• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Question about a LEO stop while OC'ing.

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
MilProGuy said:
I believe a person really has to have a big "chip on their shoulder" to purposefully infuriate a law enforcement officer who is doing his or her job on a routine stop.
Personally, I appreciate the fine law enforcement officers who lay their lives on the line every day to protect and serve the rest of us.
Not this troll again...
Asserting your rights & expecting an officer to honor the oath s/he took is not "having a chip on your shoulder".

If the officer were really doing his job, he would see that there's no crime being committed & not even stop the citizen.

If he is "infuriated" by someone expecting him to respect the rights of citizens, keep his oath, uphold the law & the Constitution, etc., he needs a different job.
How'd he get past the psych screening?

And there are jobs in the US which are much more dangerous than being a LEO.
Sometimes LEO makes the top 10. Not in 2009. (2010 isn't available yet.)
According to this PDF, from the US DOL / BLS discussing the 2009 BLS job fatality reports, the 10 most dangerous jobs in the US were:
commercial fishing (200 deaths / 100K)
logging (61.8)
airplane pilots (57.1)
famers & ranchers (38.5)
roofers (34.7)
iron workers (30.3)
sanitation worker (25.2)
industrial machinist (18.5)
truckers & drivers / sales workers / construction (all tied @ 18.3)

Also see the chart on pg 19 here.
Notice that #9 (9, 10, 11) is less than 10% the death rate of #1, & police still aren't on the list.
Garbage collectors are. I couldn't even find the rate for police on the bls.gov site.

And the "protect & serve" stuff is Hollywood.
Even SCOTUS decided that police don't have to protect anyone who's not in custody.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
To Mark and 1245A,

OK, guys. Lets calm down now that one full exchange has occurred. We can all see how the misunderstanding arose.

Lets keep it civil on the new guy's thread. (The informal rule is to wait until he's been here at least a week before really throwing the rotten vegetables. :))
 
Last edited:

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

To Mark and 1245A,

OK, guys. Lets calm down now that one full exchange has occurred. We can all see how the misunderstanding arose.

Lets keep it civil on the new guy's thread. (The informal rule is to wait until he's been here at least a week before really throwing the rotten vegetables. :))

thank you citizen,, i apologize to markd51, i was rude , curt, and short to you, i am sorry..
many of my learned friends have responded to your views about, cop jobs, citizen rights, and
the importance of holding your 4th and 5th amendment rights to the highest degree, and i thank them for saying ALL the things that i would have said.
like mkegirl said, if you let the cops have your ID everytime they see YOU, they will learn that they can do that to you everytime they see you, and they will learn that they can do that to every OCer they see, everytime they see an OCer, and the more OCers that give in to the ID demand, the harder they will demand ID from EVERY OCer they see, EVERYTIME they see an OCer!!!

the best OC, cop interaction ive ever read about was, the cop sees the OCer, he asks, can I see your ID please? the OCer says, no you may not! the cop says, OK, have a nice day!
THAT is how it is supposed to work!
 

MarkD51

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
56
Location
Sheboygan Wisconsin
To Mark and 1245A,

OK, guys. Lets calm down now that one full exchange has occurred. We can all see how the misunderstanding arose.

Lets keep it civil on the new guy's thread. (The informal rule is to wait until he's been here at least a week before really throwing the rotten vegetables. :))

I am sorry for such a retaliatory outburst, but I don't take too kindly at all to being labeled as such as 1245A wrote.
 

MarkD51

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
56
Location
Sheboygan Wisconsin
That sounds like CostCo, Vegas. Not Walmart in NM.


http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/St.John v Alamogordo Police Order.pdf

Matthew St John was unreasonably seized.

Reading that document, the theater owner used LE as if they were private security to remove someone he did not want in the theater.

I believe in the Mr St John incident, it all stemmed back to one other movie goer wigging out, and dropped a dime on Mr. St John. That this sparked the entire chain of events that occured. Trust when I say that there is a good abundance of very strange-odd people who live here.

I've never patronized the Aviator 10 Theater here, and probably never will. One reason I won't ever go, is the Theater appears to have become nothing more than a haven for car burglars.
 
Last edited:

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,

Back to the original post topic.
we have written about the reasons to decline a request for ID, absent RAS, and 4th amendment protectionism.
some other unrelated points have been raised concerning the shooting of OCers.
the shooting of eric scott in cosco in vegas, was a swat like take down of a lawfully carrying LAC, he was set upon by 5 hot headed cops, all yelling conflicting commands,
eventually he was ordered to drop a gun he did not have in his hand, it was at this point
that he reached down to remove his holstered gun from his belt, he was then shot, alot,
as he and his still holstered gun fell to the ground on his face, and his still holstered
gun clattered to the ground nearby!
He was then shot FIVE MORE TIMES IN THE BACK!!!
HE was left to bleed out for about an hour so he was sure to be dead before
ANY life saving care could be administered.....
some other unrelated points have been raised concerning the unlawful detention of OCers.
o'hare in alamagordo was siezed for no other reason than the fact that he was
lawfully armed for self defense.
the idea that a movie goer was concerned about his gun does not give the cops
carte blonc to violate the 4th amendment rights of ANY citizen!
In any case of a detainment,
If the cops will tell you that you are being investigated,
talked to, checked out, name and numbers run, held or any other thing they might say, BECAUSE
you are armed with a gun,,,,,
they have just admitted that they are VIOLATING your civil rights!!!
this is the perfect and right time to shut the fjck up, so they can dig a deeper hole!
 
Last edited:

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
I believe a person really has to have a big "chip on their shoulder" to purposefully infuriate a law enforcement officer who is doing his or her job on a routine stop.

What is 'routine' about stopping a law abiding gun owner, with no indication that they have committed a crime?

Why do you feel that not providing ID, if not required to by law, 'infuriates law enforcement'? Isn't that part of the problem? Police asking/demanding information that you aren't otherwise legally required to provide to them? Why aren't you 'infuriated' about their request instead?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
What is 'routine' about stopping a law abiding gun owner, with no indication that they have committed a crime?

Why do you feel that not providing ID, if not required to by law, 'infuriates law enforcement'? Isn't that part of the problem? Police asking/demanding information that you aren't otherwise legally required to provide to them? Why aren't you 'infuriated' about their request instead?

Bravo! Well said, sir!

clapping.gif


stay safe.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I believe in the Mr St John incident, it all stemmed back to one other movie goer wigging out, and dropped a dime on Mr. St John. That this sparked the entire chain of events that occured. Trust when I say that there is a good abundance of very strange-odd people who live here.

I've never patronized the Aviator 10 Theater here, and probably never will. One reason I won't ever go, is the Theater appears to have become nothing more than a haven for car burglars.
The document I found indicates that not a single person could be shown to have left. Did you read the pdf I linked?

Whether one patron "wigged and dimed" wasn't the problem LE response to the call was the problem. And, that is a court case where the LE was stated to have NOT been needed for lawful activity.

I would hazard a guess that future calls like that will not generate the response you worry about.

Now, where are the cases of OCers getting shot?
 

matt2636

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
201
Location
cedar rapids
If you want to give up your 4A right protecting you against unwarranted searches, you may.
Understand that's what you're doing; do it knowingly, not because it's convenient.

But by doing so you reinforce the belief, held by WAY too many LEO, that that's what should always happen, and therefore you make it harder for those of us who choose to protect our rights.

And if you get stopped every place you go - let's say you're running errands & go 6 places - and every time they stop you & seize your ID & run a check on you & maybe even seize your firearm & run a check on it it takes 10 minutes... they've wasted an hour of your day, plus all the police-related manpower.
(15 minutes x 6 = 1 1/2 hours.)
Think maybe it'd be more convenient to tell them "no" and go on with your errands?
Or maybe it'd be a hassle the first time, because they're not used to people standing up for their rights, but after that they should leave you alone. And if they don't, they'll leave you alone after the 1983 suit.

