First LEO encounter

MKEgal said:

+1
First out of your mouth: "why am I being detained", and don't respond to the 'hands up' until they explain of what crime you're suspected.

Overall, not too bad. My first was much worse.

I second getting the PD records of the encounter & at least complaining to IA.
You were doing nothing illegal.

Click to expand...

eehhhhh.... are you saying that when carrying a gun, if a police officer pulled a uturn, got out and demanded you put your hands high in the air... you would start trying to reason with him? I mean i guess it might sound good in theory as far as the "Dont tread on me" mentality goes but when it comes to not getting shot just for walking down the street, id be more inclined to follow the cops commands...

Citizen said:

Who exactly are the "so many" that chose to be confrontational with LE?

I might not be back to this thread for a while, so let me speak my mind now.

Too many of these accusations about being confrontational arise from assumptions on the part of the accusers. They conflate not giving in to the LEOs intrusions with being confrontational. Its rare anybody on this forum actually advocates being genuinely confrontational with a cop.

So, please point out a few of these "so many" who are actually confrontational.

Otherwise, please distinguish confrontational (hostile or antagonistic) speech from polite but firm exercise of rights.

Click to expand...

Everyday i read this forum i see atleast one person talking about going out of his way to some known antigun spot so that they can OC and "see if anything happens".... Thats kind of the definition of confrontation.

The basic definition of confrontational includes the following examples -
The act of confronting or the state of being confronted, especially a meeting face to face;
: the act of confronting : the state of being confronted: as a : a face-to-face meeting

As the reader may surmise it's hard to be confrontational without a meeting, and the one that initiates the meeting is the one doing the confronting. If a citizen is minding his own damn business and someone comes over it is Not the citizen that is being confrontational.

Claytron said:

Everyday i read this forum i see atleast one person talking about going out of his way to some known antigun spot so that they can OC and "see if anything happens".... Thats kind of the definition of confrontation.

Click to expand...

I was initially going to write just about that same thing, so first off thinks, I was stumped for words, and decited not to respond, because if the ones that look for confrontation don`t think they are, then there was nothing I could have said that would have changed their minds. Everyday somewhere on this forum the non gun owner can read someone saying it OK to debate LE on the side of the road, in a park, or anywhere else they feel fit, I find that confrontation! And when that is done it makes all gun owners look bad. I choose instead, to use the Courts, the State Houses, City Hall, the newspapers, and educating the non gun owners, and way to many gun owners about the importance of the 2nd Amendment. I choose not to try and make enemies out of LE, remember MOST become LE because they want to help. I want people to look at me and say " look theirs Rick, He`s a polite, God fearing, respecter of the law, family man that would give his life for me if needed." Now I am going to the bottom of the Grand Canyon for 3 to 4 weeks. I hear that if we chose to show LE our ID, then our civil liberties will be lost, but I had to edit this,because 2 years ago I could not have taken my firearm with my to a National Park. HOWS THAT POSABLE!

Fallschirmjäger said:

The basic definition of confrontational includes the following examples -
The act of confronting or the state of being confronted, especially a meeting face to face;
: the act of confronting : the state of being confronted: as a : a face-to-face meeting

As the reader may surmise it's hard to be confrontational without a meeting, and the one that initiates the meeting is the one doing the confronting. If a citizen is minding his own damn business and someone comes over it is Not the citizen that is being confrontational.

Click to expand...

In my opinion you are wrong.... a citizen who IS going about his daily business and gets hassled is one thing, but going out of your way to go to a store you know has a problem with firearms, just on the off chance that they might say something to you so you can get a response is being confrontational in my opinion.

Claytron said:

In my opinion you are wrong.... a citizen who IS going about his daily business and gets hassled is one thing, but going out of your way to go to a store you know has a problem with firearms, just on the off chance that they might say something to you so you can get a response is being confrontational in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Ummmm... you do realize you've just used the classic straw man argument, right? You've created your own scenario, proven yourself wrong, and then attributed your scenario to me.

Since you did not use the example I provided, "minding his own damn business" and instead substituted your own then all I can do is congratulate you on winning an argument with yourself.

I can go into the most redneck, white trash honkytonk bar that doesn't like "my type." There's no confrontation until someone gets in my face, or I get in theirs. If I drink my frilly, pink umbrella drink in peace there's no confrontation.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Ummmm... you do realize you've just used the classic straw man argument, right? You've created your own scenario, proven yourself wrong, and then attributed your scenario to me.

Since you did not use the example I provided, "minding his own damn business" and instead substituted your own then all I can do is congratulate you on winning an argument with yourself.

I can go into the most redneck, white trash honkytonk bar that doesn't like "my type." There's no confrontation until someone gets in my face, or I get in theirs. If I drink my frilly, pink umbrella drink in peace there's no confrontation.

Click to expand...

What's "your type"? I know some bars where if you don't order Lone Star you're not welcome.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Ummmm... you do realize you've just used the classic straw man argument, right? You've created your own scenario, proven yourself wrong, and then attributed your scenario to me.

Since you did not use the example I provided, "minding his own damn business" and instead substituted your own then all I can do is congratulate you on winning an argument with yourself.

I can go into the most redneck, white trash honkytonk bar that doesn't like "my type." There's no confrontation until someone gets in my face, or I get in theirs. If I drink my frilly, pink umbrella drink in peace there's no confrontation.

Click to expand...

As Patrick Swayze said in Road House, Be Polite! if they call you names, be polite! if they spit on you, Be Polite! if they call your Momma a whore, Be Polite! if LE ask for your ID, Be Polite! until its` time to not be polite. You can always walk away, count to 10, or better yet, just don`t go to placed your not welcome at, I am a Cowboy, and I would not go in most places in most cities in Ca. Il. NY. or any other state where as you say "my type" is not welcome, and if I did that would be considered confrontational. I am not saying we need to be cowards, but just remember, its` the better man that can walk away.

Gunslinger said:

What's "your type"? I know some bars where if you don't order Lone Star you're not welcome.

Click to expand...

Well, it ain't frilly pink umbrella drinks, lol.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Ummmm... you do realize you've just used the classic straw man argument, right? You've created your own scenario, proven yourself wrong, and then attributed your scenario to me.

Since you did not use the example I provided, "minding his own damn business" and instead substituted your own then all I can do is congratulate you on winning an argument with yourself.

I can go into the most redneck, white trash honkytonk bar that doesn't like "my type." There's no confrontation until someone gets in my face, or I get in theirs. If I drink my frilly, pink umbrella drink in peace there's no confrontation.

Click to expand...

I didnt create my own scenario I am referring to this thread: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ked-Out-of-Valero-Cornerstore-in-Falcon/page3 - Read that thread and you will see three people posting that they are thinking about or are going to be OCing to the store in question just to see what happens, with one person even suggesting that EVERYONE who can should OC there. One person even confirmed that he did in fact OC there, but he didnt get spoken to as im sure deep down he hoped he would.

"Dont Strawman me, Bro!!" has become such a trendy thing to say i think people are starting to forget what it actually means. You think im inventing a situation that doesnt exist just so i can win the argument? First off how can you even prove im wrong about a possible scenario?

And regarding your comment about going to some hick bar and getting crap because you are gay and drinking some frilly umbrella beach drink...... Would you be going there BECAUSE you thought you would get hassled? If the answer is yes than in my opinion, regardless of if you want to hide behind the definition of the word, you are being confrontational because you are going out of your way to go to a place where you EXPECT to be hassled, meaning you planned on something happening.

The original poster of that thread was minding his own business and going about his daily activities when someone decided to hassle him, he didnt go to a "antiOC" store that he looked up online so that he could go somewhere and try to cause a scene.

In that case, I do beg your pardon, Claytron. It was silly of me to think you were replying to me when you quoted me in your reply. It should have been immediately obvious that you were referring to http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...n-Falcon/page3 even though you didn't even mention it. is an unforgivable lapse on my part. I guess my mentalist powers are a little below par on days that end in "y". I feel so sheepish now, not to have realized it.

"Dont[sic] Strawman[sic] me, Bro!!" has become such a trendy thing to say i think people are starting to forget what it actually means. You think im[sic] inventing a situation that doesnt[sic] exist just so i can win the argument? First off how can you even prove im[sic] wrong about a possible scenario?

Click to expand...

Well, since you didn't say that I don't know what a straw man argument really means, I guess I won't have to trot out the fact that I've participated in debate classes and that I'm kinda familiar with the rules, what logical fallacies are, and how they shouldn't be used in good debates. Dodged that little bullet . Do I think you created your own situation? Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear when I stated such. There are generally two ways to prove a position wrong. One, is to use the position that was stated, and the second is to instead substitute one's own scenario and to prove the newly posited scenario wrong. Any guess which is the 'straw man'?

And regarding your comment about going to some hick bar and getting crap because you are gay and drinking some frilly umbrella beach drink...... Would you be going there BECAUSE you thought you would get hassled? If the answer is yes than in my opinion, regardless of if you want to hide behind the definition of the word, you are being confrontational because you are going out of your way to go to a place where you EXPECT to be hassled, meaning you planned on something happening.

Click to expand...

Odd, I don't think I ever mentioned anything about homosexuality. Were you inferring that one's sexuality can be determined by what beverage they imbibe? I had no idea that putting a pink umbrella in straight whiskey made one gay. Is it contagious, do you think?
Sorry to disappoint, but nothing of the sort was implied. It was merely a bit of misdirection that easily fools novices into aiming at the wrong target in debates. That it fooled you into doing so, is somewhat embarrassing to me as I thought no one would be so foolish as to fall for it.

Hey, remember that guy? Yeah, the one made from straw, remember? When one's rebuttal begins with the phrase "If the answer is 'yes'..." that's generally a clue that your are substituting your own scenario and not answering the one posed. When you predictably "win" such an argument, all you have done is defeated yourself.

Fallschirmjäger said:

In that case, I do beg your pardon, Claytron. It was silly of me to think you were replying to me when you quoted me in your reply. It should have been immediately obvious that you were referring to http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...n-Falcon/page3 even though you didn't even mention it. is an unforgivable lapse on my part. I guess my mentalist powers are a little below par on days that end in "y". I feel so sheepish now, not to have realized it.



Well, since you didn't say that I don't know what a straw man argument really means, I guess I won't have to trot out the fact that I've participated in debate classes and that I'm kinda familiar with the rules, what logical fallacies are, and how they shouldn't be used in good debates. Dodged that little bullet . Do I think you created your own situation? Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear when I stated such. There are generally two ways to prove a position wrong. One, is to use the position that was stated, and the second is to instead substitute one's own scenario and to prove the newly posited scenario wrong. Any guess which is the 'straw man'?



Odd, I don't think I ever mentioned anything about homosexuality. Were you inferring that one's sexuality can be determined by what beverage they imbibe? I had no idea that putting a pink umbrella in straight whiskey made one gay. Is it contagious, do you think?
Sorry to disappoint, but nothing of the sort was implied. It was merely a bit of misdirection that easily fools novices into aiming at the wrong target in debates. That it fooled you into doing so, is somewhat embarrassing to me as I thought no one would be so foolish as to fall for it.

Hey, remember that guy? Yeah, the one made from straw, remember? When one's rebuttal begins with the phrase "If the answer is 'yes'..." that's generally a clue that your are substituting your own scenario and not answering the one posed. When you predictably "win" such an argument, all you have done is defeated yourself.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is when it comes down to it, im not even sure WHAT comment of mine you are referring to. I would think if you were willing to type out all of this, you would have been able to quote exactly what comment you are complaining about so i could make sure i dont "strawman you bro".

And after providing a new situation ( some tell me this is called strawmanning, whodathunkit?) where you describe yourself going into a cowboy bar, ordering a pink drink with frilly umbrella and getting hassled because they dont like "your type" are you really blaming me for assuming you were talking about a gay guy getting hassled? Come on, now you are just being petty and ridiculous.

And im also curious about your "i set a trap" mentality about trying to make me look like a fool..... You just get done whining that im strawmanning you in order to win the argument... but you think its ok to try and trick people into "making fools of themselves" to win your arguments? Very interesting... Lets also keep in mind that i didnt insult or offend you based on my assumption of you being gay, the fact that i called a duck a duck doesnt give you a reason to start yelling "BIGOT!".

Lets get back to me "strawmanning" your argument..... Read the thread. I only responded to you after you decided to try and correct my usage of the word "confrontational". Now here is where you exclaim how you werent talking to me, just trying to enlighten the whole thread on the true definition of the word, and therefor technically didnt respond to me. Saved you the hassle of backpedaling. Now the real issue is you claiming i strawmanned you..... I did this by linking you to a thread in which people described going out of their way in order to "test the waters" at a place they know NOT to be OC friendly. They were going there to see if anything happened due to their presence. I explained to you how I felt that that was a confrontational act in and of itself, you then started to complain about strawman tactics because i "created my own scenario, proved myself wrong, and then attributed my scenario to you."

But uhh.... i dont see how that makes any sense if the thread was obviously real, obviously posted before both of our comments, and obviously was not some "situation i created."

Fallschirmjäger said:

In that case, I do beg your pardon, Claytron. It was silly of me to think you were replying to me when you quoted me in your reply. It should have been immediately obvious that you were referring to http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...n-Falcon/page3 even though you didn't even mention it. is an unforgivable lapse on my part. I guess my mentalist powers are a little below par on days that end in "y". I feel so sheepish now, not to have realized it.



Well, since you didn't say that I don't know what a straw man argument really means, I guess I won't have to trot out the fact that I've participated in debate classes and that I'm kinda familiar with the rules, what logical fallacies are, and how they shouldn't be used in good debates. Dodged that little bullet . Do I think you created your own situation? Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear when I stated such. There are generally two ways to prove a position wrong. One, is to use the position that was stated, and the second is to instead substitute one's own scenario and to prove the newly posited scenario wrong. Any guess which is the 'straw man'?



Odd, I don't think I ever mentioned anything about homosexuality. Were you inferring that one's sexuality can be determined by what beverage they imbibe? I had no idea that putting a pink umbrella in straight whiskey made one gay. Is it contagious, do you think?
Sorry to disappoint, but nothing of the sort was implied. It was merely a bit of misdirection that easily fools novices into aiming at the wrong target in debates. That it fooled you into doing so, is somewhat embarrassing to me as I thought no one would be so foolish as to fall for it.

Hey, remember that guy? Yeah, the one made from straw, remember? When one's rebuttal begins with the phrase "If the answer is 'yes'..." that's generally a clue that your are substituting your own scenario and not answering the one posed. When you predictably "win" such an argument, all you have done is defeated yourself.

Click to expand...

HUM... when I read your scenario, my first thought was your a bigot city slicker, and you just don`t like rednecks, or Cowboys`. Was I wrong?

rickc1962 said:

HUM... when I read your scenario, my first thought was your a bigot city slicker, and you just don`t like rednecks, or Cowboys`. Was I wrong?

Click to expand...

More'n likely. Country and redneck sums up my background nicely, thank you.
It is true that I don't care much for the Cowboys though, baseball just isn't my game.

I could have used just about any scenario imaginable, from effete, yuppy collegiate bar, to cigar smoke filled gentleman's club, to plaid wearing lesbian, to the local Harry Potter fan club. The only use of the description is misdirection. Sometimes it works; other times it is recognized as the trickery that it is.

Fallschirmjäger said:

More'n likely. Country and redneck sums up my background nicely, thank you.
It is true that I don't care much for the Cowboys though, baseball just isn't my game.

I could have used just about any scenario imaginable, from effete, yuppy collegiate bar, to cigar smoke filled gentleman's club, to plaid wearing lesbian, to the local Harry Potter fan club. The only use of the description is misdirection. Sometimes it works; other times it is recognized as the trickery that it is.

Click to expand...

Don`t understand the cowboy, baseball thing, but the rest of your post made me laugh. I have worked as a Carney, and people judged me, I have worked as a cowboy, and people judged me, I spent years as a prospector, and people judged me, as a truck driver, and I even owned my own truck, and while drinking in a bar in San Diego, I was talking to a guy, he asked me what I did for a living and I told him I was a truck driver, and he judged me, turned away and had nothing more to say to me, and even my own family has aways claimed I`m a gun nut because I carry a gun were ever I go, and they claim I care to much about the Constitution, which is why I have very little to do with my family. People judge us all the time, and if I fill uncomfortable, I just don`t go there, I don`t` care if it has to do with the music I listen to, the clothes I wear, the job I do, or the gun I carry. I stay in states were " my kind " is welcome, and if I need to go to some other state, I do my business and get out. I stay between Az., Nv., Wy., and Mt., and hopefully very soon Ut., the laws are friendly to gun owners, and these states are friendly to cowboys, and most LE are pro gun, and also believe we have the right to carry any way we want.

My years in Aridzona were some of the most pleasant that I can remember. One day, I hope to move back.

Aren't the Cowboys that baseball team from Austin...or is it Dallas?

Fallschirmjäger said:

Aren't the Cowboys that baseball team from Austin...or is it Dallas?

Click to expand...

Alpine, at Kokernot Field.

Fallschirmjäger said:

My years in Aridzona were some of the most pleasant that I can remember. One day, I hope to move back.

Aren't the Cowboys that baseball team from Austin...or is it Dallas?

Click to expand...

The cowboys are from Dallas, and they play Football, and I like ANY team that is playing against them, Ha..Ha.. Sense I`m not from Texas, I don`t` know if they have any baseball teams called the cowboys. As for me, when I talk about Cowboys, I`m talking about chasing long haired cavies around, not chasing around a little odd shaped ball. I know you were just tugen on my funny bone, but I thought I would explain myself. I`ve punched a lot of cows, and I love it, just easier, or more profitable ways to make a liven, ( being a Cowboy is a way of life, not just the way you choose to make a liven, kind of who you are, not what you do. ) Az. is a great state, as are all the mountain states, and I love living here. When I have had contacts with LEOs` here in Az., as in Wy., Mt. and Nv., they have always acted like professionals, treated me with respect, and not like a bad guy, and none of them have ever disarmed me, I have had my ID checked 9 times in the 16 years I`ve lived in the 4 states I`ve mentioned, and that's counting traffic stops. I know you, as well as others here don`t` agree with this, but I think that's not bad, and the officers I dealt with, never asked again, as a matter of fact, every time any of them saw me after our first meeting, they would wave, and most would go out of there way to say hi, shake my hand and ask how life was doing. I guess if I lived in a state that was more totalitarian, I would probably be more bitter towards LE. I left Ca. in `79, went into the Army, and when I got out, I went back to Ca. for a couple of years. I can`t `stand socialism, and I was able to read the writing on the wall, so I left. I couldn't have made a better choice.

Fallschirmjäger said:

More'n likely. Country and redneck sums up my background nicely, thank you.
It is true that I don't care much for the Cowboys though, baseball just isn't my game.

I could have used just about any scenario imaginable, from effete, yuppy collegiate bar, to cigar smoke filled gentleman's club, to plaid wearing lesbian, to the local Harry Potter fan club. The only use of the description is misdirection. Sometimes it works; other times it is recognized as the trickery that it is.

Click to expand...

So im curious, why exactly are you trying to "misdirect and trick" people while having a discussion? How does that further the discussion in an intelligent way? When your argument starts to slip you just resort to trying to decieve people for your own amusement?

Just seems a little strange, you care about the integrity of a debate enough to (falsely) accuse someone of strawmanning you but then you admit you trying to decieve people for no other reason than to say you did it.

Are you going to decline to respond to my previous post where i described how you were mistaken in attacking me? Im interested in hearing your response, posted or PMed.

NavyLT said:

To some of us, the 4th amendment to the Constitution is just as important as the 2nd amendment. Besides, to stand there and consent to a police officer to violate the 4th amendment would be to violate the oath I took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

"OFFICER1: I need you to put your hands up. All the way up high."

At that point the officer violated the 4th amendment. When given an order like that by a police officer, any reasonable person would feel compelled to comply and not free to just walk away. The officer "seized" or "detained" the subject with no reasonable and articulable suspicion of the subject committing a crime. That violates the 4th amendment.

Click to expand...

I would have to agree with you NavyLT. When the officer immediately ordered him to put his hands up this was in direct violation of the 4th Amendment. I'm glad the conversation was recorded and I'm glad it went moderately well.
In 2009 Montana passed HB-228 that stated the legality of carrying a firearm anywhere you are legally and lawfully occupying. The gentleman in the original post was not trespassing when he was stopped and was not anyplace that he shouldn't be. It sounds to me like the LE in the equation need to update themselves on the laws and the regulations within the state. If they don't know it, they need to and they need to study it. The Bill went into affect the moment the Governor signed it so there's no question about lag-time or anything like that at all.
The OP might also be well-advised to read stuff along those lines as well. It's good to be informed when talking to Law Enforcement in the event of a confrontation. Always be polite, but be educated as well!