Gundude
Regular Member
This is exactly why you should never give your name to LEO's.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Oceanside new Video from TODAY!
- Thread starter IYAOYAS
- Start date
This is exactly why you should never give your name to LEO's.
chewy352
Regular Member
chewy352
Regular Member
With all do respect to the CGF Chairman, has he ever heard of a common legal term "preemption"
IYAOYAS
Regular Member
So my pocket knife could be construed as a dangerous weapon should I not carry one?? And wouldn't state law overthrow this little city ordinance?
IYAOYAS
Regular Member
I have an idea how bout you make a video of you when encountering the police for open carrying and show us just how silent you can be. Yep that would be perfect!
Maybe today will be your lucky day. I'm still an (e) check virgin, thankfully.
Taking your knife is still a violation of your rights. Under Terry officers can pat you down if they have reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur AND if the suspect is perceived to be armed AND dangerous. All of those requirements were not met, seizing your knife was unlawful.
A ECNALG
Regular Member
D'oh!
Too bad that Officer Lyons was in such an all-fired hurry to verify that the firearm was unloaded, that he so carelessly forgot to maintain muzzle awareness by sweeping the passing vehicles !
Too bad that Officer Lyons was in such an all-fired hurry to verify that the firearm was unloaded, that he so carelessly forgot to maintain muzzle awareness by sweeping the passing vehicles !
coolusername2007
Regular Member
Ask Theseus.
chewy352
Regular Member
In the heat of the moment it is very hard to remain completely silent. I think the OP said only what needed to be said and nothing more.
Iopencarry
Regular Member
Gundude
Regular Member
I don't see anything wrong with talking, just ask the questions, don't answer any.
"I decline to answer any questions without legal advice"
"Sorry, that's a question"
"Sorry, that's a question"
"Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
"Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
"Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
"I decline to answer any questions without legal advice"
"Sorry, that's a question"
"Sorry, that's a question"
"Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
"Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
"Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
ConsideringOC
Regular Member
The probable cause was in the first words out of the officer's mouth. They were getting calls about a man with a gun. So they are there on a radio call based on a complaint. And like others have said.... the officer can ask all the questions he wants. If you dont want to answer them... thats your choice.
Last edited:
AyatollahGondola
Regular Member
The problem that surfaces with that example would be that if the cops didn't know his name, and therefore couldn't directly locate him, he'd be wanted instead. How would that be better?
just shut up.
GUNDUDE has it right. Tell the officer you don't wish to answer any of his questions or consent to any searches. Inform the LEO you are busy right now, and need to go about your business. You should leave no doubt in the officers mind that you don't want to stand around and voluntarily chat with him. Don't answer any more questions other than the gun is being legally carried; not your first name, not your dogs name, not what city you live in nor show any kind of ID. If the officer decides to "e" check you, once the gun inspection takes place and the gun is returned, the only words out of your mouth should be "Am I free to go now". That does not mean that you should not have a friendly nonthreatening demeanor, just don't ask any questions other than what should be the only words from above(remember that "am I free to go now" thing?) that would lengthen the contact between you and the LEO. If the officer was a believer in OC'ing, he would have probably not stopped you in the first place. You are not going to change his opinion and convert him to your way of thinking, you will just get yourself in legal trouble talking, so don't bother and exit the detention as soon as possible.
GUNDUDE has it right. Tell the officer you don't wish to answer any of his questions or consent to any searches. Inform the LEO you are busy right now, and need to go about your business. You should leave no doubt in the officers mind that you don't want to stand around and voluntarily chat with him. Don't answer any more questions other than the gun is being legally carried; not your first name, not your dogs name, not what city you live in nor show any kind of ID. If the officer decides to "e" check you, once the gun inspection takes place and the gun is returned, the only words out of your mouth should be "Am I free to go now". That does not mean that you should not have a friendly nonthreatening demeanor, just don't ask any questions other than what should be the only words from above(remember that "am I free to go now" thing?) that would lengthen the contact between you and the LEO. If the officer was a believer in OC'ing, he would have probably not stopped you in the first place. You are not going to change his opinion and convert him to your way of thinking, you will just get yourself in legal trouble talking, so don't bother and exit the detention as soon as possible.