What's to stop a BG from OCing? They don't want attention.
Given the "totality of circumstances" - looking shifty, dressing wrong, whatever it is that says "bad guy" to the police - OCing would give a reason for police to do a felony takedown.


Most times, people who refuse to answer questions, refuse to provide ID, & consistently ask "why am I being detained?" are let go with little hassle.
BTW, don't ask "am I being detained", ask "WHY am I being detained".

Because that will put them on notice that you feel like you're not free to leave (the officer has made a show of force which you interpret as restraining your freedom to leave), AND s/he will probably be startled enough to reply that you're not being detained.
At which point you say, "good day then" and walk away.

If they stop you again, lather, rinse, repeat.

And for your dining pleasure, I present an assortment of legal citations:

"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S.

"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
Wisconsin v. Kiekhefer

"Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse
[IOW, police can't stop you unless they have RAS of a crime.]

"Police conduct does not need to be egregious or outrageous in order to be coercive. Subtle pressures are considered to be coercive if they exceed the defendant’s ability to resist. Pressures that are not coercive in one set of circumstances may be coercive in another set of circumstances."
Wisconsin v. Hoppe

"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley [Alamogordo]

The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles

The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King


so could i site these court cases living in a different state? im from iowa and we have OC and CC. so could i site some of these if im stopped or are they just gunna say "well thats from a different state"???
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
so could i site these court cases living in a different state? im from iowa and we have OC and CC. so could i site some of these if im stopped or are they just gunna say "well thats from a different state"???

IIRC, the circuit court decisions are binding on that circuit. BUT, they may be referenced by other circuit courts in rendering decisions, but they are not binding on other circuit courts.

SCOTUS binds all.
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
IIRC, the circuit court decisions are binding on that circuit. BUT, they may be referenced by other circuit courts in rendering decisions, but they are not binding on other circuit courts.

SCOTUS binds all.

Howdy Amigo!
But the circuit courts tend to be heeded by other jurisdictions because they establish "precedent".
Where precedent exists, it will be regarded very closely because we American citizens are entitled
to something called "Equal protection".

Here in Colorado, we're a long way from Ohio. But if I need to cite a particular example to support
my right, the Terry decision will be viewed as precedent and has been already by Colorado courts.
Lower courts tend to be very observant of precedent because circuit courts are where bad decisions
of lower courts go to die, along with unconstitutional laws that a legislature may pass.

So, yeah... you can rely on cited cases as established precedent (stare decisis) which tend to be
recognized almost universally by courts in other states.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

MarkD51

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
56
Location
Sheboygan Wisconsin
The document I found indicates that not a single person could be shown to have left. Did you read the pdf I linked?

Whether one patron "wigged and dimed" wasn't the problem LE response to the call was the problem. And, that is a court case where the LE was stated to have NOT been needed for lawful activity.

I would hazard a guess that future calls like that will not generate the response you worry about.

Now, where are the cases of OCers getting shot?

I believe Mr St John is a member of this forum, so I should perhaps let him be his own mouthpiece as to what actually happened, but I can remember browsing some discussion, and the details about his incident in a topix forum.

Yes, I have read this case before.

The officer was clearly either not at all knowledgeable, or not at all interested, or caring about open carry laws in the state of NM, as in footnote #4, he seems to clearly state in his deposition that he was not at all comfortable with Mr St John being armed, and never swayed from that belief. And I believe it was more the latter, that this insecure police officer seemed to believe he had his own rights of his own personal safety being violated, and then thought he automatically had his ass covered, as many police officers do, that you are not going to win favor with a judge in any court of law, that the judge will of course take the officer's side, against yours.

There's no doubt about it, that Mr St John's case was a clear cut and dry case, of a law abiding citizen having their rights violated, and I am, and always will be happy that true justice prevailed in his case against the city of alamogordo. He was fortunate, that there were witnesses present, who under oath gave their accounts.

You can best believe that he was accosted, interogated, and searched from the theater, and treated as if he was a Lee Harvey Oswald.

Again, I live here, I know what I sense, and see. While my encounters with local LEO's have been extremely sparse, and not personally problematic, I do work in a Public Service capacity here, and have seen enough of my share in the last 5 years of how LEO's here interact with the public. And IMO, it is scary.

I believe that one statement in footnote #4 was a clear admittance, and certain evidence of their guilt, and their lack of professionalism in respecting a law abiding citizen's constitutional rights.


And when Mr Sam Trujillo, the then police chief of alamogordo commented about this case, there was never an admittance of guilt, or wrong doing by his department, and he never at all ever once mentioned that Alamogordo DPS would then begin to follow proper procedures in the future when encountering law abiding citizens who either legally open, or conceal carry.

And this is what is scary to me. More or less only appeared to be advice to his LEO's to only make sure they cover their asses, and not get themselves into another similar bind, where the city of alamogordo doesn't have to pay out $$$. That only the methods of coercion, and intimidation would be changed, and fine tuned, nothing more. Are you getting the impression that I don't trust local law enforcement? Good, then maybe those folks here that have lashed out against me, will have a little more understanding, and insight for myself, and others like me, law abiding citizens who live here.

Alamogordo Police are almost akin to a homeless bum on a street corner, with a cup, and a sign in their hands, in that they so badly want to put their hands into your pockets, and take every red cent you have.
It is because Alamogordo is such a broke ass town, that there's probably a ordinance code violation for sneezing in public, that's how absurd it has become here.

That they'll literally turn a burnt out tail light incident into a supreme court case by the time they get through with you. Beleive it!

I don't believe I made any specific reference to law abiding citizens carrying guns being shot in the state of NM. But I know of such happening in other states. Sorry I wasn't clearer with my comments.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Howdy Amigo!
But the circuit courts tend to be heeded by other jurisdictions because they establish "precedent".
Where precedent exists, it will be regarded very closely because we American citizens are entitled
to something called "Equal protection".
Accurate, but, as I state, they are not binding upon the other circuits.
M- Taliesin said:
Here in Colorado, we're a long way from Ohio. But if I need to cite a particular example to support
my right, the Terry decision will be viewed as precedent and has been already by Colorado courts.
Lower courts tend to be very observant of precedent because circuit courts are where bad decisions
of lower courts go to die, along with unconstitutional laws that a legislature may pass.
Terry v Ohio is a SCOTUS decision.

M- Taliesin said:
So, yeah... you can rely on cited cases as established precedent (stare decisis) which tend to be
recognized almost universally by courts in other states.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
No, inasmuch as circuit courts do not decide cases outside of their jurisdiction. The decisions are binding upon the circuit, but not upon the nation. That takes SCOTUS decision. And, since the path to SCOTUS starts at a circuit, AND that SCOTUS can rule against the Circuit Court, such are not "binding" nor do they carry "stare decisis" weight outside of their area of responsibility.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I don't believe I made any specific reference to law abiding citizens carrying guns being shot in the state of NM. But I know of such happening in other states. Sorry I wasn't clearer with my comments.

Correct, I misread your post earlier.

So, other than the CostCo case?

I think you are experiencing the same problem that people encounter when they have a fear of flying due to all the plane crashes. The random bad events get publicity. The innumerable good events (where nothing bad happened) get NO publicity. In a word, decisions are based upon the fear of the random bad event, without weighing against the innumerable good events. The term for this is 'Innumeracy.'


In other words, you are speaking as if there is a rash of LE shootings of OC citizens. That is far from accurate. There ARE instances. But, they are NOT the norm.
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
Accurate, but, as I state, they are not binding upon the other circuits.
Terry v Ohio is a SCOTUS decision.

Howdy Wrightme!
Yeah, you're right. My bad. Forgot Terry was a Scotus decision. Still, generally, district court decisions will still be strongly considered in other jurisdictions and lower courts when rendering decisions in cases where particulars are similar. Barring a Scotus decision, they'll still view precedent established in another district court as valid as stands unless challened by SCOTUS. Doesn't mean they must follow that precedent, but they'll surely consider it very highly in their own cases.

No, inasmuch as circuit courts do not decide cases outside of their jurisdiction. The decisions are binding upon the circuit, but not upon the nation. That takes SCOTUS decision. And, since the path to SCOTUS starts at a circuit, AND that SCOTUS can rule against the Circuit Court, such are not "binding" nor do they carry "stare decisis" weight outside of their area of responsibility.

All of the above being true, the circuit court decisions (even in other districts or lower courts in different jurisdictions) do tend to be strongly considered by them in arriving at their own decisions. Those circuit courts tend to have far reaching influence, even outside their own district, and are viewed in relation to precedent.

Just as an aside, SCOTUS may arrive at a decision (McDonald) that an individual jurisdiction will still attempt to circumvent or undermine (Chicago).

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Howdy Wrightme!
Yeah, you're right. My bad. Forgot Terry was a Scotus decision. Still, generally, district court decisions will still be strongly considered in other jurisdictions and lower courts when rendering decisions in cases where particulars are similar. Barring a Scotus decision, they'll still view precedent established in another district court as valid as stands unless challened by SCOTUS. Doesn't mean they must follow that precedent, but they'll surely consider it very highly in their own cases.
That IS what I said.

M- Taliesin said:
All of the above being true, the circuit court decisions (even in other districts or lower courts in different jurisdictions) do tend to be strongly considered by them in arriving at their own decisions. Those circuit courts tend to have far reaching influence, even outside their own district, and are viewed in relation to precedent.
Once again....
I said that already. Just not with as many words.
IIRC, the circuit court decisions are binding on that circuit. BUT, they may be referenced by other circuit courts in rendering decisions, but they are not binding on other circuit courts.

SCOTUS binds all.


M- Taliesin said:
Just as an aside, SCOTUS may arrive at a decision (McDonald) that an individual jurisdiction will still attempt to circumvent or undermine (Chicago).
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
Correct. Which places the jurisdiction at peril. They should know better.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Wow, hard to imagine gun culture people being in favor of kowtowing to police. Most of us understand that it is We the People who own the government and all that falls within and under its umbrellas... including federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. They belong to us. They only have power and authority through our largess and at our pleasure. This is not to say that we should be belligerent, disrespectful, or obnoxious but rather to be cognizant of our rights and the limitations we have put on their power and authority.

Taking the decision not to present an ID when requested and when such is not necessary is by no means being belligerent or confrontational in any way... as long as one uses their head and conducts themselves in a civil fashion. Others have mentioned the idea that if we give an inch, they'll want a mile and there is much truth to this. The point we do wish to get to is when police see an armed citizen going about his business, there is no concern or alarm on their part. If an LEO believes he needs to stop anyone he sees who is OC'ing and request an ID, as another posted said, probably is in the wrong line of work and needs to seek employment elsewhere. Never forget, it is they who work for us... not the other way around.
 

Woody1960

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
11
Location
MI
WOW,thanks for the replys and the education. I got what I asked for, I guess. LOL. Lots of opinions here I see.:lol::eek: I suppose it would determine the time and place as to wheather or not you give id. To me, it just seems better to let them know I am on their side,and not a bad guy. But I do see both side of it. It is more complicated than I thought. Thanks again guys,I have lots of reading to do.Woody
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Don't ask if you are being detained. You won't get an answer, and will stand there detaining yourself...

If you are feeling uncomfortable enough that you have to ask, duh, you already know the answer. You're being detained. It is about whether you feel free to go. You don't need someone else to tell you that.

Ask "Why am I being detained." It establishes that you are indeed being detained, and the burden of a valid reason for it lies on the Officer.

No, this does NOT mean you are free to go. You're being detained and you acknowledged so yourself. With or without cause doesn't matter. the Officer will usually backpedal and respond by saying "Oh, you're not being detained." At which point you are free to go! But until he says that, you have established that, yes, you are being detained, and you cannot leave or you will be resisting.

If you felt the need to ask, then you already know the answer.

If the Officer wants rope, let him have as much as he wants. Good Cops don't go down that road to begin with. Record it and follow up later to whatever degree you see fit.
 
Last edited:
Top