• 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.

REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.

M

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
Justin Mang said:
First off, the officer should always respond to a call no matter how minor it may seem to that officer. Secondly, the officer, after talking to the person who is open carrying, should visit the person who called into the police with the issue. This would ensure the officer did in fact resolve the issue and the officer should inform that person it is his or her right to open carry and it was that persons right to do so as well. This person may or may not like that law but they will not call in again about it under those circumstances and he or she might even tell their friends about the event, as we all like to do with any situation involving the law. Problem solved and people were informed, is that not the ultimate job of an officer of the law?
Click to expand...


LEO can respond to the call without actually contacted the MWAG. He can observe and determine "nothing to see here"....then follow up with the caller.
 
usmcmustang

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
To those who have sworn to uphold the law: Protect and serve me, and keep the peace… don’t intimidate me, tyrannize me, or make me fearful of loss of life, liberty, and property. Doing so will only strengthen my resolve to rise up in protest and anger. You are forewarned.

And out of MY mouth each and every time: "Am I being detained?"
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Citizen said:
Oh, this is a handy little gem. Lets thank him for the confession.

America has moved from the original Terry detention (lots of indicators of an armed robbery about to take place, those observations being made over an extended period of time) to "sooooo easy to have." He almost comes right out and says police have usurped the power to easily seize citizens on barest suspicion, easy to assert, far, far short of probable cause.

I appreciate him letting us in on the cop attitude. Very much appreciate that little revelation.

But, lets look at it also in the context about the earlier suspicionless seizure.

He said he would stop an OCer, and then let him go. Seize him, then release when the OCer asked about RAS. Wait a minute. If RAS is "soooo easy to have", then his suspicionless seizure is even worse. If RAS is "soooo easy to have", and he makes a seizure knowing full well he doesn't even have that much suspicion, then its pretty despicable. And, what a fishing expedition. If RAS is "soooo easy to have", but he doesn't have any, he's practically starting from scratch. (But, of course we knew that anyway. It was just fun to highlight it in the context of soooo easy to have.)
Click to expand...

+1 This is pretty close to my initial thoughts.
 
W

wisardd1

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2015
Messages
16
Location
california
QilvinLEO said:
Wow, I have a large amount of comments to attempt to address. Because of the majority of them have similar thoughts, I will try to address them as best as I can.

This first bit does not apply to everyone, only about 25 percent. Just because I have an LEO next to my name does not imply that I disagree with people OCing. I am a strong supporter of citizens carrying and I believe if more citizens did carry, either openly or concealed, many violent crimes would resolve themselves.

Next bit, I would like to applaud the individual who noticed my online times so quickly. Yes, this is the time that I tend to get off work and start doing various jobs around the house while I prepare to sleep for the day.


Now, back to the meat and taters.

Many people stated Law Enforcment officers should basically ignore this call completely, informing dispatch that the OCer was acting completely legal. In a perfect world, that might work. However, with the recent changes in law enforcement to a community based policing service, the message most departments have changed to back to the ol' days, where citizen and officer got along and there was no Us vs Them concept. Granted, we are not there yet, but that is the current trend. So therefore, how is ignoring citizen complaints = building a trust between police and citizens. It doesnt. If we, as police officers, stopped responding to all the bogus calls that come in to dispatch on a daily basis, we would have alot more free time on our hands. However, that is not the case. We serve you. Therefore, when your fellow citizen believes you, the OCer, is doing something illegal, it is our duty to respond. Granted, does that mean we need to sit you on the curve, degrade you and badger you. Of course not.

I would like to see anyone find some caselaw invovling where police officers are unable to make voluntary contact. You wont.



Onwards to the next subject that I seemed to notice alot.

"By talking to the officers, I will probalby just get myself in trouble". Yes, when you are under arrest, shut your mouth. When you are being detained, shut your mouth. When your in a voluntary contact with an officer and doing nothing illegal, no need to shut your mouth. By talking to most of you, You seem to know your laws, espcially gun laws. Why are you SO afraid of saying something inaccurate? Even if the only thing you are comfortable with is citing the law that shows you are legally carrying, do it. Please dont just walk away. Police are just like anyone else. We partially have a feedback system. We will only get better with law abiding citizens help as well.

Alot of people brought forward instances in which something has happened to them or others by an arrogant, dumb ass officer. Yes, we have "that" guy in law enforcement as well and I will openly admit it. However, because of that one encounter, and law enforcement is the only place this happens, an immediate attitude happens. It becomes "Guess what THOSE cops did to me this time". THOSE cops did not do anything. I will gaurentee I have never done anything to harm or break your consititional rights to any of you. So why do you immediatly treat me as one of "THOSE COPS"?

An example of this would be, I call a plumber John Doe to fix my toilet. Doe finished last in his class in plumbing school, (Just work with me here), and doesnt have a clue about plumging. Therefore, he completely messes up my plumbing. Therefore, I decide, I no longer chose to trust ANY plumbers based upon my experience with John Doe.

This is the typical attitude by citizens when dealing with the police. THOSE COPS.



----------------------------



I hope I have answered many of the relevant posts made by people. There were plenty of great posts and Thank you for commenting and keeping your thoughts intelligent and not worthless. To those that didnt, Please try to understand the point of a forum is to have conversation and share ones thoughts of the matter with each other. One day when you grow up, you will understand.

To those that said something to the affect of "Qilvin LEO leaves the forum upset". I have alot worse things said to me as an officer. You are going to have to try alot harder than that.

And one other thing that stood out that slightly annoyed me. To the decorated former officer who was injured in the line of duty, Let me first, Thank you for your outstanding service and hope you recovered well. Now onto the negatives. It might have been the policy of the department you worked for that officers have no outside contact with citizens. That being said, That is YOUR department. My department does not have no such policy and I personally believe that a police creates and US vs THEM attitude and destroys the relationship between citizens and police officers. That being said, you will never get me to comment on a real event that is currently under investigation, nor will you ever learn what jurisdiction I am employeed at. But, just to be slightly more polite than you were with me in saying I should be counselled, I will add a signature that says something to those affects that you are looking for.


Final thoughts:


Because OCing is still a realtively abnormal event, Officers should, at the very least make attempt to make contact with the OCer, just to keep up with PR. If your goal is truely, as a OCer, is the educate others in the benefit of being an OCer, this should include the officers of the law and not be a part of the problem creating an US vs THEM aspect. I promise, my side, I do my best on a daily basis to not create an US vs THEM mentality.

That being said, I dont know any officers who wake up in the morning, put on their badge and think "I'm going to go violate somebody God given rights today, lose my job, a large sum of money when I'm sued, and have the possibly of going to prison."
Click to expand...

Personally, I like this guy and the scenarios he presents. I like cops, but I didnt use to because I did stupid sruff back in the day that gave them reason to harrass me. So buddy, keep posting. Of the several forums I have visited I see a trend of brash, rude, and outright beligerant folks that to me, just seem mean spirited. At times it concerns me at times who does carry. And name calling? Is just ignorant!
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
wisardd1 said:
Personally, I like this guy and the scenarios he presents. I like cops, but I didnt use to because I did stupid sruff back in the day that gave them reason to harrass me. So buddy, keep posting. Of the several forums I have visited I see a trend of brash, rude, and outright beligerant folks that to me, just seem mean spirited. At times it concerns me at times who does carry. And name calling? Is just ignorant!
Click to expand...

Welcome to OCDO!!! (open carry dot org)
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Nightmare said:
LOL A zombie post resurrected and it's not even Easter! Your buddy's not been around for 2½ years, so keep on posting!
Click to expand...

Now, now. Lets be nice to the new guy. What if he's an internet rookie?

We can't turn him to the Dark Side by driving him away, can we? :p:)
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
wisardd1 said:
Personally, I like this guy and the scenarios he presents. I like cops, but I didnt use to because I did stupid sruff back in the day that gave them reason to harrass me. So buddy, keep posting. Of the several forums I have visited I see a trend of brash, rude, and outright beligerant folks that to me, just seem mean spirited. At times it concerns me at times who does carry. And name calling? Is just ignorant!
Click to expand...

Glad to have you aboard.

If you would, allow me to explain why I do not share your appreciation for this particular LEO. I will take a piece of his post that you quoted and do a little analysis of it using a high regard for rights paid for in blood across seven centuries.


Many people stated Law Enforcment officers should basically ignore this call completely, informing dispatch that the OCer was acting completely legal...how is ignoring citizen complaints = building a trust between police and citizens. It doesnt.
Click to expand...

Here he is literally saying the mere exercise of an enumerated right is subordinate to the political goal of a police department to build trust between police and citizens. The proof is in the alternative. The dispatcher could just as easily say, "Ma'am, what he's doing is an enumerated right. There is no possible way suspicion can legitimately attach to exercising an enumerated right. It is no more suspicious of him to carry a gun than for a police officer to carry a gun." What he is really saying is that if the occasional scaredy-pants who couldn't or wouldn't adjust his own thinking on rights calls police, then it is perfectly acceptable to convey the impression rights can be suspicious, setting the "right" of the caller-taxpayer to feel like his police are doing something for him above the right of the OCer to be left alone.



We serve you. Therefore, when your fellow citizen believes you, the OCer, is doing something illegal, it is our duty to respond. Granted, does that mean we need to sit you on the curve, degrade you and badger you. Of course not.
Click to expand...

Here he says police have duty to respond. First, that is not true. Several court cases have made it clear that police have no duty to respond. For example, look up Castle Rock vs Gonzales. But, lets say he means police have a moral duty to respond. He implies that the only possible response is to contact the OCer. Nope. One possible response, as discussed above, is to simply tell the caller that OC is just as legal as driving a car, please call back when the OCer does something possibly illegal. Another possible response is for the police officer to drive to the OCer's reported location and observe from a distance without making contact. While the caller may not know the law, the cop does. If the cop sees nothing supporting a reasonable suspicion (legal standard) that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed, he can drive away, leaving the OCer alone. His comment that police cannot make a suspicionless OCer sit on the curb, degrade him or badger him omits that there is no legal justification to contact the OCer in the first place. He omits to mention that the contact is investigative in nature, and the OCer is definitely at legal risk.



I would like to see anyone find some caselaw invovling where police officers are unable to make voluntary contact. You wont.
Click to expand...

Here he is trying to bolster his argument by invoking case law/court opinions. Literally, he is right--the courts have long recognized it is legal for a cop to consensually contact a citizen. He omits to mention the rationale underlying the position of the courts--that police can contact someone consensually/voluntarily just like anyone else can. He omits to mention that citizens rarely contact each other investigatively; and that citizens do not have the power to temporarily seize someone on less than probable cause (only on RAS), investigate them, demand identity, and perhaps arrest them if their answers even inadvertently give the particular cop something he can use as probable cause for an arrest.




So, his post has a number of serious holes in it. That just happen to side with police against a citizen exercising an enumerated right. Thus, I cannot share your appreciation for this particular LEO.



See Terry v Ohio on Google scholar for the beginnings of the legal standard called reasonable suspicion or reasonable articulable suspicion, often abbreviated as RAS.
 
Last edited:
W

wisardd1

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2015
Messages
16
Location
california
The way I found this site was I was actually looking for opinions on oc vs cc. His other post came up on that subject so I read that thread. Orange County California just laxed the requirement to Cc. So I jumped on it and I am now licensed to CC. I have to admit the whole OC thing scares me. It doesnt scare me that other do, I just wouldnt want that target on my back. I like some of the comments he made in that thread. I like cops and always give them the benefit of the doubt. That said, dickheads are not difficult tp pick out, uniform or not. Because I am CC, I won't run into concerned citizen calls to the degree OPs will. In the end, Rights always trump current popular belief whether it is how you carry, whether you want an abortion or not, or what words I can say vs what words I cannot say. I stand by God, Family, the Constitution, and Liberty in that order. Thanx for the welcome guys, I appreciate it.
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Criminals target victims

With all due respect, criminals target victims, and a concealed handgun carrier looks just like a unarmed person.

Does not matter you cannot OC in CA, unless you are a government agent.
 
Last edited:
P

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
wisardd1 said:
The way I found this site was I was actually looking for opinions on oc vs cc. His other post came up on that subject so I read that thread. Orange County California just laxed the requirement to Cc. So I jumped on it and I am now licensed to CC. I have to admit the whole OC thing scares me. It doesnt scare me that other do, I just wouldnt want that target on my back. I like some of the comments he made in that thread. I like cops and always give them the benefit of the doubt. That said, dickheads are not difficult tp pick out, uniform or not. Because I am CC, I won't run into concerned citizen calls to the degree OPs will. In the end, Rights always trump current popular belief whether it is how you carry, whether you want an abortion or not, or what words I can say vs what words I cannot say. I stand by God, Family, the Constitution, and Liberty in that order. Thanx for the welcome guys, I appreciate it.
Click to expand...

You should read the Open Carry Argument: http://ingunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/71996-open-carry-argument.html
 
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I understand a Cop's desire to have potential prisoners talk to them. As I understand the system the large majority of it's success is the ability to get people to plead guilty. In fact I could imagine the system grid-locking if everyone the state imprisoned actually had a full trial first. The system works because we threaten to dish out much more harsh treatment to crooks who actually force the system to prove their guilt rather than them admitting to it.
This whole process begins with getting a potential prisoner talking to a cop and giving him something to go on.
The only reason a cop would talk to you is to see if there is some way to put you in a cage or extort money for the state. That is their job. That is what they do.

If you really believe you have nothing to hide if you've done nothing wrong you are naive. You must also believe no one has been imprisoned for a crime they did not do.
 
G

Glock32

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
12
Location
Inglis FL.
wrightme said:
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?
Click to expand...


Because he wants to show you his badge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top