First LEO Contact! Refused ID successfully!

So from skimming through this thread is it safe to say OP is living walking SPAM mail?

Ian said:

I'm sorry but I'm not buying this. The guy missed a court date, how can he not know that?

Click to expand...

This actually happened to me once.
Someone had 'been escared' simply by my presence somewhere. They called the local boys in blue by which time I had fled the scene (not knowing that I had frightened someone or that the constabulary were on their way). A complaint was filed against me but never served. I was stopped many months later and several counties away and was informed about the warrent (not extraditable from there). The only way to clear it up was for me turn myself in and spend the night in jail.

No crime committed. All charges dismissed. Damn what a pain in the ass. Still, I guess the point is... It can happen.

Please Read OP Title

Grapeshot said:

Not looking to stifle anyone's livelihood - some areas have ordinances requiring that door-to-door solicitors have a permit. My county is one of those that does.

Unfortunately, some door-to-door workers are involved with securing and selling info about you for other than the claimed purpose - what electronics you have, when you are home, is there a storage shed or valuables outside, etc.

My personal POV is that if I have not invited you, you are not welcome.

Click to expand...

This: "First LEO Contact! Refused ID successfully!"

So it looks like you drove this thread right into the ditch. Maybe you could try again and express yourself on point. It seems like a worthy account of and important event. It's a good narrative and something that folks can use. If someone can contend with Deputies exceeding their authority like this maybe it would help others while OPEN CARRYING. Or I could be mistaken.

Based upon the fact that the OP mentioned his activity of going door-to-door as an integral part of his story (and the likely reason that the cops were called, while adding a dig for those who don't like such solicitors), combined with the fact that other posters had reacted to that part of his post, Grape's post is quite on topic (and informative).

Your post, on the other hand, as well as mine, is off-topic.

I love irony, but will move on anyway.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Not looking to stifle anyone's livelihood - some areas have ordinances requiring that door-to-door solicitors have a permit. My county is one of those that does.

Unfortunately, some door-to-door workers are involved with securing and selling info about you for other than the claimed purpose - what electronics you have, when you are home, is there a storage shed or valuables outside, etc.

My personal POV is that if I have not invited you, you are not welcome.

Click to expand...

EricDailey X-NRA said:

This: "First LEO Contact! Refused ID successfully!"

So it looks like you drove this thread right into the ditch. Maybe you could try again and express yourself on point. It seems like a worthy account of and important event. It's a good narrative and something that folks can use. If someone can contend with Deputies exceeding their authority like this maybe it would help others while OPEN CARRYING. Or I could be mistaken.

Click to expand...

Giving one's opinion/reaction to salient points referring to property rights and security is in no way improper. I do not know that the deputy exceeded his authority as I only have seen one side and as such is basically allegorical - an interesting story, but I did have some personal and legal points that I felt were worth mentioning.

It could be that a less challenging delivery would be better received and more in keeping with the rules. This thread was located in the Social Lounge because it is not specific to OC.

Anything else that I might clarify?

Nope

Grapeshot said:

Giving one's opinion/reaction to salient points referring to property rights and security is in no way improper. I do not know that the deputy exceeded his authority as I only have seen one side and as such is basically allegorical - an interesting story, but I did have some personal and legal points that I felt were worth mentioning.

It could be that a less challenging delivery would be better received and more in keeping with the rules. This thread was located in the Social Lounge because it is not specific to OC.

Anything else that I might clarify?

Click to expand...

Your post (#5) is still very clear to me. Thanks for asking.

The Topic

eye95 said:

Based upon the fact that the OP mentioned his activity of going door-to-door as an integral part of his story (and the likely reason that the cops were called, while adding a dig for those who don't like such solicitors), combined with the fact that other posters had reacted to that part of his post, Grape's post is quite on topic (and informative).

Your post, on the other hand, as well as mine, is off-topic.

I love irony, but will move on anyway.

Click to expand...

The topic of the OP is clear in the title. The thread was diverted beginning with post #4 but humorously if perhaps with sarcasm. Mr. Grape's post, the next one, was all business and did not address the topic of the title which is the subject of the narrative. I think this is a loss for OCer's struggling to learn how to articulate their rights and the law to the authorities. The topic of the thread was changed to complaints about solicitors and property rights.

Misleading

The OP was misleading as to Open or Concealed carry, as this had nothing to do with either, and the postings were about what he originally posted. The reason he was stopped by the Sheriff Deputies was on a complaint from one or more of the home owners, and being that they were going on private property and trying to interact with Home Owners, there was a good reason for him to be asked for ID. Apparently the Deputy decided not to spend the time, especially since he had one of the employees in custody, and probably got a good amount of information from the employee. That's my take on the matter.

EricDailey X-NRA said:

The topic of the OP is clear in the title. The thread was diverted beginning with post #4 but humorously if perhaps with sarcasm. Mr. Grape's post, the next one, was all business and did not address the topic of the title which is the subject of the narrative. I think this is a loss for OCer's struggling to learn how to articulate their rights and the law to the authorities. The topic of the thread was changed to complaints about solicitors and property rights.

Click to expand...

I inspect most threads in Rules of Engagement, Open Carry Brigade, and Alabama sub-forums. This is a daunting task. However, it is made doable by my having identified posters whose posts are not worth reading and dumping them on the ignore heap. This creates a usually enjoyable and informative reading experience, sometimes punctuated by new posters who should be on the list but haven't been identified yet.

I would like to thank you (and your ironically off-topic rants about off-topic posts) for helping me to expand that list. Goodbye.

INSPGAD said:

The OP was misleading as to Open or Concealed carry, as this had nothing to do with either, and the postings were about what he originally posted. The reason he was stopped by the Sheriff Deputies was on a complaint from one or more of the home owners, and being that they were going on private property and trying to interact with Home Owners, there was a good reason for him to be asked for ID. Apparently the Deputy decided not to spend the time, especially since he had one of the employees in custody, and probably got a good amount of information from the employee. That's my take on the matter.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you were confused by the OP. The third (3rd) sentence,

"Note: This does not involve OC'ing, but I acted the same as if I were to have an encounter OC'ing, and used knowledge and tactics to resist privacy invasion that I learned from THIS FORUM."

does explain his armed status, so I don't know how this misleads. In fact one is never required to provide ID to any LEO ever. If one does provide ID or even speak in response to and LEO it is voluntary compliance and implies consent. Even if "detained" or under arrest one is not obligated to identify oneself or answer questions. It can avoid arrest if you ID and answer but it is a choice.

You are correct that the Deputy may have had reason to question the subject but without articulable reasonable probable cause, those reasons were personal to the Deputy and not of lawful authority. Free men have the Right not to be interfered with by the government while they behave lawfully, men in bondage must submit to the authority of the state or master. All this sounds crazy but if you look into it you'll find it is true. Consent is important.

OP said:

used knowledge and tactics to resist privacy invasion that I learned from THIS FORUM.

Click to expand...

The irony... resisting privacy intrusion by a gov't agent, while defending his own intrusion into the privacy of citizens in their homes.

EricDailey X-NRA said:

The topic of the OP is clear in the title. The thread was diverted beginning with post #4 but humorously if perhaps with sarcasm. Mr. Grape's post, the next one, was all business and did not address the topic of the title which is the subject of the narrative. I think this is a loss for OCer's struggling to learn how to articulate their rights and the law to the authorities. The topic of the thread was changed to complaints about solicitors and property rights.

Click to expand...

An opinion as to whether a reply is OT or not may be given at anytime by anyone. There is even a procedure for reporting same. The decision lies with the Moderators as does the question when a point is being belabored.

So "officially" no rule violation has occurred regarding On Topic postings. The continued argument about same is more offensive than the question in this case. Let that be the end of it.

Grapeshot said:

Giving one's opinion/reaction to salient points referring to property rights and security is in no way improper. I do not know that the deputy exceeded his authority as I only have seen one side and as such is basically allegorical - an interesting story, but I did have some personal and legal points that I felt were worth mentioning.

It could be that a less challenging delivery would be better received and more in keeping with the rules. This thread was located in the Social Lounge because it is not specific to OC.

Anything else that I might clarify?

Click to expand...

Yes, does all that BS count towards people who hold opinions that differ from yours? You seem to enjoy grouping up with your internet pals and harassing people who give answers and opinions you dont like or dont agree with.


Also, even you are intelligent to understand the OPs post was regarding his contact and not the act of going door to door. Like someone else stated- Read the OPs title.

Just because you didnt break the precious rules doesnt mean you didnt derail the thread.

eye95 said:

I inspect most threads in Rules of Engagement, Open Carry Brigade, and Alabama sub-forums. This is a daunting task. However, it is made doable by my having identified posters whose posts are not worth reading and dumping them on the ignore heap. This creates a usually enjoyable and informative reading experience, sometimes punctuated by new posters who should be on the list but haven't been identified yet.

I would like to thank you (and your ironically off-topic rants about off-topic posts) for helping me to expand that list. Goodbye.

Click to expand...

So wait let me get this straight.... Your way of getting the best information involves not even looking at a large amount of it?

Etiquette

Grapeshot said:

An opinion as to whether a reply is OT or not may be given at anytime by anyone. There is even a procedure for reporting same. The decision lies with the Moderators as does the question when a point is being belabored.

So "officially" no rule violation has occurred regarding On Topic postings. The continued argument about same is more offensive than the question in this case. Let that be the end of it.

Click to expand...

Translation: I don't like what you said, shut up now.


--Moderator Statement--

No sir. I do not speak in such as fashion as to tell people to "shut up", nor is that the intent.
What is expected is that posters will act like gentlemen, follow the rules, and abide by OCDO decisions.
It is not recommended that this avenue be pursued further in this manner.

OC for ME said:

ooghost1oo - - well done.

Click to expand...

+1