Strategizing (ha) is always appropriate

I posted some of this in the OC Questions thread, but wanted to bring it up here in a pending Florida Specific post.

Cop: "Hey buddy I need to talk to you."
You: "Sure, what about?"
Cop: "You have a gun!"
You: "That's not a crime."
Cop: "[insert excuses here]"
You: "Do you want to talk about a crime you are investigating?"
Cop: "[some crap about having a gun being a reason]"
You: "Why am I being detained?"
Cop: "You have a gun!"
You: "That isn't a crime, Sir/Ma'am."
Cop: "It is if you don't have a permit, give it to me."
You: "What reason do you have to believe that I don't have one?"
Cop: "It says you have to present on demand if you are carrying a Concealed Weapon of Firearm. Not Concealed Weapon or Concealed Firearm. Just Firearm."
You: "Trying to give the law a different meaning, by feigning illiteracy, doesn't seem like something a Judge would support."

I'm a bit concerned about that last part. How likely do you think it is that we will have to litigate this point? It's already case law, in FL no less, that just having a gun is not RAS/PC. It takes very little effort to mis-construe the law as written (this part of 790.06 already exists and would be unedited by SB234/HB517, which is appropriate).

One could try to convince the Cop this is a bad course of action, try to get the cop to admit that he knows it's a dirty game, etc... Wordcrafting is important here. He has no risk, nothing to lose. We could very well end up in jail over it if a cops with a chip on his shoulder decides to try it. Charges likely dismissed, of course, but that is still a big problem.

I'm trying to find the path that results in retaining one's Right to decline Papers Please, without going to jail on false charges from a dirty cop. I'm not seeing it... I'm asking for help on picking the right words to remain non-combative, yet assert our rights. Some will suggest giving in and handing over the papers. I'm aware of this possibility, no need to gum up the thread with it. The capitulators already have their way and we know what it is. Lets not waste time on that.

I'm asking for input on how to NOT do that, from people inclined to respectfully hold them to the letter of the law.

seems to me that alot of cops ( at least the ones that i have delt with ) have this athority thing that they are trained to have and don't really care if you sue the establishment as long as it doesn't effect them and really arn't thinking of that when trying to work you but if you can find the polite way and oppertunity to make them realize that if he makes a mistake and violates your rights, you won't be going after the establishment instead, you will be sueing him personally. most all people perk up and will be more apt to change their thinking when their actions effects them directly...good luck with coming up with the best solutition.....maybe some of the leo's on this site could tell us the best way to go about it

It is a fact that "concealed weapon or firearm" means "concealed weapon or [concealed] firearm." Correct? If the law passes as is, I'd print off a little laminated card and hand the statute to the cop and respectfully decline to show my propiska. I'd explain that OC should be a right, not a privilege, and that you I am just jealous of my privacy and rights. And that if we don't exercise our rights or know them, we don't have any. If he asks for your name, then you have to give it to him. He'll probably check to see if that name is wanted for anything, then let you go, hopefully.

77zach said:

If he asks for your name, then you have to give it to him.

Click to expand...

Only incidental to a lawful stop (with RAS/PC). Simply carrying a firearm in a holster is not RAS/PC for a lawful stop.

Kingfish said:

Only incidental to a lawful stop (with RAS/PC). Simply carrying a firearm in a holster is not RAS/PC for a lawful stop.

Click to expand...

this is the true qustion,whether in florida if you can be stopped without a lawful reason!i`ll read sb 234&517 over.i think it says if asked ,you have to show them i.d. and license.hopefully i`am wrong and they need a lawful reason because this would be a pain in the ass!

The case law says that carrying a firearm is to be treated, in effect, like driving a vehicle. And they cannot pull you over without you committing a crime. How is licensed OC treated in Georgia, Indiana, MN, UT, TN? Not sure.

bobthegunslinger said:

this is the true qustion,whether in florida if you can be stopped without a lawful reason!i`ll read sb 234&517 over.i think it says if asked ,you have to show them i.d. and license.hopefully i`am wrong and they need a lawful reason because this would be a pain in the ass!

