Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: To gain some insight to LEO / OC

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    To gain some insight to LEO / OC

    I spent a couple hours looking at the 1911 forum.com last night, particularly the LEO Duty thread. There is a question re LEO views of OC. Some of the responders were not LEO and it shows. For the most part it gave a fair representation of the view shared by career LEO.
    Yeah, Yeah, I know all leo lie (BS) put your predjudices aside for an hour and read this. You might , just maybe, learn something. This is not directed at any one person, but to the OC crowd as a whole.

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    A link?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Well only if you'd get my quotes right.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    I'm not a member of the 1911 forum and not inclined to join (since I don't have any 1911s) but there was one interesting comment that I think needs to be responded to.

    Post #127

    If we just passed each other on the street, I probably wouldn't bother you. I was referring to incidents where "a man with a gun" was called in and I was dispatched to it. In that case, I have no choice but to speak with the guy.

    If you're driving down the street, a LEO cannot pull you over just to check the status of your driver's license. However, if someone calls in and says you're weaving all over the place, the LEO will be obliged to talk with you.
    I think this officer is making a few incorrect comparisons. When someone calls in a MWAG there is no indication that that individual is breaking the law. Therefore, there should be no reason that the officer has no choice but to speak with you. In the second example, the call is only responded to if the person reports illegal activity.

    If someone is actually a member there, especially if they are law enforcement, I think this would be a good point to make. The police do not, in fact, respond to 911 calls unless there is a report of illegal activity. In other cases they (presumably) explain to the caller that the activity they are reporting is legal.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    A link?
    in the post... 1911forum.com

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by heresolong View Post
    I'm not a member of the 1911 forum and not inclined to join (since I don't have any 1911s) but there was one interesting comment that I think needs to be responded to.

    Post #127



    I think this officer is making a few incorrect comparisons. When someone calls in a MWAG there is no indication that that individual is breaking the law. Therefore, there should be no reason that the officer has no choice but to speak with you. I the second example, the call is only responded to if the person reports illegal activity.

    If someone is actually a member there, especially if they are law enforcement, I think this would be a good point to make. The police do not, in fact, respond to 911 calls unless there is a report of illegal activity. In other cases they (presumably) explain to the caller that the activity they are reporting is legal.
    Read again...and then think what was written. Also consider he may work in a state other than Wa. with different laws.
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 03-09-2011 at 11:46 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Read again...and then think what was written.
    I'm pretty clear on what was written although I concede your point on state laws. You'd think a disclaimer that "in my state this is what we are required by law to do" would be appropriate.

    1) He specifically says that he can not pull someone over just to check their license but if they are reportedly weaving he can.

    2) He also states that if someone reports a MWAG then he has to check it out <b>to the extent of checking the person's ID</b>. He does not include any suspicion of illegal activity in that citizen report, unlike the previous example.

    By that logic, if someone called to report a person driving, he would have to pull them over. He clearly equates MWAG with suspicious behavior. Isn't that what we have spent several years getting past here in Washington?

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It's also not mandatory to carry ID in any of the States.

    By Supreme court decisions he still needs RAS or PC to demand that someone identify themselves. Even in California, where they can e-check someone they are not supposed to demand ID.

    So that would only leave the minority of states where it would be illegal to open carry. For this to work and then in that case the person would be breaking state law. Even though most State Constitutions along with the Federal Constitution provides him with the right to carry.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Read again...and then think what was written.
    I also decided to come back and make a comment about this statement. You aren't the only one on this board who has made statements like this so take it as a blanket suggestion rather than a personal criticism.

    Telling someone to read it again with no indication of specifically what they are looking for can come across as pretty rude. The implication is that they are too stupid to have got it the first time. Instead how about making the argument that "what the quote really meant was ...". That would be far more helpful to everyone.

    +1 on SVG's observation. Since they can't stop you without RAS, the implication on a MWAG call is that he has RAS by virtue of someone calling. This is not true in this state and many others. It may have been true in his state but that wasn't clear from his post.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    It's also not mandatory to carry ID in any of the States.


    Maybe not by Fed law, but state law can and does require in some states. My cite is the same as the one you did not post.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by heresolong View Post
    I also decided to come back and make a comment about this statement. You aren't the only one on this board who has made statements like this so take it as a blanket suggestion rather than a personal criticism.

    Telling someone to read it again with no indication of specifically what they are looking for can come across as pretty rude. The implication is that they are too stupid to have got it the first time. Instead how about making the argument that "what the quote really meant was ...". That would be far more helpful to everyone.

    +1 on SVG's observation. Since they can't stop you without RAS, the implication on a MWAG call is that he has RAS by virtue of someone calling. This is not true in this state and many others. It may have been true in his state but that wasn't clear from his post.
    Often times I, as well as others, are perfectly clear in our own mind as to what the intent was, when to others it may be as clear as mud. Point taken.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    It's also not mandatory to carry ID in any of the States.


    Maybe not by Fed law, but state law can and does require in some states. My cite is the same as the one you did not post.
    Could you give me that cite? I only know of Kolender v. Lawson and Brown v. Texas related to ID, both which state:
    Kolender:
    The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest.

    Brown:
    The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.

    ...
    Fundamental to a democratic society is the ability to wander freely and anonymously, if we so choose, without being compelled to divulge information to the government about who we are or what we are doing.

    And while I disagree with the decision (as it is poorly written for want of definitions, and it uses contradicting logic) in Hiibel v. Nevada, you see:
    This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Tawnos
    Myreferencs to a cite that was not posted was sarcastic as a cite was not posted so mine was from the same source. ie did not exist.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Tawnos
    Myreferencs to a cite that was not posted was sarcastic as a cite was not posted so mine was from the same source. ie did not exist.
    Well, you can be happy knowing I did post a cite :P

    I was thinking you knew of some reference and knew that he also was aware of it. Missed the sarcasm.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Often times I, as well as others, are perfectly clear in our own mind as to what the intent was, when to others it may be as clear as mud.
    LOL. Me too. +1

  16. #16
    Regular Member Twiztid Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Rockingham county NC
    Posts
    57
    Ive been looking into what LEO thinks about NC OCers and found some interesting thoughts from verified LEO in this site http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/ its the ask a cop section and there are several OC questions to which they are told anywhere from OC is fine to OC should be illegal...very eye opening.


    Here is one.................

    http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask...pen-carry.html



    Verified LEO


    Quote Originally Posted by grumpyirishman View Post
    If it's legal, it's legal...we do not harrass folks for doing legal things..




    Disagree,

    The response would be like this.

    Call: Subject walking down the street with a firearm.

    Response: Units arive, subject taken at gunpoint and handcuffed for questioning. Sorry, I don't know if your a nutcase out for harming others or a normal citizen legally excercising his rights. As an Officer, I'm not going to give anyone the upperhand because I don't know what the situation is. Therfore you will be taken into custody at gunpoint. Now just because your handcuffed and questioned doesn't mean you will be charged with any crime. But if you think it is worth the hassel then go for it.
    The best thing you can do though is meet the requirements and get your concealed carry permit. It saves everyone the trouble and problems. I know this doesn't seem right, but unfortunately as an officer I have to play it the safe way to go home at night.



    I can do it like Ispbear too - with no worries about federal court. YMMV.

    Scary what some thing they can and can't do....read the whole thread if you have time interesting to say the least....there are some LEO that say that they think its fine and dandy and that everyone who can should carry anyway they wish....but people like the one that responded are scary.
    Last edited by Twiztid Angel; 03-10-2011 at 09:25 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001
    Someday that mindset is gonna cost that officer's department some money.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    It's also not mandatory to carry ID in any of the States.


    Maybe not by Fed law, but state law can and does require in some states. My cite is the same as the one you did not post.
    So I was suppose to cite a non existent law to show it doesn't exist?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872
    I'm with you Trigger Dr LEOs are not the enemy
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    I'm with you Trigger Dr LEOs are not the enemy
    But from the quote above some of them do seem to act that way. "You are going to be cuffed at gunpoint" when there is no reasonable suspicion that you are breaking any laws? This is a Terry violation and therefore legally not allowed. Hate to have someone get shot because of that particular officer's attitude towards the general public.

    Going back to Trigger Dr's earlier point, it may also be that carrying a firearm is, in fact, RAS in his home state. That is the problem with these discussions on a forum. There is no legal background, whereas when we have these discussions are the OCDO forum we are starting from the basis of well established Washington state law.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    I went over and read the entire thread. I saw several verified LEOs who sounded like regular joes that even if not supporting OC, supported and defended both law and Constitution. Everyone should be like this in a perfect LEO world. The other side of the coin is the "verified LEO" that posted .....
    There is a move to make open carry legal in Texas, personally I'm not convinced. I have yet to meet an open carry advocate that didn't give me a strong feeling of "attention *****" about the subject.
    Personally, I don't see any advantages to attracting the attention of random nitwits.
    .........
    I am concerned about people like this. In any population group you have both good, bad, basically good w/ bad attitude, basically bad w/ good attitude. I see this individual as "I am the law" not "I uphold the law". If this type of mindset cannot be retrained and/or educated it will continue. I see LEOs as on my side. My personal backup as I go thru life. Service to community, service to country has always been very important to me. I do not know what "attention *****", I do not feel as tho I am a "random nitwit". I feel pretty focused. I am glad I live in Washington State

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    I'm with you Trigger Dr LEOs are not the enemy
    Good LEO's are not the enemy. Bad ones are. And much to often bad ones are just not "weeded out". Simple fact that they have a perspective, that is contrary to our inalienable right carry no matter what your messed up state law might be, says much about that person and his willingness to ignore the very constitution most of them swear to uphold.

    We don't need LEO approval to engage, promote or carry out our inherit human rights, unless their perspective is in line with this I don't care to even entertain it. This doesn't mean that many cops are not the exact opposite what I described here. Even then I would still be for severely and strictly restricting their duties, departments and fundings and what and how they are to interface with the public they serve.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872
    It makes me sad to think we see a blue uniform and automatically think enemy
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  24. #24
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    It makes me sad to think we see a blue uniform and automatically think enemy
    What about those that wear the black tactical uniforms all the time, even while just writing traffic tickets? The ones that want to look like SWAT operators all the time?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    One thing I have noticed over the past couple years is that the attitude in these discussions does seem to be headed our way. Two years ago this same discussion on another forum was either split or majority "if I see them they are going down". Now it seems like most are pretty laid back about it. Is this how you guys see it going and, if so, is this not a huge win for what we are doing?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •