OC encounter with ex marine Policeman - MOVED TO CALIFORNIA

Too many scripts on that page for me to watch the vid... but I'm guessing it's the one where the cop starts off acting like a total jerk, but ends up a puppy dog.

The power of VIDEO.

Thus states are passing laws making it illegal to film police officers.

IMHO this kind of thing is relevant to every state.

Good cop give him A donut

That officer acted in A very curteous and profesional mannor. Seattle should take lessons from him.IMHO

Hey! I useta live in Oceanside!
It was a long time ago, tho, I was a kid and dad was stationed at Pendelton.
Very professional job by the LEO

Very nice officers out there. Just stopped him because he didnt know who he was. Thats awesome. It's a good thing the officers are so concerned with everyone elses safety to take time out of their busy day to find out. God bless our Law Enforcement Officers for Enforcing the laws. Of course their is an easy answer for the police to not have to make verbal contact, just visual. If they did like gun shows did and had them walk around with their slide tied, they could see that the firearm is unloaded. Problem solved.

The Officer was very good in this contact, he knew the laws and respected the citizen rights fully.
He requested his personal information and the citizen refused, there was no issue, no threats of any kind, bravo to both the Citizen and the Officer.

I like how they always start with I need to see some ID because I dont know you. If you are not doing anything wrong, they dont need to know you.

Refresh, We are not required to show ID, if asked are we required to say our name, address, birthdate, social security #. Alot of newbies lately and we need to make sure they all know, when they are contacted they know what they must give up and what they absolutly do not have to. Refresh them on sterile carry and why. Like most every officer who will disarm you "for their safety while racking the slide and pointing YOUR firearm at YOU" Be sure to let them know that you do not consent to search and illegal siezure of your firearm. Do not call ahead to see if it is ok if you openly carry inside an establishment. And please represent yourself in a professional manner so you dont sound like an asshat on your recording of the incedent. Might explain Ras stops and Terry stops too.

What I notice first is that an unallied website just up and used the term open carry.

A few more like that, and the term will become mainstream, if it hasn't already.

1911er said:

That officer acted in A very curteous and profesional mannor. Seattle should take lessons from him.IMHO

Click to expand...

So... grabbing and twisting an innocent persons hand is acting in "a very courteous and professional manner."

Not where I come from. I'd view that as assault. No RAS + control/submission hold... Yeah, "good cop."

1* at the expense of human rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyS7Qr58wkU 16 seconds in.

A good guy I am betting (the officer) a little mislead in his thought process. Nothing justified checking him out regardless of the law. And he did push a little for information misquoting the laws a little. And if he is so pro he isn't required to do the e-check. He might be pro guns but not fully on board on someones constitutional rights.

Laws are drastically different, State to State. Neither WA or CA have "Stop and Identify" laws but have widely different regulations on the carry of Firearms.

PC § 12031(e) – Peace Officer Authority to Examine Firearm
In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing PC § 12031,
peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in
a vehicle while in any public place, or on any public street, or in any prohibited area of an
unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this
section is, in itself, probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

Click to expand...

California Law says that the officer was fully justified in his actions.

Just another reason I don't ever plan on living in California and do everything within my power to stay out of the State.

NavyLCDR said:

Respectfully, amzbrady, you need a little refreshing as to what info you are required to give and what you aren't. Hint: RCW 7.80.060. It might be a refreshing read for you! :lol:

Click to expand...

Yes, but that only covers a justified stop with RAS and the issuance of a civil infraction. I think amzbrady was referring to the majority of encounters told on these boards where there is no RAS or infraction issued. If there is no RAS and the officer demands ID, politely tell him/her to pound sand.

I'd like to hear a LEOs honest take on what the function of the e-check in Ca is. You see a guy walking his dog, obviously no magazine in his HG and you stop your patrol car and do an echeck, all the while trying to get him to give additional personal details.

WHAT is the reason? Let's say a person took out his mag and forgot, having just gone to the range to remove the one in the chamber. Is there really ANY reason to do this? IMO it is ENTIRELY for hassling OC-ers and making people reluctant to OC. I wonder if they EVER, during their surreptitious running of serial numbers, have a gun come back actually stolen by a criminal.

Since a person who has to carry unloaded WILL practice slamming a mag in the HG and racking the slide it only promotes a little bit of a cowboy attitude on the part of the OC-er, which isn't bad, and makes it harder to use the HG as a visible deterrent, b/c just 'making it ready' to fire involves 'brandishing'.

Either this e-check was very well thought out to get other than that which is the supposed reason, or it was horribly conceived to make it impossible for a law-abiding citizen to be protected on the streets. Criminals must laugh at OC-ers rather than run away in Ca.

/rant

NavyLCDR said:

I was referring to the slight mistake that amzbrady made:


I don't believe you will find a requirement in the statute to provide a social security #.

Click to expand...

Not only will you not find it, requiring or even requesting Social Security number is a violation of Federal Law. No, I will not provide a cite, use the search and / or google.

I really don't understand why, recently, people have been reposting this old video in every forum except California...with no indication whatsoever in the OP of where it took place.

You see a guy walking his dog, obviously no magazine in his HG and you stop your patrol car and do an echeck

Click to expand...

I have always had difficulty knowing that a weapon is unloaded without looking in the chamber. Magazine well empty does not equate to empty chamber.

NavyLCDR said:

I was referring to the slight mistake that amzbrady made:


I don't believe you will find a requirement in the statute to provide a social security #.

Click to expand...

Oops, my apologies. I accidentally read that statement from amzbrady as a question. It's a little ambiguous.

You're absolutely correct about not requiring a ss# though. You're ss# may only be used to track you're contributions to the social security fund. Any other use is illegal.

NavyLCDR said:

I don't believe you will find a requirement in the statute to provide a social security #.

Click to expand...

From the Social Security Website:

The Privacy Act regulates the use of SSNs by government agencies. When a federal, state, or local government agency asks an individual to disclose his or her SSN, the Privacy Act requires the agency to inform the person of the following: the statutory or other authority for requesting the information; whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; what uses will be made of the information; and the consequences, if any, of failure to provide the information.

Click to expand...

kenshin said:

Oops, my apologies. I accidentally read that statement from amzbrady as a question. It's a little ambiguous.

You're absolutely correct about not requiring a ss# though. You're ss# may only be used to track you're contributions to the social security fund. Any other use is illegal.

Click to expand...

Not totally true:

Again from the Social Security Website:

Specific laws require a person to provide his or her SSN for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where an SSN might be required or requested, an SSN is required or requested by the following organizations:

Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans;
Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes;
Employers enrolled in E-Verify;
States for the school lunch program;
Banks for monetary transactions;
Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number;
Department of Labor for workers’ compensation;
Department of Education for Student Loans;
States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction;
States for child support enforcement;
States for commercial drivers’ licenses;
States for Food Stamps;
States for Medicaid;
States for Unemployment Compensation;
States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; or
U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds

Click to expand...

Lots of "uses" have been authorized since the introduction of the SSN and the "not legal for identification" warning on the cards first showed up. Check the use I emphasized in the above list. If a Driver's License isn't ID, then nothing is.

NavyLCDR said:

I was referring to the slight mistake that amzbrady made:


I don't believe you will find a requirement in the statute to provide a social security #.

Click to expand...

Federal law, Privacy Act of 1974 and anti-terrorism laws ~ 1980s and '90s, protect your right to refuse to give it out. Unless the cop can quote a state statute requiring it, I would not give it out. Even on the rare circumstance where the state had a statute, I believe it would be a violation of Federal Law. Most states have backed off from requiring--although they may still ask, based on Federal Law. There have been cases where Federal Courts have held the right to refuse to be lawful. The only statutory requirements are military service and paying your taxes. That is it. Even the 4473 makes it optional.