Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Breakdown

  1. #1
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109

    Breakdown

    *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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    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 10:44 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    *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.
    RidleyReport on youtube has ALOT of good info (based on living in New Hampshire) but he brings up alot of good questions and things to think about. Also, my favorite is CheckPointUSA on youtube. He really goes to the extreme of NEVER answering questions by an LEO. I tried this once and the LEO was frustrated but he eventually let me go. It really depends on IF you wish to engage. I will talk to LEO's that start and CONTINUE in a friendly tone but ALWAYS remember, they are NOT your friend. He might be a really great guy but he is still an LEO with a job and for some, NOT ALL, that means getting money into the legal system. I have found for the most part that the conversation goes nowhere and I end up feeling lectured by a fascist. Not saying they are BAD for doing it but that is how most are probably trained. They have a dangerous job that requires a certain mindset. The ones that forget their job is dangerous die http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF-BtESLEsU

    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by peterarthur View Post
    RidleyReport on youtube has ALOT of good info (based on living in New Hampshire) but he brings up alot of good questions and things to think about. Also, my favorite is CheckPointUSA on youtube. He really goes to the extreme of NEVER answering questions by an LEO. I tried this once and the LEO was frustrated but he eventually let me go. It really depends on IF you wish to engage. I will talk to LEO's that start and CONTINUE in a friendly tone but ALWAYS remember, they are NOT your friend. He might be a really great guy but he is still an LEO with a job and for some, NOT ALL, that means getting money into the legal system. I have found for the most part that the conversation goes nowhere and I end up feeling lectured by a fascist. Not saying they are BAD for doing it but that is how most are probably trained. They have a dangerous job that requires a certain mindset. The ones that forget their job is dangerous die http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF-BtESLEsU

    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 08:02 PM.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Wow, that a-hole just disarmed you. THAT is a crime.

    As far as I am concerned this is no different than what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.
    Ok, now I have noticed another part of the problem that developed between you and I, that 22 on your nick name likely indicates an age as it has become kind of clear you may well be young.

    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    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

  8. #8
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Ok, now I have noticed another part of the problem that developed between you and I, that 22 on your nick name likely indicates an age as it has become kind of clear you may well be young.

    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.
    Actually im 26. I created the name WHEN i was 22. Good guess though.

    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 11:08 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    Go to flexyourrights.com
    hey thanks! will do.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Actually im 26. I created the name WHEN i was 22. Good guess though.

    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?
    Missouri statues alone would fill your entire house with paper.

    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Missouri statues alone would fill your entire house with paper.

    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 meant gun rights in general. CCW/OC or otherwise.

    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; 08-09-2010 at 12:37 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    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.
    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!!
    Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-09-2010 at 12:44 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    400
    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?

  14. #14
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Missouri statues alone would fill your entire house with paper.

    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.
    LMTD, I know you are somewhat anti-OC, whatever your reasons are, but to call this cop a "stand-up" guy? Do you know him? If he was an officer in the city, he should have updated himself when he cames to the suburbs. This isn't the end of the world, but things could have been better if he would have been informed. St. Charles cops - not all of them - trample rights all the time and justify it through lies on paper, this time just appears unintentional.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by cash50 View Post
    LMTD, I know you are somewhat anti-OC, whatever your reasons are, but to call this cop a "stand-up" guy? Do you know him? If he was an officer in the city, he should have updated himself when he cames to the suburbs. This isn't the end of the world, but things could have been better if he would have been informed. St. Charles cops - not all of them - trample rights all the time and justify it through lies on paper, this time just appears unintentional.

    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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    clarifier

    Quote Originally Posted by Packer fan View Post
    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?
    Both firearms were taken The conceal carry guy was asked if he had a weapon when he said yes and pointed to his shirt near his waist. The officer pulled up his shirt and seized the gun. The 3rd guy(unarmed) was pulled on and searched even though he said he did not have a weapon. His apparent suspicious crime "standing next to me while I was Open Carry'ing"

    Doc

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    Both firearms were taken The conceal carry guy was asked if he had a weapon when he said yes and pointed to his shirt near his waist. The officer pulled up his shirt and seized the gun. The 3rd guy(unarmed) was pulled on and searched even though he said he did not have a weapon. His apparent suspicious crime "standing next to me while I was Open Carry'ing"

    Doc

    I watched the second video and saw that the second guy was handed his gun back. The officer that stayed around, although may not have been to his liking that you were OC, seemed to be an alright guy.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    "Didn't want to mess up that chrome..." lol...
    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 11:29 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    20 min

    Quote Originally Posted by Packer fan View Post
    I watched the second video and saw that the second guy was handed his gun back. The officer that stayed around, although may not have been to his liking that you were OC, seemed to be an alright guy.
    He became aware of the camera sitting in the hand of Big Mike about mid video. You will see him look at it and put on a small grin and change his toon on challenging anyone on how they carry a firearm. Yes it could have gone much much worse. If you had to have your civil rights violated for 20min I suppose this would be the most tolerable way to have it done to you.

    Doc

  20. #20
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    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.
    As always, a hostile response, I know nobody can disagree without you getting mad.

    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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Ok, now I have noticed another part of the problem that developed between you and I, that 22 on your nick name likely indicates an age as it has become kind of clear you may well be young.
    Irrelevant. Unless you hold an age bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD
    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.
    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."
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD
    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.
    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."
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD
    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.
    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?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by cash50 View Post
    As always, a hostile response, I know nobody can disagree without you getting mad.

    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?

    .
    On the rational thought part, reread the first sentence of the second paragraph, hmmm looks like I clearly said I do not know him or condone the behavior, what part of that was it you did not understand?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    I received my apology

    Doc

    and

    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    Iacceptedmy apology by phone. I was told that OC was discussed in the locker room of the PD and now that it has been brought to light, that an legal OC citizen does have a good chance of deterring crime through the presents of an exposed firearm. I was told that the cities attorney was brought in and they feel if the state says it is legal they have no desire to forbid it in their jurisdiction. St Charles current crime rate is at an all time high and my presents OC is being viewed as a possible deterrent to crime.

    If you need more details than that you will have to buy me a drink at Starbucks and talk to me there.

    Doc

    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.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    #1 Irrelevant. Unless you hold an age bias.

    #2 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."

    #3 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."

    #4 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?
    Quotes got messed up, numbered for clarity.

    #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

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Quotes got messed up, numbered for clarity.

    #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.
    LOL, you called him out due to his age, not due to any specific of his post.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD
    #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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD
    #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?"
    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:
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD
    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.
    His "fishing" was fruitless.
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD
    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.
    He had NO pc for a stop, terry or otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by wrightme; 08-10-2010 at 10:02 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    LOL, you called him out due to his age, not due to any specific of his post.

    LE should KNOW the laws that they are investigating citizens for.

    He had NO pc for a stop, terry or otherwise.

    There was NO issue; except for one that LE attempted to create.

    .
    Snipped the extra blathering that was meaningless.

    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?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •