Question about getting drawn on by police

protect our rights said:

Well nowadays, who is really the thugs? I mean now that cops doing drive-by shootings out of unmarked black SUVs (POLICE DRIVE-BY)... really the line is muddled now.

Click to expand...

We know who the thugs are. The only division is to how many wear badges. The line was drawn at Ruby Ridge and then underscored at Waco.

JamesB said:

What do you do?

You do what ever the man pointing a gun at you tells you to do!!

If he already has the drop, I'm not going to go for a gun period!
After he puts it away, we can discuss things rationally.

If he is a cop, if he is a crook, if he is another citizen...regardless.
If he is pointing a gun at me and mine is still in the holster, he is the one in charge.

Click to expand...

You can't draw as fast as me?

Ok, I only wish I could draw, aim, and shoot that fast.

[video=youtube;DcZHVspVIDs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcZHVspVIDs&playnext=1&list=PL24B2DA0DAFE78907[/video]

Dont do anything dumb

I thought I would jump in here since I have been a Los Angeles County Sheriff for much of my life working patrol and I have another perspective

First..most police officers support your right to be armed.. and be armed correctly and be smart and trained about how to carry and how to use force legally...

We have people impersonate police all the time.. when we investigate this stuff its usually drug ripoffs or kidnapping for profit.. occasionally there will be the red light weirdos or crooks who want to do harm to someone by pulling them over

My suggestions are these

Open carry in a not normally open carry state is pretty stupid... its asking for a problem or a mistake... you are depending upon another person.. sometimes trained sometimes flawed person to make a decision regarding your life or safety. You exacerbate the situation by wanting to make a political statement

As a police officer I do not have the luxury of figuring out if you are a bad guy or not until I "make you safe".. and when you have a gun displayed even in a holster it makes my common sense survival tactics max out. You dont know why Im stopping you.. you may be a perfectly honorable and honest person... irregardless of this if you are walking with a weapon I will detain you.. I might not do this in a rural setting.. but walking around L.A. I would.. I would have additional legal cause but carrying a firearm is unusual city behavior and most judges will back a stop if for nothing more a weapons check. The supreme court is very lenient in favor of the police in street detentions.. its not the time to debate politics.. its the time to prevent myself and others from being killed.

If you choose to open carry in California and want to make a "statement" about it prepare to be stopped.. it will happen. Prepare to get prone'd out.. that will probably happen.. prepare to get searched.. cuffed.. questioned and detained... prepare to have you and your gun checked nine ways to Sunday... be smart (well if you really were you wouldnt be doing this in the first place).. obey commands

My department requires us to carry not only our badge but our picture ID.. its available for you to see.. When we are plainclothes we are trained extensively on identifying ourselves properly... too many mistakes have been made too many times.. we do it by the numbers

I will have more comments as time goes by

notme

Translation: If you try to exercise your rights, prepare to have them violated.

What Bravo Sierra!

notmeofficer said:

when you have a gun displayed even in a holster it makes my common sense survival tactics max out

Click to expand...

Why is that?

In your experience, is it common for actual criminals to "have a gun displayed in a holster"?

notmeofficer said:

If you choose to open carry in California and want to make a "statement" about it prepare to be stopped.. it will happen. Prepare to get prone'd out.. that will probably happen.. prepare to get searched.. cuffed.. questioned and detained... prepare to have you and your gun checked nine ways to Sunday... be smart (well if you really were you wouldnt be doing this in the first place).. obey commands

Click to expand...

Prepare to be sued.

I though you LEOs all kept each other updated around the state. Are you really this poorly informed?

Wow, those who exercise their rights are deemed stupid by a supposed LEO? I'm at a loss of words to explain how that makes me feel. And that, is unusual.

I have no respect for enforcers of the law who break it themselves. I hope you are sued into poverty to set an example for other officers.

Check out any LEO-themed web board, the contempt they hold for average citizens who carry guns drips out of most of the posts. Of course they think we're stupid. You'll find exceptions here and there but the overwhelming majority of the population on those boards points to an attitude that we're not mentally qualified enough to use a pencil sharpener, never mind carry a gun.

The only real legitimacy they give is to those who have their permits to carry concealed (what ever it's called in your state). At least those people have been "trained" and have demonstrated "proficiency" with their weapons.

notmeofficer said:

If you choose to open carry in California and want to make a "statement" about it prepare to be stopped.. it will happen. Prepare to get prone'd out.. that will probably happen.. prepare to get searched.. cuffed.. questioned and detained... prepare to have you and your gun checked nine ways to Sunday... be smart (well if you really were you wouldnt be doing this in the first place).. obey commands

Click to expand...

You sure seem to like the judges that don't take the constitution seriously, don't you?

Alright...

In a respectful manner I have given some real world advice on this board. What I am not inclined to do is argue.. or give constitutional law advice to other members on here.. let lawyers who get paid to argue in a court of law do that...

There is substantial legal precedent for my statements

While I see that this board is for open carry what I would like to see as a responsible police officer is concealed carry for any citizen who can show they aren't a criminal, and has an acceptable level of training. The statement that police officers dont want armed citizens is not true.. what police officers fear are idiots and spudnuts with guns.. not responsible gun owners. What a police chief might say as a politically appointed representative is way different than what a street copper might say... there are many liberal police chiefs in liberal communities.

My post comes to this board on the heels of a person (apparently an active member here..or perhaps even a moderator or founder of this board who was stopped in my county the other day for a 12031 (a) PC investigation (carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.) This occurred in response to a citizen making a 911 call of a man acting "strangely" walking in front of her home wearing a handgun.

During the stop this person was cooperative but evasive.. was compliant enough not to get shot or do anything stupid during temporary detention. There were actions ( which I wont reveal for security reasons) taken by this person to lead law enforcement to believe that he is purposefully trying to get stopped and purposefully have law enforcement do something illegal to him.. unnecessary use of force.. illegal detention.. find what you like.. for the express purpose of bringing suit against government.

This person had a revoked concealed weapons permit. In California it is rare to get CCW's except where I live.. and the Sheriff gives them out to any citizen who wants one and can complete a CCW class.. background investigation for not being a felon.. and maintain a legitimate (which is very very liberally defined) reason for having and keeping one (this person did not comply with these)..

So to this person... I would say.. you are ignorant and will expose yourself and police officers to the possibility of harm... this isn't a threat in any way.. its just plain and simple reality...why not go to Berkley, a bastion of liberalism and free speech, and walk around with your firearm and see what happens... it would be the perfect place to make your political statement.



My office is the street.. I don't argue there... political/policy statements are best made for a nice court of law where everyone's actions are predictable. Laws are enabled by the citizenry.. if we don't like them.. we can change them through a process.. that process does not include putting me or fellow police officers at perceived or real peril.

Thank You

Open Carry shows that one is not a criminal. Criminals don't operate in that mode. The either conceal (usually unlawfully), or they brandish. They don't walk around with a properly holstered gun.

If you, as a police officer, have not noticed that...

notmeofficer said:

While I see that this board is for open carry what I would like to see as a responsible police officer is concealed carry for any citizen who can show they aren't a criminal, and has an acceptable level of training. The statement that police officers dont want armed citizens is not true.. what police officers fear are idiots and spudnuts with guns.. not responsible gun owners. What a police chief might say as a politically appointed representative is way different than what a street copper might say... there are many liberal police chiefs in liberal communities.

Laws are enabled by the citizenry.. if we don't like them.. we can change them through a process.. that process does not include putting me or fellow police officers at perceived or real peril.

Thank You

Click to expand...

Don't know why you are more comfortable with/prefer that which you cannot see than that which you can easily observe - CC v OC.

Some of your observations/opinions would be more relevant if in the California section - the laws and customs are decidedly different there and the application is unquestionably not universal.

notmeofficer said:

Alright...

In a respectful manner I have given some real world advice on this board. What I am not inclined to do is argue.. or give constitutional law advice to other members on here.. let lawyers who get paid to argue in a court of law do that...

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinions. If nothing else it gives an insight into the inner factors involved with LEO stops concerning carrying.

While I see that this board is for open carry what I would like to see as a responsible police officer is concealed carry for any citizen who can show they aren't a criminal, and has an acceptable level of training.

Click to expand...

Again, thank you for your opinion on this matter. However, many states allow for open carry. Although you might want to see things different, there are choices out there and people should not be subject to harassment for doing what is allowed. I'm careful to note that I am not accusing you of harassing anyone in this case or others. I'm just saying it happens- a lot.

As to the "training", what would you consider to be acceptable? I'm a recently retired military man who has extensive training with weapons, both military and civilian. I've been shooting for many years. Yet, I have not (as of yet) applied for my state's Concealed Handgun Permit.

Would my level of training be considered "acceptable"? And at what level would you consider someone to be acceptably trained? State level? Federal? Local community...county...? Should I be able to waive any state mandatory training due to my military experience or should that training be acceptable in lieu of mandatory classes which are approved by a state?

Is my training considered worthless compared to a 22 year old who just bought his first gun, yet attended a state approved class and fired 40 rounds on a range to familiarize himself with his gun?

Many states leave this discretion up to local sheriffs. The standard can widely differ between counties, as you note in your post. It is this disparity that leads me to believe that this system is not based on any fairness, but on the luck of the draw. Yet, you want us to believe that this level of "training" is acceptable?

My post comes to this board on the heels of a person (apparently an active member here..or perhaps even a moderator or founder of this board who was stopped in my county the other day for a 12031 (a) PC investigation (carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.) This occurred in response to a citizen making a 911 call of a man acting "strangely" walking in front of her home wearing a handgun.

During the stop this person was cooperative but evasive.. was compliant enough not to get shot or do anything stupid during temporary detention. There were actions ( which I wont reveal for security reasons) taken by this person to lead law enforcement to believe that he is purposefully trying to get stopped and purposefully have law enforcement do something illegal to him.. unnecessary use of force.. illegal detention.. find what you like.. for the express purpose of bringing suit against government.

This person had a revoked concealed weapons permit. In California it is rare to get CCW's except where I live.. and the Sheriff gives them out to any citizen who wants one and can complete a CCW class.. background investigation for not being a felon.. and maintain a legitimate (which is very very liberally defined) reason for having and keeping one (this person did not comply with these)..

So to this person... I would say.. you are ignorant and will expose yourself and police officers to the possibility of harm... this isn't a threat in any way.. its just plain and simple reality...why not go to Berkley, a bastion of liberalism and free speech, and walk around with your firearm and see what happens... it would be the perfect place to make your political statement.

Click to expand...

Did you follow the Manson trial? Remember when Charles Manson held up the newspaper that declared in large print "Nixon says Manson is guilty!"?

I'm not sure of your department's policies regarding publicly commenting on cases, but it might not be a great idea to discuss particulars of them before the trial is concluded.

However, I'll assume that because you are discussing the case in public, the case has been resolved already.

Personally I tend to stand with LEOs when they are baited. Personally I see no reason to intentionally strap on and carry in situations where I know I will be confronted by LEOs. I'm just not "that guy". I prefer to carry for the sole purpose of my and my loved one's defense, instead. In most instances, I will not be the one any LEO has to worry about or feel defensive about talking with. As long as everything remains legal, respectful (on both sides) and I don't feel I'm being singled out simply because LEOs want to make their own statement by harassing me, all is well.

I can also understand that LEOs wish to feel secure out there and not have to worry about weirdos with guns. The trouble is that you can't go around stopping everyone you see with a gun simply to make yourself feel better. Responding to a call is one thing, but I think we can agree that LEOs have, and will continue, to harass people all in the name of public safety.

Simply put, the public has a right to protect themselves. They also have a right to carry a gun to serve that purpose. Despite numerous Federal, state, and local laws designed to weaken that right, it's now becoming more evident that this right is coming back to life. After years of legislation on all levels designed to choke that right out of existence, it's now becoming an issue where people are seeing that this country simply went too far in it's attempt to snuff it out.

I can think of no responsible gun owner who justifies or condones gun violence on the part of criminals who use guns to perpetrate their crimes. I feel you can understand that statement. No one here is justifying irresponsible gun ownership and I would dare say most of the people here would stand with you to stop it. However, when your efforts which are bred from your opinions slip out and affect the rights which are ours, you're going to meet some resistance. A lot of resistance, actually.

I'll wrap it up with this: There's no way in hell I'm going to let your choice of an occupation stand in the way of my rights to own a gun. You chose to accept that job, you were not drafted into it. Your choice of a career in no way should affect my right to own and carry personal protection I feel is sufficient to stop a potentially lethal attack upon my person.

I hear the arguments from both sides every day. LEOs don't want to deal with crazies with guns. I get that. I understand the fears. I also can see, in numerous statements made over many mediums, that some LEOs will replace law and precedent with personal opinion regarding gun ownership and the practice of carrying for defensive reasons. When LEOs detain people, treat them as criminals, abuse their authority, and make an ass out of themselves and do it based on their personal opinions rather than established law, that's where I have the problem.

You chose that job. Either go out and do your best under established law or find another line of work. If the dangers are too hard or not worth your effort, find another line of work. If you ever find yourself interjecting your personal opinions out there and they happen to clash with established law or procedure, then please, find yourself another line of work. No one deserves to be treated like crap simply because someone else feels it's necessary in their line of work.

That said, I do hope that your safety out there remains intact. Stay alert, stay safe, and thank you for your service to your community.

Don't do anything dumb. But you started it.

notmeofficer said:

I thought I would jump in here since I have been a Los Angeles County Sheriff for much of my life working patrol and I have another perspective

But not uncommon from what we have all heard before.

First..most police officers support your right to be armed.. and be armed correctly and be smart and trained about how to carry and how to use force legally...

We have people impersonate police all the time.. when we investigate this stuff its usually drug ripoffs or kidnapping for profit.. occasionally there will be the red light weirdos or crooks who want to do harm to someone by pulling them over

My suggestions are these

Open carry in a not normally open carry state is pretty stupid... its asking for a problem or a mistake... you are depending upon another person.. sometimes trained sometimes flawed person to make a decision regarding your life or safety. You exacerbate the situation by wanting to make a political statement

Which are you, trained or flawed?


As a police officer I do not have the luxury of figuring out if you are a bad guy or not until I "make you safe".. and when you have a gun displayed even in a holster it makes my common sense survival tactics max out. You dont know why Im stopping you.. you may be a perfectly honorable and honest person... irregardless of this if you are walking with a weapon I will detain you.. I might not do this in a rural setting.. but walking around L.A. I would.. I would have additional legal cause but carrying a firearm is unusual city behavior and most judges will back a stop if for nothing more a weapons check. The supreme court is very lenient in favor of the police in street detentions.. its not the time to debate politics.. -----------------its the time to prevent myself and others from being killed.

My sentiments exactly I should be afforded the same luxuries as you, to prevent myself and others from being killed.

If you choose to open carry in California and want to make a "statement" about it prepare to be stopped.. it will happen. Prepare to get prone'd out.. that will probably happen.. prepare to get searched.. cuffed.. questioned and detained... prepare to have you and your gun checked nine ways to Sunday... be smart (well if you really were you wouldnt be doing this in the first place).. obey commands

So you would illegally detain someone for a perfectly legal act, because it is a unusual act. You would trash the oath you took to uphold the constitution for no better reason than you do not personally agree with the parts that should prevent you from the actions you speak of...be smart (well if you really were you wouldn't be doing this in the first place,) and I think you should be able to quess what you can do with your commands by now.

My department requires us to carry not only our badge but our picture ID.. its available for you to see.. When we are plainclothes we are trained extensively on identifying ourselves properly... too many mistakes have been made too many times.. we do it by the numbers

I will have more comments as time goes by

GOOD I,ve read this forum for quite sometime now and I know there alot more smarter persons than I (and a hell of alot smarter than you) that can rebut the trash you choose to spew.

notme

Click to expand...

Freedom 1st

notmeofficer said:

Alright...

In a respectful manner I have given some real world advice on this board. What I am not inclined to do is argue.. or give constitutional law advice to other members on here.. let lawyers who get paid to argue in a court of law do that...

I think the respectful part could be sucessfully argued. I do not think you gave real world advice. I think you have a very big case of "little mans syndrome", and you came here not to educate but argue or try to force your opinions.

There is substantial legal precedent for my statements

While I see that this board is for open carry what I would like to see as a responsible police officer is concealed carry for any citizen who can show they aren't a criminal, and has an acceptable level of training. The statement that police officers dont want armed citizens is not true.. what police officers fear are idiots and spudnuts with guns.. not responsible gun owners. What a police chief might say as a politically appointed representative is way different than what a street copper might say... there are many liberal police chiefs in liberal communities.

What I would like to see is more LEO's that had anacceptable level of training of what is legal and what is not. Because what I fear is idiots and spudnuts with GUNS and a misunderstanding of the law and constitution.

My post comes to this board on the heels of a person (apparently an active member here..or perhaps even a moderator or founder of this board who was stopped in my county the other day for a 12031 (a) PC investigation (carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.) This occurred in response to a citizen making a 911 call of a man acting "strangely" walking in front of her home wearing a handgun.

Your statements are confusing you say he was being( investigated )for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. You did not say he was GUILTY of such. And how did the citizen know wether or not the supposed weapon was loaded?

During the stop this person was cooperative but evasive.. was compliant enough not to get shot or do anything stupid during temporary detention. There were actions ( which I wont reveal for security reasons) taken by this person to lead law enforcement to believe that he is purposefully trying to get stopped and purposefully have law enforcement do something illegal to him.. unnecessary use of force.. illegal detention.. find what you like.. for the express purpose of bringing suit against government.

Was this person really evasive or just had a better understanding of his rights than you? Maybe the actions you won't reveal, were not for the purpose of entrapment by the individual. Maybe the actions taken were because the stop was leaning toward the violations of his rights, or maybe just unjustifiably intrusive on your part. We may never know without more information.

This person had a revoked concealed weapons permit. In California it is rare to get CCW's except where I live.. and the Sheriff gives them out to any citizen who wants one and can complete a CCW class.. background investigation for not being a felon.. and maintain a legitimate (which is very very liberally defined) reason for having and keeping one (this person did not comply with these)..

CCW is irrelivant. From my understanding he was OC. Maybe he just got tired of paying for a privledge, when a RIGHT is free.

So to this person... I would say.. you are ignorant and will expose yourself and police officers to the possibility of harm... this isn't a threat in any way.. its just plain and simple reality...why not go to Berkley, a bastion of liberalism and free speech, and walk around with your firearm and see what happens... it would be the perfect place to make your political statement.

You have a complete misunderstanding of OC. Most of us carry for protection.
If you want a political statement here it is " I do not give a DAMN if you like it or not". and it is a statement I will make at Berkely or anywhere else.



My office is the street.. I don't argue there... political/policy statements are best made for a nice court of law where everyone's actions are predictable. Laws are enabled by the citizenry.. if we don't like them.. we can change them through a process.. that process does not include putting me or fellow police officers at perceived or real peril.

Laws are enable by the citizenry,and they can be changed(and often are) through a process. What it seems to me is, you want to skip that process and make them fit YOUR beliefs.

If the percieved or real peril bothers you, I would recommend the same advice I give to the young persons who joined the army just for college money." If you were not willing to take up the the fight when called upon to do so, you made a piss poor career decission, get out now before you have to live up to that oath you took.

Thank You

Click to expand...

Freedom 1st

Freedom 1st What is the point you are making on the two preceding posts?

Grapeshot said:

Freedom 1st What is the point you are making on the two preceding posts?

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was trying to figure out....

notmeofficer said:

SNIP My office is the street.. I don't argue there... political/policy statements are best made for a nice court of law where everyone's actions are predictable. Laws are enabled by the citizenry.. if we don't like them.. we can change them through a process.. that process does not include putting me or fellow police officers at perceived or real peril.

Thank You

Click to expand...

QFT

That one sounds like a handy little tidbit in the event of a civil rights violation lawsuit.

notmeofficer said:

SNIP There is substantial legal precedent for my statements.

Click to expand...

Like St John vs Alamagordo?

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...olice-pay-21-000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit

Like this quote from St. John v Alamagordo, who was quoting Terry v Ohio, who was quoting Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

Grapeshot said:

Freedom 1st What is the point you are making on the two preceding posts?

Click to expand...

It took me a minute to figure it out, too lol. But if you look in the giant quote, he put his thoughts in there mixed up with notme's comments.

The quoted bubble contains notme's original posts and Freedom 1st's comments are mixed with them. You have to just figure out which are which, that's all. Perhaps if he went back and highlighted his parts in bold it would help clear it up.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Freedom 1st What is the point you are making on the two preceding posts?

Click to expand...

rotorhead said:

It took me a minute to figure it out, too lol. But if you look in the giant quote, he put his thoughts in there mixed up with notme's comments.

The quoted bubble contains notme's original posts and Freedom 1st's comments are mixed with them. You have to just figure out which are which, that's all. Perhaps if he went back and highlighted his parts in bold it would help clear it up.

Click to expand...

Misquoting posts is one of those serious unwritten offenses on OCDO - we occasionally transgress in a non-misleading way by posting "fixed it for you" and bolding the other's word(s).

I understand that Freedom 1st had no such intent and could have/should have made his reply more easily recognized, but why play the "How many pirates can you find" game when we have so many tools available to us to make our message clear? Maybe he just hasn't discovered these tools yet.

Bolding, color highlighting, snipping, and multiple quoting can be used individually or in combination. It's more courteous and would save a few headaches.