Click to expand...

The law does not say "ask", it says "DEMAND".

The law says

must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.

Click to expand...

The key here is "DEMAND". For an officer to be able to "demand" he must first have RAS or PC to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. The law does not say you must display "at the request of" or "if an officer asks", it says "demand" which denotes a detention of the individual and therefore requires RAS or PC.

If the bills pass as is, this would not even apply to OC. If they change it then it will apply to OC and CC.

An officer can "ASK" anything he wants but without legal justification it is just a question (like..."How about this weather?"), we only need to comply with a "DEMAND".

So if it passes as is, we ask if " Is that a legal demand?" If they say yes, then we ask " What RAS do you have that I'm committing a crime." If they say you're carrying a firearm, we explain that is not RAS of a crime. If they persist in breaking the law, we concede and report the crime to their department. Perhaps we should dial 911 and report the crime on the spot? "911 what is your emergency. Yes, I'd like to report a crime in progress." And go from there.

77zach said:

If they persist in breaking the law, we concede and report the crime to their department.

Click to expand...

We comply...Not concede.

Questions? Don't defer position! Don't ask "Am I being detained?" Don't ask anything else in regard to what you already know. Ask only for explanations, not for permission or definition.

I appreciate Zach's feisty nature. But as hot-headed as I may be, I still know how the game works.

It seems likely the bill will pass in this form, if it passes at all.

If the Officer makes a demand, then you are most definitely being detained. So, that line is already being crossed.

I've contacted both my Local PD and SO. I've also contacted the City and County Attorneys. They defer to each other and/or ignore me. I didn't ask for legal advice, but asked what they feel the appropriate responses by LEOs would be and if any training to the effect has been instituted. I got the run around, no answers.

Hiibel vs Nevada applies under Terry vs Ohio conditions. If there is no RAS, you still don't have to give your name. The closest Florida comes to a Stop and Identify law, is an addendum to the Prowling/Loitering ordinance that was specifically altered to comply with Hiibel vs Nevada. The catch is, you have to be pretty damn confident that they haven't got a call for someone fitting your description, ever. They keep a billboard of reported descriptions going back decades so that they can refer to it to cover their asses. Odds are, you're going to fit one of them, thus justifying their Terry Stop, or at the least, giving them qualified immunity so you can never recoup your costs.

You: "Merely carrying a gun is not a crime, as already established by Courts in this State. Without suspicion of a crime, Hiibel and Terry don't apply. I'm not trying to fight with you, I'm trying to help you avoid personal liability. We're on the same team. This would be a lot more civil if you would respect my Rights instead of forcing me to assert them."

Still long-winded and more aggressive than I like. But, an improvement. Something that long, they are likely to talk over you and refuse to hear out the ending. But I suppose if they come to that, any chance at being civil is lost anyway. Invoke silence.

I'm trying to avoid that downward spiral. Of course, it isn't possible when dealing with the worst of the worst. But I'm trying to presume that they aren't all bad.

Perhaps a drop card would help with the wordiness.

The crux is probability of a Court upholding Willful Illiteracy, and if it would provide Qualified Immunity.

77zach said:

Perhaps we should dial 911 and report the crime on the spot? "911 what is your emergency. Yes, I'd like to report a crime in progress." And go from there.

Click to expand...

I've done that. The thick brown line doesn't respond to it's own committing a crime. Then, they try to stick you with 911 abuse. Call the non-emergency number, but don't expect anything helpful.

ixtow said:

I posted some of this in the OC Questions thread, but wanted to bring it up here in a pending Florida Specific post.

Cop: "Hey buddy I need to talk to you."
You: "Sure, what about?"
Cop: "You have a gun!"
You: "That's not a crime."
Cop: "[insert excuses here]"
You: "Do you want to talk about a crime you are investigating?"
Cop: "[some crap about having a gun being a reason]"
You: "Why am I being detained?"
Cop: "You have a gun!"
You: "That isn't a crime, Sir/Ma'am."
Cop: "It is if you don't have a permit, give it to me."
You: "What reason do you have to believe that I don't have one?"
Cop: "It says you have to present on demand if you are carrying a Concealed Weapon of Firearm. Not Concealed Weapon or Concealed Firearm. Just Firearm."
You: "Trying to give the law a different meaning, by feigning illiteracy, doesn't seem like something a Judge would support."

I'm a bit concerned about that last part. How likely do you think it is that we will have to litigate this point? It's already case law, in FL no less, that just having a gun is not RAS/PC. It takes very little effort to mis-construe the law as written (this part of 790.06 already exists and would be unedited by SB234/HB517, which is appropriate).

One could try to convince the Cop this is a bad course of action, try to get the cop to admit that he knows it's a dirty game, etc... Wordcrafting is important here. He has no risk, nothing to lose. We could very well end up in jail over it if a cops with a chip on his shoulder decides to try it. Charges likely dismissed, of course, but that is still a big problem.

I'm trying to find the path that results in retaining one's Right to decline Papers Please, without going to jail on false charges from a dirty cop. I'm not seeing it... I'm asking for help on picking the right words to remain non-combative, yet assert our rights. Some will suggest giving in and handing over the papers. I'm aware of this possibility, no need to gum up the thread with it. The capitulators already have their way and we know what it is. Lets not waste time on that.

I'm asking for input on how to NOT do that, from people inclined to respectfully hold them to the letter of the law.

Click to expand...

I know that the scenario that was set up was already fact, But for the sake of argument lets toss it up a bit.

Cop: "Hey buddy I need to talk to you."
You: "Is that the reason you are detaining me?"
Cop "You have a Gun"
You: "Absolutly, Is that the reason you are detaining me?"

The other Poster was correct stating that without PC/RAS the cop is not to demand anything. This does not keep them from doing it however.

Tim F and I were Ordered to take our hands out of our pockets in febuary. We declined and the cops stood there in awkward silence. Sure it was a gamble but when it was all said and done it was powerful.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

Tim F and I were Ordered to take our hands out of our pockets in febuary. We declined and the cops stood there in awkward silence.

Click to expand...

What were you doing, and where, that they demanded you remove your hands from your pockets?

ixtow said:

SNIP:

Cop: "It says you have to present on demand if you are carrying a Concealed Weapon of Firearm. Not Concealed Weapon or Concealed Firearm. Just Firearm."

Click to expand...

Cops know enough law to wordsmith it? I have a hard time believing that.

Kingfish said:

The law does not say "ask", it says "DEMAND".

The law says





The key here is "DEMAND". For an officer to be able to "demand" he must first have RAS or PC to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. The law does not say you must display "at the request of" or "if an officer asks", it says "demand" which denotes a detention of the individual and therefore requires RAS or PC.

If the bills pass as is, this would not even apply to OC. If they change it then it will apply to OC and CC.

An officer can "ASK" anything he wants but without legal justification it is just a question (like..."How about this weather?"), we only need to comply with a "DEMAND".

Click to expand...

You cut the law short again.

You must provide permit and ID on demand if you are carry concealed. Says nothing about having to comply with that if you are OC. And rightly so, as if it did, it would then conflict with case law and make a big ol' mess.

ixtow said:

You cut the law short again.

You must provide permit and ID on demand if you are carry concealed. Says nothing about having to comply with that if you are OC. And rightly so, as if it did, it would then conflict with case law and make a big ol' mess.

Click to expand...

Reread it please...

If the bills pass as is, this would not even apply to OC. If they change it then it will apply to OC and CC.

Click to expand...

sharkey said:

Cops know enough law to wordsmith it? I have a hard time believing that.

Click to expand...

No. Their higher-ups give them lines to parrot and paths to follow. Often these higher-ups do so without legal counsel.

They're a lot like Tech Support from India. They're just following the script their boss gave them. English speaking skills optional. Boss does the wordsmithing. If it doesn't work on you, they arrest you. Boss never takes responsibility, etc...

Kingfish said:

Reread it please...

Click to expand...

I saw, but the part of the law you quoted is misleading to those who haven't read the whole thing.

Fact Welfare is an annoying and thankless job.