Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 262

Thread: REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    46

    REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.

    I have read alot of posts and have come to the general consensus that this website supports not talking to the police. From what I have read, It basically comes down the OC telling the LEO "Officer, Am I being detained?"

    I have a feeling some of you might not be as polite as you are stating, but we will go with it. How many people are your place of employment dont completely understand their jobs? Or know every single small rule? Now try to understand every single aspect of the law that is changing on a day to day basis. Tell me that you would know it all. If so, Congraulations, you are perfect and this is not directed towards you.
    --------------------------------
    I, obvioulsy, know OCing is legal, but lets say I dont. If I stop to you and talk to you, And you give me the "Am I detained?" attitude, I inform you no because I have no reasonable suspicion, (Which by the way, is soooooo easy to have), so you walk away. Obviously, I have no power to stop you. However, guess what, i'm going to do it all over again when the next call comes.
    ---------------------------------
    Lets look at another situation.

    Call comes in again that a person is open carrying and people are worried about them because they are unfamilar. Officer LEO shows up and see OCer that he has dealt with in the past. "Hey <Insert OCer name>, Officer LEO here, How you doing today? You wouldn't believe it, ANOTHER person called in about you carrying your firearm again. Not up to anything today I presume? No, Alright, take it easy man." Officer LEO leaves, annoyed that he has to keep responding to law abiding citizens again.
    ----------------------------



    Which brings me to the next point that DRIVES ME INSANE.


    Alot of individuals on this website have stated "Am I being detained" factor in and get mad at the police. Sure, it might be a bad move on the police the first time, because they were unaware of the ever changing law. But after being made to feel stupid once, it wont happen again. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS.

    Think about it if we didnt. Example following:

    Dispatch- Dispatch, 23
    Officer- Go for 23.
    Dispatch- 23, Respond to 123 Hippy Street, a suspicous individual was reported by passerby's to be carrying a firearm openly on his side
    Officer- Dispatch, go ahead and clear that call. It is legal to open carry.
    Dispatch- Copy, 23 Dispatch out.


    5 PM News

    Three 18 year old kids murdered at 125 Hippie Street. The police were even called and an officer was dispatched to the perosn walking down the street with a gun. Officer FAILED to investigate. Officer was fired for neglect of duty and is being criminally charged for neglect of duty resulting in a homicide.




    Come on people, TALK TO THE POLICE.
    Last edited by QilvinLEO; 09-08-2011 at 04:47 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member FireSuperiorityComplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    San Mateo, CA
    Posts
    4
    Please watch this video in it's entirety.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    I have a feeling some of you might not be as polite as you are stating, but we will go with it. How many people are your place of employment dont completely understand their jobs? Or know every single small rule? Now try to understand every single aspect of the law that is changing on a day to day basis. Tell me that you would know it all. If so, Congraulations, you are perfect and this is not directed towards you.
    The problem with this is that I, as a citizen of this country, cannot use a "Well, I didn't know it was against the law" as an excuse for wrongdoing. Every citizen MUST either a. know every part of the 10,000+ laws there are or b. not say a word to a police officer because whatever I might say to a police officer can and will be used against me, but it will never ever be used in order to help me. So, in this regard, police officers must either a. know every 10,000+ laws that there are as well as their revisions in order to be able to perform their jobs correctly or b. understand that they don't know every law out there, understand that they might **** up and say something is against the law or for the law when the reverse is true, and understand that conscious citizens will refuse to tell police officers anything simply because there might just a be a law that they might break depending on what they might say and neither the citizen nor police officer might know the law but a prosecutor might and be able to get a conviction on that citizen because of it.

    Its a clear case of "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" except its "If you dont know every single law out there, dont say anything at all because if you break some obscure law not knowing that it was a law is not a viable defense"

    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    I, obvioulsy, know OCing is legal, but lets say I dont. If I stop to you and talk to you, And you give me the "Am I detained?" attitude, I inform you no because I have no reasonable suspicion, (Which by the way, is soooooo easy to have), so you walk away. Obviously, I have no power to stop you. However, guess what, i'm going to do it all over again when the next call comes.
    I understand that. But officers have to understand what its like for us citizens. Officers can and will lie. Hell, citizens have to now state, clearly, that they are using their right to remain silent because just stating that you understand what it means when an officer says it to you doesnt count anymore. How are we to know that an officer wanting to just chat is not a ploy to get us to drop our guard? Lawyers state that we should NEVER speak to an officer except to say "Am I being detainted?" "Am I free to go?" "I do not consent to a search." and "I am invoking my right to remain silent."
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    Lets look at another situation.

    Call comes in again that a person is open carrying and people are worried about them because they are unfamilar. Officer LEO shows up and see OCer that he has dealt with in the past. "Hey <Insert OCer name>, Officer LEO here, How you doing today? You wouldn't believe it, ANOTHER person called in about you carrying your firearm again. Not up to anything today I presume? No, Alright, take it easy man." Officer LEO leaves, annoyed that he has to keep responding to law abiding citizens again.
    That conversation, to me, would get me to respond in kind and I would respond to the officers questions simply because it is an officer that I have dealt with in the past and the only issue is OC. But the first time that officer came out? The officer would be met with "Am I being detained?"

    And I would also talk to the city about dealing with their dispatch for wasting tax dollars on something that could have been easily cleared up is the dispatch had simply asked the caller "Is the man waving the gun in an angry or threatening manner, or is the gun in a secure holster?"
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post



    Which brings me to the next point that DRIVES ME INSANE.


    Alot of individuals on this website have stated "Am I being detained" factor in and get mad at the police. Sure, it might be a bad move on the police the first time, because they were unaware of the ever changing law. But after being made to feel stupid once, it wont happen again. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS.

    Think about it if we didnt. Example following:

    Dispatch- Dispatch, 23
    Officer- Go for 23.
    Dispatch- 23, Respond to 123 Hippy Street, a suspicous individual was reported by passerby's to be carrying a firearm openly on his side
    Officer- Dispatch, go ahead and clear that call. It is legal to open carry.
    Dispatch- Copy, 23 Dispatch out.


    5 PM News

    Three 18 year old kids murdered at 125 Hippie Street. The police were even called and an officer was dispatched to the perosn walking down the street with a gun. Officer FAILED to investigate. Officer was fired for neglect of duty and is being criminally charged for neglect of duty resulting in a homicide.




    Come on people, TALK TO THE POLICE.
    I understand, but the officer would have been right to clear the call because openly carrying a firearm is legal, unless the guy was a felon or something but even then OC is not reason enough to check on the guy. Doing that could also lead to the officer getting sued to fired if the guy wanted to really go at it.

    I truly understand your positions on this, but I hope you also understand the majority of ours. And I hope you watch the following video.


  4. #4
    Regular Member FireSuperiorityComplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    San Mateo, CA
    Posts
    4
    I forgot to link the video. LOl. But that was the video I meant.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by FireSuperiorityComplex View Post
    I forgot to link the video. LOl. But that was the video I meant.
    NP. I figured thats the one you meant

  6. #6
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    Last time I checked. People have the right to remain silent until they seek legal council. The reason we'd choose not to talk to police lets say after a self defense shooting is so not to say something stupid and unintentional due to nerves due to the shooting. A prosecutor could use that against someone that hasn't committed a crime and turn self defense into manslaughter or murder charges. It has happened in the past and could happen again. We are simply protecting our rights and selves.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    Officer was fired for neglect of duty and is being criminally charged for neglect of duty resulting in a homicide.
    You have no duty to protect anyone. This is a myth.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html
    Last edited by Schlitz; 09-08-2011 at 08:21 AM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Verd View Post
    The problem with this is that I, as a citizen of this country, cannot use a "Well, I didn't know it was against the law" as an excuse for wrongdoing. Every citizen MUST either a. know every part of the 10,000+ laws there are or b. not say a word to a police officer because whatever I might say to a police officer can and will be used against me, but it will never ever be used in order to help me.
    Exactly. I want to shake Verd's hand. Couldn't have said this better myself.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC
    Posts
    160
    Playing the "What if" Game = STUPID!

    You can go through scenarios all day long, of how a LEO "SHOULD" investigate someone open carrying. But what happens if I call 911 because a 6'5'' individual that looks like he's on 'roids is walking down the street with a wife-beater undershirt on and I call 911 because he looks like a dangerous man that beats his wife. Just my assesment and it makes me nervous. So I call 911 and say man walking down the street looks suspicious, makes me uncomphy. Police say he's not doing anything wrong just walking down the street.

    5PM news

    Domestic abuse situation turns deadly when a man who resides on hippy street who beats his wife goes overboard and strangles her to death.
    Man was reported to police, police didn't investigate. Blah blah blah.

    COPS CAN'T SAVE EVERYONE!

    Why does it always go to the argument of an OCer turning into a killer?
    Gang bangers don't OC but CC, WITHOUT PERMITS. Stop playing the what-if game. I have a RIGHT to OC, I will OC. If you don't like it, oh ****** well, get over it. Period, dot. I think you sound like a moron and you are an idiot for not liking it. But, you have a right to free speech.

  10. #10
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    I am not going to take the drivel apart piece by piece, but as a former decorated LEO that has been wounded in the line of duty, you need to find another job. If you find the job so stressful that you feel the need to vent to law abiding citizens who as a group come together to discuss one or all of the freedoms provided by the constitution, then the job is not for you. For one thing if I was your boss and found you whimpering in a public forum representing my force you at the least would be counseled. Somewhere some of you have forgotten that public relations is part of your job. Not acting like a three year old because the public does not worship the badge. I suggest that if you are a LEO, and you wish to keep your sanity, you for the most part leave work at work and find a hobby. I also suggest that you make friends or contacts in the NON LEO community to help you understand and interact with the public on and off duty.

    As far as the man with gun calls it is the job of your boss, and your dispatchers, and 911 personal to know the laws and customs of the area you work. The proper response for a 911 operator is to ask what the person is doing with the gun, no matter where the location or jurisdiction is. There is a big difference between walking peacefully with a firearm, even if it is illegal, or violent handling of a firearm. The line officer has the impetus or should have to be able to weigh a situation. The most that should be done with LAC man with gun call is drive or walk by and confirm that it is a LAC peacefully going about their business. You are required to do no more than that. If the caller is a persistent caller tying up emergency lines I suggest the department educate the caller.

    BTW citizens do not have to kiss your ass, that is not a violation of the law. On the other hand if you do not kiss our ass, I most assure that sooner or later you will be looking for employment. Or enjoying a room at the gray bar hotel yourself if you take it too far.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Think about it if we didnt. Example following:

    Dispatch- Dispatch, 23
    Officer- Go for 23.
    Dispatch- 23, Respond to 123 Hippy Street, a suspicous individual was reported by passerby's to be wearing an ugly yellow shirt.
    Officer- Dispatch, go ahead and clear that call. It is legal to wear an ugly yellow shirt .
    Dispatch- Copy, 23 Dispatch out.


    5 PM News

    Three 18 year old kids murdered at 125 Hippie Street. The police were even called and an officer was dispatched to the perosn walking down the street wearing an ugly yellow shirt. Officer FAILED to investigate. Officer was fired for neglect of duty and is being criminally charged for neglect of duty resulting in a homicide.
    ....or how about this:

    Think about it if we didnt. Example following:

    Dispatch- Dispatch, 23
    Officer- Go for 23.
    Dispatch- 23, Respond to 123 Hippy Street, a suspicous individual was reported by passerby's to be eating an ice cream cone.
    Officer- Dispatch, go ahead and clear that call. It is legal to eat ice cream.
    Dispatch- Copy, 23 Dispatch out.


    5 PM News

    Three 18 year old kids murdered at 125 Hippie Street. The police were even called and an officer was dispatched to the perosn walking down the street eating an ice cream cone. Officer FAILED to investigate. Officer was fired for neglect of duty and is being criminally charged for neglect of duty resulting in a homicide.
    How many other perfectly legal activities can you include in the bolded areas? Billions? All of them?
    Why does a perfectly legal firearm get treated differently than the perfectly legal ugly yellow shirt or the perfectly legal ice cream cone?

    You state in your post that you realize that open carry is perfectly legal...yet, even with that being said, you STILL insist on treating it as if it is something worthy of special concern. It's as if that particular legal activity is, somehow, different from every single other perfectly legal activity.

    I will agree that, receiving a call, your duty is to investigate.

    I said, "investigate". What would you expect to do after observing an ugly yellow shirt? What would you do after observing someone eating an ice cream cone? Would you detain those folks? Ask them "Sir, could you please slowly remove that yellow shirt for officer safety"? How about running the serial numbers? (You could call the Tas-T-Freez and make sure the individual was really authorized to be in posession of the ice cream cone.) After all, that ice cream cone could have been stolen. I've had the numbers run on my perfectly legal firearm in order to "ensure it wasn't stolen" before. Why don't police detain ice cream cone eaters, confiscate their ice cream, and "ensure it wasn't stolen"?

    Imagine the audacity of a person REFUSING TO FORFEIT THEIR ICE CREAM CONE! Of course, you wouldn't expect to hassle a person partaking in a perfectly legal activity such as eating ice cream....

    ...yet, you fully expect me to passivly submit to answering questions, forfeiting my lawfully posessed firearm, and any other manner of beurocratic hassle simply because I fall into the category of posessing the single item that seems to make this unlawful detainment justifiable in your eyes: a firearm?

    Wrong. I have the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Why? BECAUSE ANY WORD I SAY MAY BE HELD AGAINST ME IN A COURT OF LAW.

    And you want me to VOLUNTEER for this? Out of some sense of courtesy?

    It's paradoxical, but I'll tell you what: I will fully agree to voluntarily forfeit my rights and politely talk my head off in order to willingly provide you proabable cause to throw me in jail....when you agree to treat me in a similar manner as ANY OTHER CITIZEN PARTICIPATING IN ANY OTHER LEGAL ACTIVITY and not even approach me at all.

    Deal?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    If you actually DO the part in bold, you have failed. Learn the law. Enforce it. That is all.



    Go review Terry. Come back after that.






    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    I have read alot of posts and have come to the general consensus that this website supports not talking to the police. From what I have read, It basically comes down the OC telling the LEO "Officer, Am I being detained?"

    I have a feeling some of you might not be as polite as you are stating, but we will go with it. How many people are your place of employment dont completely understand their jobs? Or know every single small rule? Now try to understand every single aspect of the law that is changing on a day to day basis. Tell me that you would know it all. If so, Congraulations, you are perfect and this is not directed towards you.
    --------------------------------
    I, obvioulsy, know OCing is legal, but lets say I dont. If I stop to you and talk to you, And you give me the "Am I detained?" attitude, I inform you no because I have no reasonable suspicion, (Which by the way, is soooooo easy to have), so you walk away. Obviously, I have no power to stop you. However, guess what, i'm going to do it all over again when the next call comes.---------------------------------
    Lets look at another situation.

    Call comes in again that a person is open carrying and people are worried about them because they are unfamilar. Officer LEO shows up and see OCer that he has dealt with in the past. "Hey <Insert OCer name>, Officer LEO here, How you doing today? You wouldn't believe it, ANOTHER person called in about you carrying your firearm again. Not up to anything today I presume? No, Alright, take it easy man." Officer LEO leaves, annoyed that he has to keep responding to law abiding citizens again.
    ----------------------------



    Which brings me to the next point that DRIVES ME INSANE.


    Alot of individuals on this website have stated "Am I being detained" factor in and get mad at the police. Sure, it might be a bad move on the police the first time, because they were unaware of the ever changing law. But after being made to feel stupid once, it wont happen again. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS.

    Think about it if we didnt. Example following:

    Dispatch- Dispatch, 23
    Officer- Go for 23.
    Dispatch- 23, Respond to 123 Hippy Street, a suspicous individual was reported by passerby's to be carrying a firearm openly on his side
    Officer- Dispatch, go ahead and clear that call. It is legal to open carry.
    Dispatch- Copy, 23 Dispatch out.


    5 PM News

    Three 18 year old kids murdered at 125 Hippie Street. The police were even called and an officer was dispatched to the perosn walking down the street with a gun. Officer FAILED to investigate. Officer was fired for neglect of duty and is being criminally charged for neglect of duty resulting in a homicide.




    Come on people, TALK TO THE POLICE.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Oh, the title of this thread "REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID." isn't a good method to begin conversation.




    But, I will add a scenario...... you like scenarios.

    Officer: "Excuse me sir, why are you armed."
    Citizen: "Is my action illegal?"
    Officer: "No, but..."
    Citizen: "Then goodbye, have a nice day."


    Why do you feel the next MWAG call to that citizen deserves repeat traffic?
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-08-2011 at 10:26 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    BUT WE STILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS.
    No the police do not have to respond to those calls. Show me one law that supports the above?

    You boss may require you to answer all calls, but there is no law to support it.

    Ya know I thought it was a pain when Jimmy Carter was president and we had to walk on eggshells as police officers. He was not a very successful president but on this one point he had it right. Wish we could get another president that believed in civil liberty. It would be a bonus if they believed in the 2A too.

  15. #15
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    Come on people, TALK TO THE POLICE.

    Giving up your Constitutional Rights because some guy on the internet said so is so far beyond stupid there is no term for it.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  16. #16
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    The LEO could respond to the call for MWAG but he can just observe. There is no reason to even make contact unless the OC'er is doing something wrong. Then he can clear the call as "observed a MWAG doing nothing illegal". Later on if someone is killed then he is not resposiable at all; if he was then we would have to start arresting people for what they MIGHT do not for what they have done.

    Hey I think you are going to rob a bank, your going away for 10 years.......how does that make sence?

  17. #17
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Oh, I will talk to police officers.....when they are out of uniform, off duty, and I have known them long enough to trust them.

    While they are on duty? No. I've had too many young punk (that's what they acted like) police officers come up to me showing an attitude.

    Examples: "Old man, what the Hell do you think you're doing?" "Hey, Pops, you can't carry like that!"

    Those are just two examples. First of all, I may be an old man, but you show me enough respect not to call me one to my face unless we know each other and you are joking. Second of all, I fathered two beautiful, highly intelligent children and neither of them resemble anything I've seen wearing a police uniform.

    Police officers demand that we respect them, but where is the respect in return. Finally, if you, whether you be police officer or just citizen, want my respect, show some for me.

    One other comment: It is most assuredly not, repeat NOT, police officer vs. civilian. Unless the police officer is honorably retired or is a present member of the Guard or Reserves, he/she is also a civilian. I will remind them of that when they make derogatory comments about "civilians".

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    My first OC encounter with LEO went the way it should have. I was approached by a Sheriff Deputy and a State Trooper, rsponding to a MWAG call. My wife and I were in a small hamburger joint. The officers came in, took their FI stanch, and thedeputy said "We received a call about you. We know it is legal, no we will talk to Grand ma who called. Have a nice day." they walked over to grand ma and gave her a nice lesson about OC. The way it should be.
    By the way, I am a retired LEO but they did not know that.
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 09-08-2011 at 11:46 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    A+

    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    Giving up your Constitutional Rights because some guy on the internet said so is so far beyond stupid there is no term for it.
    100%

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post

    As far as the man with gun calls it is the job of your boss, and your dispatchers, and 911 personal to know the laws and customs of the area you work. The proper response for a 911 operator is to ask what the person is doing with the gun, no matter where the location or jurisdiction is. There is a big difference between walking peacefully with a firearm, even if it is illegal, or violent handling of a firearm. The line officer has the impetus or should have to be able to weigh a situation. The most that should be done with LAC man with gun call is drive or walk by and confirm that it is a LAC peacefully going about their business. You are required to do no more than that. If the caller is a persistent caller tying up emergency lines I suggest the department educate the caller.

    This......need a lot more LEOs like yourself.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    your post reflects several salient points

    You either intentionally or ignorantly misrepresent the position of "refusing to talk to the police".

    1. The vast majority of the posts adopting that position are giving very sound legal advice to someone who has been arrested. Conversing with the police after an arrest is a very bad idea, since by law, the things you say can only be use AGAINST you, but never FOR you. The advice to not speak with the police intelligent advice.


    2. For those not arrested, but detained or "approached" by a police officer, there should be a polite but firm refusal to engage in chit chat and answer the officer's questions that quite frankly are none of his business and furthermore have nothing to do with LAWFUL, open carry of a gun. Questions like "where are you going", what are you doing", "where have you been" are nothing but attempts to find some reason to escalate the situation and make an arrest.

    3. For encounters with the police wherein the police officer is seeking for a show of respect from the lowly citizen by the citizen's submission to unlawful detention/questioning, the proper response by the citizen is to not allow the cop with the "attitude" to compel him to surrender his rights and grovel in order to show that he "respects the police".

    4. If you are trying to use your job to find a social life you need to quit the force and become a DJ, not expect citizen's to meekly allow you to detain and question them for enjoying the benefits of personal liberty enumerated in the constitution just so that you can chat it up with them and show you respect.

    I'm not for cop bashing, I'm for citizen's rights
    I am for bad cop bashing (because they deserve it), I'm for citizen's rights

    2 cents,
    roN

  22. #22
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO
    I, obviously, know OCing is legal, but lets say I don't. If I stop to you and talk to you, And you give me the "Am I detained?" attitude, I inform you no because I have no reasonable suspicion, (Which by the way, is soooooo easy to have), so you walk away. Obviously, I have no power to stop you. However, guess what, i'm going to do it all over again when the next call comes.
    Give me your cell phone number, Sparky, and I'll call you every time I go out, and before I go into every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, hen-house, outhouse and doghouse. No? Here, I'll give you my business card and you call me whenever you're on duty then we'll arrange to meet wherever it's most convenient for you. Bring a friend, bring all your friends if you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by OilvinLEO
    Think about it if we didnt. Example following:

    Dispatch- Dispatch, 23
    Officer- Go for 23.
    Dispatch- 23, Respond to 123 Hippy Street, a suspicous individual was reported by passerby's to be carrying a firearm openly on his side
    Officer- Dispatch, go ahead and clear that call. It is legal to open carry.
    Dispatch- Copy, 23 Dispatch out.