Last edited:
coolusername2007
Regular Member
No. It doesn't work like that. Guns are not illegal. Owning guns is not illegal. Carrying guns is not illegal. Therefore a call about a man with a gun is not probable cause of anything other than a citizen going about their lawful business. If it were not for 12031(e) this officer would not be able to unconstitutionally search and seize the OP violating his 4A rights, nor would he be able to disarm him violating his 2A rights.
Last edited:
cato
Newbie
Absent the reporting person articulating a criminal act the responding officers do not have 'reasonable suspicion' of a crime to temporarily detain someone for investigation. Called a 'Terry v Ohio' stop. Probable cause (PC) is the standard to arrest not merely detain.
Absent RS an officer is left with two options; observation to develope RS/PC or a consent contact.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
JoeSparky
Centurion
Just a little question to help my confusion....
If I am going about my activities in a normal manner and not violating any laws JUST WHERE IS THE PROBABLE CAUSE?
It is legal to carry a firearm unloaded without a permit in California if one is not in a school zone and of age. Calif. does have an unconstitutional statute that purports to allow but not require a LEO to perform an (e) check to determine if the firearm is in fact UNLOADED. No where in that statute does it give the officer any legal cause to perform a pat down. See TERRY!
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
The officer had NO probable cause to stop and detain the OC'er.
The officer only became nice and friendly after he realized he was being videotaped.
The officers true feelings and intentions were echoe'd by the chioice of words he used by accident. When he saud "you trying to make a statement" he resorted back to his TRUE thoughts and feelings of contempt and disdain for an American citizen exercizing their constitutional rights.
"YES OFFICER, THE STATEMENT I AM MAKING IS I VALUE MY LIFE"
The officer only became nice and friendly after he realized he was being videotaped.
The officers true feelings and intentions were echoe'd by the chioice of words he used by accident. When he saud "you trying to make a statement" he resorted back to his TRUE thoughts and feelings of contempt and disdain for an American citizen exercizing their constitutional rights.
"YES OFFICER, THE STATEMENT I AM MAKING IS I VALUE MY LIFE"
Last edited:
Gundude
Regular Member
My statement....."That was a question. Remember? No questions."
Last edited:
Couple of monday morning quarterbacking details;
There is no way an officer is going to respond to a dispatch for a MWAG call and be thinking "oh its just one of those patriotic and upstanding fine American citizens" without any other information.
We dont know all the facts dispatch may or may not have gotten, in my experience, Rescue Randy citizens driving by with a latte in one hand and cell phone in the other will call 911 thinking they are heros and actually wind up wasting public resources time and money and misrepresent what is truly happening. If I had a nickel for every unconcious seizure 911 call that was actually a homeless or indigent person sleeping on the sidewalk Id be a millionaire.
So what did happen?? was it a quick call by 1 or more upset people wanting to report a guy with a gun walking down the street. (In America? How dare he!!!) most likely.
So most likely the information related to the officer was a physical description and multiple calls for complaints of "man with a gun" he may or more likely not been given what exactly he was doing.
Couple of things of note, the officer may have read the Oceanside PD bulletin on handling UOC'rs, he may have remembered some or all of it, he may have never encountered a UOC"r yet. So this could have been the very first encounter of this nature for him. I noticed his demeanor and body language and voice tone didnt seem to me he was overly stressed or scared. He had a pretty good idea what this might be. His actions however did show something particulary interesting and tactical. He did not draw down or maintain a distance, he instead quickly closed the distance and got within close physical range to the UOC'r. With clear directions of what he did and didnt want the UOC'r to do and what he was going to perform while closing the distance. He wanted to make this a potential hand to hand physical altercation then a short range gun battle if for any reason it was the worst possible encounter. Thats experience, and an attempt to de-escalate the situation. He also started to say "There are alot of people.." then started another line of questioning, its tough to hear but its there, that to me is an indication he knew what was going on, this was a lawful citizen not some hoodlum or criminal type he was dealing with, maybe a gun advocate, but misconstrued by the John Q public, so he continued going thru his questions, most of which are pre programmed questions all officers ask. To control the situation, assess the individual, identify intent.
He obviously didnt remember all the particulars of 12031e, so grabbing the mags he more than likely didnt realize he couldnt do that. And after about 20 seconds or so of questions not being answered promptly he probably realized he should return the weapon and mags which he did, especially when no last name was coming forthwith and he is being recorded, thus the period of writing in his book, thats him thinking how do I save face and dont look like an idiot on youtube, and did I remember all the details of handling an E check correctly.
