Be prepared to deal with LE at some time or another (even at Belmar)

Fuller Malarkey said:

I'm kinda busy, but I think the search results sum it well:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=police+negligent+discharges

About 1,430,000 results (0.16 seconds) for police negligent discharges




Not sure where to put this one; Accidental discharge, negligent discharge, or it's possible that discharge-while-pistol-whipping-a-boy is SOP?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EIzDFeVNm8

I have no idea regarding the objectivity of this source:

"One of the dirty little secrets in the annals of police firearms training is the number of accidental discharges we experience"

http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...Causes-and-cures-for-the-negligent-discharge/

You were trying to make a point........ "LEO's are trained to index at the low ready so I think your richochet and threat to life thought is a little much. Cops have a history of accidental discharge? Could you show me stats where this is a common occurrence?

So am I.....in spite of the available training, there appears to be high enough incidence of discharges of police weapons that justifies a threat concern for everybody.

Click to expand...

thebigsd said:

Wow. Sounds like you handled everything great. And it appears the officers made the right choice in the end. As a precaution, I would FOIA all of the communications and documentation related to your detainment. Glad you came out ok! Were you recording or is that not allowed in CO?

Click to expand...

OC for ME said:

Considering the OP last posted September of last year it seems that nothing came of this rights infringement episode.

Click to expand...

Lokster said:

I'm not going to say that I handled the situation perfectly because in some ways it did catch me somewhat off guard, not unprepared however; and I would add that anytime all parties involved leave peacefully after a firearm has been un-holstered and drawn is a good outcome although it probably could have been handled better by all parties.

Alright, now that my disclaimer is out of the way I'll go into the details as this event occurred around an hour or so ago at Belmar in Lakewood. Before I start however I will say that I have been open carrying on the public grounds at Belmar for months now. It is a fun place to walk the dog as he gets plenty of attention from people who are shopping and out and about like myself. During a handful of previous visits I have encountered the private security for Belmar and Lakewood police officers who were driving by and noticing either me or my dog, or both and but have never stopped to make contact.

After walking the dog around for awhile we decided to stop near Target, but in the public area where the water fountain is setup. Loki, my dog, was thirsty and he was wetting his whistle at the fountain while all of the sudden I heard from behind me to keep my hand away from my hip. I instantly turned around and there was a Lakewood police officer no more than twenty five feet behind me with his gun drawn and at low ready. After he told me to sit down that is when the questions started, "Do you have a CCW?", I was then ordered to grab my wallet and ID because, " I would have to be identified."

I declined and mentioned that there was no reason for me to provide identification. At that point another officer came up behind me and told me to put my hands on top of my head, while grabbing my hands and placing them there himself. He then told me that he was just going to grab it for me and he started to poke around in my pockets. I mentioned to him that he was grabbing my wallet without my consent. He let up for minute while the other officer told me that I was not allowed to open carry a firearm in the Belmar area. I told him twice that it's not posted anywhere. A third officer then told me to relax though I don't believe I was tense. After I told her that there was no reason I was being detained I was told by her that they were making sure that I wasn't a felon.

I then asked her if I was then free to go and I was asked if I was willing to give up my name. I told her that there is no reason that I should provide a name for doing nothing wrong. Officer number two mentioned that it made sense to me to give them my name because I was carrying a firearm and my not be allowed to. He then told me that he needed to verify that I was allowed to be carrying. I asked him to provide me with a statute and he came back with "it's prohibited use of a firearm by a felon." and because he hasn't identified me he doesn't know that I'm not a felon. Once again he said, "I need to identify you." I said that I will not be providing ID since I've asked twice what I've done wrong and have received no answer. After asking to move to a spot away from the water so my dog would quit drinking water and moving I asked if I could remove my hands from my head. The officer said, "Not yet."

Then the female officer after being silent from being on the phone for several minutes asked me if I lived around there. I said I won't be answering that either because I've done nothing wrong. One of the other male officers told me that it was posted all over the garage that no firearms are allowed. I said that we are not in the garage. Then it changed to, "You cannot walk around the Belmar area with an open firearm." I then asked that they would call a supervisor immediately and was told that one was in route. I was told to relax again even though I had places that I needed to be and was being held up. Then I was asked to give a fake name so that they could converse with me. I got a little sarcastic, but basically said that that wasn't a good idea. I was then told that I would be removed from private areas and I said then I will leave willingly. He said that if I live in the area I wouldn't be able to come back. The female officer finally got off the phone and told me to go ahead and head out while reminding me of the signs posted in the garage and that everything was fine since I didn't have my firearm concealed and I was in a public area. She also reminded me that in the future I would probably have a "hard time because I was open carrying".

I mentioned that there was no reason why I was responded to in such a manner as I was. I reminded her that I committed no crime and was being detained. She mentioned that it was, "a kind of grey area." I was asked to listen for a minute while she explained to me "the dangers of our world". After another minute or two of dialogue she finished and told me that if I have places to go I need to "head out" again.

Another officer then chimed in explaining how if I would have given him my name when he walked up and mentioned how I hold a CCW (even though I wasn't CC) he wouldn't have become suspicious and that because he didn't know who I was he needed dispatch to pull some information. I told him that I would never give my name just because. The female officer then told me to "head out" oh and "have a good night." I then asked her if where we were located right now was public property and she responded that it was. The she ended the whole ordeal with "that is why I am telling you that we are done and you are no longer being detained." Then I got up and walked away.

I'm sure I provided quite the show for the few dozen people watching at a cafe in the distance. There were at least four LEO who were at the scene as well as another 3 or so Belmar security personnel. As I say, I had a feeling I'd have a LE encounter at some point or another, but never thought it would happen like that and at Belmar of all places.

Click to expand...

M-Taliesin said:

Howdy Pard!
The story is right here amigo! Settled out of court for 15k and a promise to improve officer training.



Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Click to expand...

DanNabis said:

apologies on reviving a thread from 2011 but this seems very close to me.


Since Colorado is supposedly now a 'stop and ID' state circa 2013, "Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)"
Would an encounter like this be handled any differently?

It says requires reasonable suspicion of a person having committed a crime, etc
but I would say that Open Carrying alone is not a grounds for reasonable suspicion.
However that is something I guess the LEO would decide for themself.

"16-3-103. Stopping of suspect



(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

HISTORY: Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 198, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-103.L. 83: (1) amended, p. 663, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2001: (1) amended, p. 941, § 9, effective July 1."


e.g

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics...nfo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.R.S.+16-3-103

Click to expand...

DanNabis said:

apologies on reviving a thread from 2011 but this seems very close to me.


Since Colorado is supposedly now a 'stop and ID' state circa 2013, "Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)"
Would an encounter like this be handled any differently?

It says requires reasonable suspicion of a person having committed a crime, etc
but I would say that Open Carrying alone is not a grounds for reasonable suspicion.
However that is something I guess the LEO would decide for themself.

"16-3-103. Stopping of suspect



(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

HISTORY: Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 198, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-103.L. 83: (1) amended, p. 663, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2001: (1) amended, p. 941, § 9, effective July 1."


e.g

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics...nfo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.R.S.+16-3-103

Click to expand...

United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2000) declares that possession of a firearm in public, with no other circumstances present, does
not justify a stop. "For all the officers knew, even assuming the reliability of the tip that Ubiles
possessed a gun, Ubiles was . . . lawfully exercising his right . . . to possess a gun in public." See
also United States v. Dudley, 854 F. Supp. 570 (S.D.Ind. 1994), in which the court declared that
a report of persons with guns did not justify an investigative stop. "In short, the Government
failed to establish . . . that some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, based on articulable
facts, justified this seizure. And, if the stop itself is unlawful, neither Terry nor Michigan v.
Long authorize the police to search the suspects or the suspect's vehicle for weapons, even if the
officers reasonably fear for their safety."

Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), declared that there is
no "gun exception" to the Fourth Amendment

Click to expand...