonable suspicion for up to 20 minutes under terry stop, he did not have anything and released him. Instead of avoiding the issue, he did do the research and found out he was wrong and instead of never doing anything (as Doc and many others expected) he did indeed contact, admit he was wrong and said he was sorry, most cops would never have done as much, makes him stand up in my book.
#4 would mostly repeat #3's answer
LE should KNOW the laws that they are investigating citizens for. It IS reasonable to expect this. It is NOT reasonable to expect that LE investigate a possible crime without knowing what statute an alleged crime is based upon. Otherwise, they are simply attempting to be "the law," and making it up as they go along, as opposed to enforcing actual laws.Originally Posted by LMTD
In other words, a "fishing" expedition. Not upholding the law, but attempting to find a law to charge a citizen with; simply because someone called "MWAG." MWAG is not an infraction, is it? LE sure DOES have discretion upon receiving a MWAG call, and the dispatcher should get clarifying information from the caller:Originally Posted by LMTD
Scared Lady: "There is a Man with a GUN!!!!"
Dispatch: "What is he doing with it?
Scared Lady: "Well, nothing; YET."
Dispatch: "Unless he is breaking any laws, there is no reason to send an officer."
His "fishing" was fruitless.Originally Posted by LMTD
He had NO pc for a stop, terry or otherwise.Originally Posted by LMTD
There was NO issue; except for one that LE attempted to create. Granted he got clarity finally, but this stop had no reason to happen. LE should have known, dispatch should have known, and no contact should have happened, no matter how much you desire to be an LE apologist for this case.Originally Posted by LMTD
Last edited by wrightme; 08-10-2010 at 09:02 PM.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Again, you still go not know what the age thing was even about, it is a non-issue no matter how much you want to make something out of it, I am not going to explain it, I am just going to let you look like an idiot talking about something he has no knowledge about, here is your only hint, it was not a bad thing or negative thing at all and you look really silly publicly trying to make it into one.
He did "know the law" he was investigating and here is a HUGE clue, the language that has been interpreted to indicate OC is legal in St Charles city is too vague to begin to say the officer did not have PC for the stop. There is no law that says OC is LEGAL and there is very vague language that makes it illegal for little to no reason.
That gave him Terry free and clear. A citizen reported it, depending upon the words she used, the ordinance may well have been violated in his view but his investigation provided no supporting evidence. All she had to say was "That rude man has a gun" and she has in fact stated the law was broken.
As far as being an LE apologist, I said I do not know him or condone the behavior, what part of that was it you did not understand?