ixtow
Founder's Club Member
Why do people ask this? I suggest the following:
1) If you're having that kind of conversation, you're already detained.
2) LEOs will just not answer, ask you a question back, etc. It's not useful. They dodge it.
Instead, I propose, ask "Why am I being detained?"
This makes it clear that you already are detained. They can either tell you you're not being detained, or cite a (probably bogus) reason for a detainment. This tells you that you're either free to go, or he's just incriminated himself by not only admitting you're detained, but by giving you his bogus reason for doing it.
a few unpleasant thigns...
"Why am I being detained?"
"Because you have a gun."
or
"Becasue you're scaring people by having a gun"
or
"Because I feel like it."
or
"Just do what I say, pal."
a few unpleasant thigns...
"Why am I being detained?"
"Oh, you're not being detained."
"Adieu!"
There is simply no response they can have that doesn't either mean you're free to go, or prove that you're being detained and what the excuse is for it.
Of course, they can still refuse to answer you. But since it will be they who are being unfriendly at that point, it is impossible to paint the picture that you are the one 'refusing to cooperate' when it is he who is being that way. It is also not a "friendly conversation" or "I just want to talk" crapola. Once he gets 'like that,' it's entirely reasonable to refuse to answer any more questions and exercise your right to remain silent. Bottom line, let it be the LEO who causes that em-pass, not you. Asking "Why am I being detained" instead of IF you are, changes that dynamic entirely. If they still 'just want to talk and have a friendly conversation,' it's up to him to keep it that way. If it gets unfriendly, by refusing, dodging, etc, then simply invoke your right to remain silent, citing HIS unpleasant demeanor should you need to do so later.
Now, one can assert his/her rights any way s/he chooses. I like this method because it makes the LEO put his cards on the table and expose his attitude and agenda. It's impossible for you to be accused of refusing to cooperate, because it is he who did so. It keeps the ball in your court instead of giving him control to craft the words his own way.
LEOs are not used to that. They enjoy and attack submissive people as a job. Expose that aggressive attitude by asking, showing that you already know the 'detainment' line is already being crossed. Remember, the act of detainment, like the act of self defense, is up to YOU and how an aggressive (dirty) LEO compels you to feel that you don't have a right to leave.
Just like "I was in fear for my life, so I fired to stop th threat." Using the right words puts you on the right side of the law.
I offer that, this method, while still not fool proof, is better than surrendering the definition of your detainment to a LEO. YOU determine if you are being detained, so don't ask someone who is not your friend and is not 'on your side.'
Empirically, I have had only one response from LEOs since I started ding this: "Oh, no, I'm not detaining you!" Almost shocked at the realization that I know I'm being detained and THEY know they haven't got a good reason for it. Once they say that, conversation over, buh bye! Compared to the past where I would ask "Am I being detained" and they would say nothing while I stood there being self-detained expecting an answer I was never going to get from the filth.
There is an anti-LEO undertone to this post, yes. Why? Because you would not have such an encounter with a good LEO. Only the dirty ones are going to try to detain someone for NOT breaking the law. Only the dirty ones are going to try to intimidate you. Only the dirty ones are going to press the issue and refuse to reciprocate in the "friendly conversation." Only the dirty ones are going to try to screw with you in the first place. That's what asserting your rights is about; the simple fact that your Rights should be RESPECTED, you shouldn't HAVE to assert them. If you have to assert them, the LEO is no longer 'just doing his job.' He's crossed the line and is no different from any other common thug.
I suggest that asking "Why am I being detained" results in fewer unpleasant encounters, shorter encounters, and the exposure of a LEOs intent. Also, it provides you with evidence, should you need it. Asking a LEO "Am I being detained" is like asking a rapist "Are you raping me right now?" Do you really expect a straight answer? Why ask a question that doesn't serve a purpose? Don't ask what you already know. Ask him to justify what has already happened and is happening. He either incriminates himself, or lets you go. If he doesn't answer, the notion that you're 'just talking' goes right out the window, and it's his own fault.
I just think it's better that way, and my experience with it has been overwhelmingly supportive of that theory. I am just one man, so if anyone else agrees with my logic, give it a whirl.
1) If you're having that kind of conversation, you're already detained.
2) LEOs will just not answer, ask you a question back, etc. It's not useful. They dodge it.
Instead, I propose, ask "Why am I being detained?"
This makes it clear that you already are detained. They can either tell you you're not being detained, or cite a (probably bogus) reason for a detainment. This tells you that you're either free to go, or he's just incriminated himself by not only admitting you're detained, but by giving you his bogus reason for doing it.
a few unpleasant thigns...
"Why am I being detained?"
"Because you have a gun."
or
"Becasue you're scaring people by having a gun"
or
"Because I feel like it."
or
"Just do what I say, pal."
a few unpleasant thigns...
"Why am I being detained?"
"Oh, you're not being detained."
"Adieu!"
There is simply no response they can have that doesn't either mean you're free to go, or prove that you're being detained and what the excuse is for it.
Of course, they can still refuse to answer you. But since it will be they who are being unfriendly at that point, it is impossible to paint the picture that you are the one 'refusing to cooperate' when it is he who is being that way. It is also not a "friendly conversation" or "I just want to talk" crapola. Once he gets 'like that,' it's entirely reasonable to refuse to answer any more questions and exercise your right to remain silent. Bottom line, let it be the LEO who causes that em-pass, not you. Asking "Why am I being detained" instead of IF you are, changes that dynamic entirely. If they still 'just want to talk and have a friendly conversation,' it's up to him to keep it that way. If it gets unfriendly, by refusing, dodging, etc, then simply invoke your right to remain silent, citing HIS unpleasant demeanor should you need to do so later.
Now, one can assert his/her rights any way s/he chooses. I like this method because it makes the LEO put his cards on the table and expose his attitude and agenda. It's impossible for you to be accused of refusing to cooperate, because it is he who did so. It keeps the ball in your court instead of giving him control to craft the words his own way.
LEOs are not used to that. They enjoy and attack submissive people as a job. Expose that aggressive attitude by asking, showing that you already know the 'detainment' line is already being crossed. Remember, the act of detainment, like the act of self defense, is up to YOU and how an aggressive (dirty) LEO compels you to feel that you don't have a right to leave.
Just like "I was in fear for my life, so I fired to stop th threat." Using the right words puts you on the right side of the law.
I offer that, this method, while still not fool proof, is better than surrendering the definition of your detainment to a LEO. YOU determine if you are being detained, so don't ask someone who is not your friend and is not 'on your side.'
Empirically, I have had only one response from LEOs since I started ding this: "Oh, no, I'm not detaining you!" Almost shocked at the realization that I know I'm being detained and THEY know they haven't got a good reason for it. Once they say that, conversation over, buh bye! Compared to the past where I would ask "Am I being detained" and they would say nothing while I stood there being self-detained expecting an answer I was never going to get from the filth.
There is an anti-LEO undertone to this post, yes. Why? Because you would not have such an encounter with a good LEO. Only the dirty ones are going to try to detain someone for NOT breaking the law. Only the dirty ones are going to try to intimidate you. Only the dirty ones are going to press the issue and refuse to reciprocate in the "friendly conversation." Only the dirty ones are going to try to screw with you in the first place. That's what asserting your rights is about; the simple fact that your Rights should be RESPECTED, you shouldn't HAVE to assert them. If you have to assert them, the LEO is no longer 'just doing his job.' He's crossed the line and is no different from any other common thug.
I suggest that asking "Why am I being detained" results in fewer unpleasant encounters, shorter encounters, and the exposure of a LEOs intent. Also, it provides you with evidence, should you need it. Asking a LEO "Am I being detained" is like asking a rapist "Are you raping me right now?" Do you really expect a straight answer? Why ask a question that doesn't serve a purpose? Don't ask what you already know. Ask him to justify what has already happened and is happening. He either incriminates himself, or lets you go. If he doesn't answer, the notion that you're 'just talking' goes right out the window, and it's his own fault.
I just think it's better that way, and my experience with it has been overwhelmingly supportive of that theory. I am just one man, so if anyone else agrees with my logic, give it a whirl.