He mentions his 22 years in the Corp, more than once, and explains why he did the stop, because of the holidays and lots of people. He is proud of what he has done,and still does, he takes his job seriously and understands rights (mostly), freedom and liberty. He tried to make some sort of connection and show of understanding. For the most part, probably one of the good cops. Plus the east coast accent, probably NY origin, they tend to be mostly down to earth and grounded. (my father is 30 year retired NYPD).
This does not in anyway mean a UOC'r should drop there guard, surrender there rights freely, or give daming or possibly incriminating information. However, I would have no problem being friendly and cordial and neighborly with this particular officer. I would actually see it as an opportunity to teach/inform about the penal codes we all know so well and offer to give him feedback on his stop if he was wiling to take feedback.
Gotta remember people, we are doing something that is so alien to many people that we are sometimes percieved as "dangerous". Thats the propoganda and direction our country has gone for the past 60+ years ways of thinking are not going to change as quickly as we may like. For what it is worth, leaving the municipal code argument out of it, mostly positive encounter and more than likely a good cop.
There is no way an officer is going to respond to a dispatch for a MWAG call and be thinking "oh its just one of those patriotic and upstanding fine American citizens" without any other information.
We dont know all the facts dispatch may or may not have gotten, in my experience, Rescue Randy citizens driving by with a latte in one hand and cell phone in the other will call 911 thinking they are heros and actually wind up wasting public resources time and money and misrepresent what is truly happening. If I had a nickel for every unconcious seizure 911 call that was actually a homeless or indigent person sleeping on the sidewalk Id be a millionaire.
So what did happen?? was it a quick call by 1 or more upset people wanting to report a guy with a gun walking down the street. (In America? How dare he!!!) most likely.
So most likely the information related to the officer was a physical description and multiple calls for complaints of "man with a gun" he may or more likely not been given what exactly he was doing.
Couple of things of note, the officer may have read the Oceanside PD bulletin on handling UOC'rs, he may have remembered some or all of it, he may have never encountered a UOC"r yet. So this could have been the very first encounter of this nature for him. I noticed his demeanor and body language and voice tone didnt seem to me he was overly stressed or scared. He had a pretty good idea what this might be. His actions however did show something particulary interesting and tactical. He did not draw down or maintain a distance, he instead quickly closed the distance and got within close physical range to the UOC'r. With clear directions of what he did and didnt want the UOC'r to do and what he was going to perform while closing the distance. He wanted to make this a potential hand to hand physical altercation then a short range gun battle if for any reason it was the worst possible encounter. Thats experience, and an attempt to de-escalate the situation. He also started to say "There are alot of people.." then started another line of questioning, its tough to hear but its there, that to me is an indication he knew what was going on, this was a lawful citizen not some hoodlum or criminal type he was dealing with, maybe a gun advocate, but misconstrued by the John Q public, so he continued going thru his questions, most of which are pre programmed questions all officers ask. To control the situation, assess the individual, identify intent.
He obviously didnt remember all the particulars of 12031e, so grabbing the mags he more than likely didnt realize he couldnt do that. And after about 20 seconds or so of questions not being answered promptly he probably realized he should return the weapon and mags which he did, especially when no last name was coming forthwith and he is being recorded, thus the period of writing in his book, thats him thinking how do I save face and dont look like an idiot on youtube, and did I remember all the details of handling an E check correctly.
He mentions his 22 years in the Corp, more than once, and explains why he did the stop, because of the holidays and lots of people. He is proud of what he has done,and still does, he takes his job seriously and understands rights (mostly), freedom and liberty. He tried to make some sort of connection and show of understanding. For the most part, probably one of the good cops. Plus the east coast accent, probably NY origin, they tend to be mostly down to earth and grounded. (my father is 30 year retired NYPD).
This does not in anyway mean a UOC'r should drop there guard, surrender there rights freely, or give daming or possibly incriminating information. However, I would have no problem being friendly and cordial and neighborly with this particular officer. I would actually see it as an opportunity to teach/inform about the penal codes we all know so well and offer to give him feedback on his stop if he was wiling to take feedback.
Gotta remember people, we are doing something that is so alien to many people that we are sometimes percieved as "dangerous". Thats the propoganda and direction our country has gone for the past 60+ years ways of thinking are not going to change as quickly as we may like. For what it is worth, leaving the municipal code argument out of it, mostly positive encounter and more than likely a good cop.