    5 PM News
    Dispatch- Dispatch, 23
    Officer- Go for 23.
    Dispatch- 23, Respond to 123 High Dollar Drive, a African American was reported by passersby to be carrying a Bible openly on his side
    Officer- Dispatch, go ahead and clear that call. It is legal to to be a African American these days and to carry a bible.
    Dispatch- Copy, 23 Dispatch out.
    Later on the 5 O'clock news we find out that the Bible was actually a bomb. Should Officer Friendly be fired?

    What makes the carrying of one legal instrument suspicious and another not...(and remember, you yourself noted there was no "suspicious" activity Aside from there being a firearm exposed to view. A reasonable person would think that concealing was more indicative of suspicious activity. After all, isn't it human nature to conceal that which you are doing wrong or the evidence of wrongdoing?

    If Officer Friendly wants to 'check out' why I'm carrying openly, he can explain why he is as well. I bet I can silently stand there waiting longer than he has patience for.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 09-08-2011 at 01:14 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    We ask "Am I Being Detained" because it is vital to understand what encounter we are having with officers.
    I suspect officers hate being asked that question because they Understand All Too Well what authority they have, and what lack of authority they have should the encounter be "voluntary."

    Officer Friendly has every right to ask me to explain my behavior. He has every right to ask me to ask me if I like the color blue, or to come back to his place, cover ourselves with chocolate and touch penises together.
    What he lacks is the authority to demand a happy ending to any of the above questions, should he not have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    I'm particularly loving this part.
    "...If I stop [which means to Detain] to you and talk to you, And you give me the "Am I detained?" attitude, I inform you "No" because I have no reasonable suspicion, (Which by the way, is soooooo easy to have), so you walk away. Obviously, I have no power to stop[Detain] you. However, guess what, i'm going to do it all over again when the next call comes..."
    Oh, ohhhhh, I know, I know!!!
    You're going to do it all over again? You're going to Detain them, and then when they ask if they're detained, you're going to say "No" and watch them walk away. And the next time it happens, you're going to Detain them and again say "No, you're not being detained" and watch them walk away again?

    I can find hours of amusement in that situation. Hell, I'd probably make a few calls on myself just for the entertainment value alone.


    You can look at me all you want, but unless I'm under arrest or being detained, we sure as hell aren't having a conversation and I'm not identifying myself or producing any identification for a 'voluntary encounter' either.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 09-08-2011 at 01:16 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    QilvinLEO: I have carried for over 40 years, I have had one LE contact specifically for my carry in that 40 years...Deputy "Hunting?" Me "Yep". Deputy, "now I have to go find the caller and explain there is nothing illegal about OC in WA state"

    I was leaving a grocery store after purchasing supplies for camp.

    The questions the 911 operator should ask is: "Is the person doing anything with the gun, or is he just carrying it in a holster?" Even if you were to respond to a call like this (as the deputy above did), there is no reason to hassel a OC.

    If the person is carrying in his hand and waving the gun around in the air is a lot different than carrying in a holster where it is no different than carrying a wallet in your pocket.

    BTW: your example is not relavent because you cannot connect the call to the "individual" that was carrying. "Three 18 year olds" is not the same as an "individual' (1 person).

    I would like to ask you one question: When was the last time you say a convicted felon OC? Never? No, that felon is going to hide his weapon if he has one. He has something to hide. A Felon in posession of a firearm is a free ticket back to the slammer, he will not risk that. It is the law abiding citizen that has nothing to hide that will OC. Think about it. I have nothing to hide, and I OC.

    BTW: I do not subscribe to an absolute "do not talk to LE". I, personally have never had a problem, but then I live 20 miles from the nearest small (>1000 pop) town, and it's 150 miles to anything that might be considered a "city". I know Seattle (250 miles) can be a problem.
    Last edited by hermannr; 09-08-2011 at 12:54 PM.

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •