• 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.

6L6GC

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
492
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
QilvinLEO said:
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.

OilvinLEO said:
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 Negro 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 Negro 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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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:

6L6GC

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
492
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I tried to edit my post to correct typos and stuff

but the edit button wouldn't work. don't know what's up with that, SO.... I will just edit it by reposting and adding the words etc. I was going to make the corrections/additions red but can't remember how to do that..............

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 IS(edit=added) 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 unlawfully(edit=added) 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 demand that they(edit=added) 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
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Either we stomped a troll or created a lurker. Either way, he has had a taste of OCDO, and some good stuff to pass along to those with a similar view point to his own. All accomplished in about eight hours.

No, not accurate. The posting history shows on-forum activity to be between about midnight to 5 or 6 am eastern time. He is either asleep, or at his job of stopping OCers when he is responding to MWAG calls.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I suspect the main reason why the original poster doesn't appreciate people asking "Am I being detained" is because it makes him actually have to perform police work to investigate a suspected crime.

If he could compel people to answer questions when they didn't have to, and when it wasn't in their best interest to do so, it would make his job much easier. Unfortunately, such fishing expeditions aren't proper police work.

By his very words he said he would initiate a Tier II encounter (detainment) on people whom he had no suspicion of wrongdoing. And if they called his bluff by asking if they were detained, he'd have to admit he had no reasonable suspicion to detain them, that they weren't being detained, and that they were free to go.
And he says that he'd continue to detain them again and again, even without any suspicion of wrongdoing.


If that ain't doing wrong ... what is?
 
Last edited:

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
On Monday, I was at my girlfriend's place of work (a local stop and rob), openly carrying near the checkout. Several officers walked in to make purchases and engaged my girlfriend and me in conversation. This was general chit chat, but they were checking me out (I saw the looks to my firearm and then each other). But the conversation stayed general chit chat as they realized nothing bad was happening.

Not once did they ask me for my ID or disarm me. This is how it should go.

Observe and engage in general chit chat. I'm more than happy to wish you a nice day.

Approach me and start with an authoritarian demeanor, I'll then say, "Am I being detained?"
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
this is gonna be long, but the OP needs to be educated

First off, welcome to OCDO. I hope you learn lots here.

Call comes in again that a person is open carrying and people are worried
As for how MWAG calls should be handled, listen to these two phone calls.
Nearly identical situations (one at Starbuck's one at a burger restaurant), handled very differently, with very different outcomes for the cities involved, as well as a considerable difference in the amount of taxpayer money used (both immediately & in defending against & paying out after the lawsuit).

[ETA: forgot to mention that at the Starbuck's that day there were several dozen MWAG, and a few WWAG - I was there. I think the picture used as the backdrop was taken that day.]

Here's an article from Police Chief's Magazine about responding to OC calls.


Verd said:
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?"
Listen to the phone calls in the video linked above.
One gets it right, the other caused a civil rights suit that's still working through the courts.


QilvinLEO said:
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?"
Actually, a much better question is "WHY am I being detained?"
Because if you have to ask, you're being detained, and it's best to know right up front what the crime is you're suspected of committing, & why the officer thinks you've committed that crime.
It also puts the officer on notice that s/he'd better either come up with RAS or start following the law.

Now, if someone wants to chat that's fine, I don't care who they're employed by.
But if someone comes up to me with an attitude, s/he won't get a very friendly response.
And if someone starts asking nosy or inappropriate questions, the conversation will end pretty quickly.


How many people are your place of employment dont completely understand their jobs? Or know every single small rule?
Part of the job description for a LEO is to know the laws they're expected to enforce.
And most places of business don't result in a dead customer if an employee screws up.


Which brings me to the next point that DRIVES ME INSANE.
...WE STILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS.
Think about it if we didnt...
Officer was fired for neglect of duty and is being criminally charged for neglect of duty resulting in a homicide.
Only if it's department policy. Legally, no, you don't.
Check out the Supreme Court case Warren v. DC and get back to us.

This page gives more cites to more court cases from across the country, with the same rulings.

Here's another good discussion of facts.

And here's an article from Police Chief Magazine, with citations for further reading.
Pay special attention to the first sentence in the second paragraph:
...the government and its officials owe a legal duty to the public at large but not to any individual citizen.


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.
Exactly right.
And in support of that, here are some other useful bits I've collected in a blog post:

"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."
WI v. Kiekhefer

“Selective prosecution when referring to the decision to prosecute in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right gives rise to an actionable right under the constitution."
County of Kenosha (WI) v. C. & S. Management, Inc.

"Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse
(Since they can't stop someone doing an act that requires gov't permission just to check a license, how much more illegal is it to stop someone doing something that is protected by the Constitution just for exercising that right?)

"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

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
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Ahhhhhhh. It warms the heart to see the pro-rights responses here, and the dissassembly of the statist OPer's arguments.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Come on people, TALK TO THE POLICE.

When you and yours tear down the Blue Wall of Silence and all that it hides, I will consider being a little more cooperative. Until then, my reply is:

"Oh, I'm sorry officer. I'm a patriotic American. I will cooperate to the full extent required by our laws."

[silence]
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP 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.

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.)
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP 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.
----------------------------

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!

If the cop has "x" number of encounters with an OCer who refuses consent, at some point the cop is going to "show up and see the OCer that he has dealt with in the past" whether the OCer talks to the cop or not.

Even if the cop only observes the OCer from a distance in the first "x" number of encounters, at some point the cop is going to "show up and see the OCer that he has dealt with in the past."

Talking to the cop is not needed to create "the same OCer he dealt with in the past."

I wonder how low the police hiring standards have fallen. You'd think a cop who kept responding to the same perfectly legal OCers would eventually tell his chain of command that the dispatchers need to start sorting them out a little more.
 

John Canuck

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
275
Location
Upstate SC
How many people are your place of employment dont completely understand their jobs? Or know every single small rule?

All of the people I work with understand their jobs completely. Anyone in my business that doesn't know what to do or how to do it either gets trained or reassigned to something else. If we are required to do something that involves a new code, or a nuance that we might not have memorized, we look it up.

If you don't know something is against the law, leave me alone till you figure it out. If you can't figure it out and I'm not breaking one of the laws you do know, I guess you will just have to deal with the disappointment of not being able to harass me for your own amusement.

As far as talking with you is concerned, no thanks. There is nothing in it for me.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I missed that tidbit earlier....
"Officer LEO leaves, annoyed that he has to keep responding to law abiding citizens again. "

Why did Officer LEO allow himself to be suckered YET AGAIN for the same non-event.... You would think he would learn.
 

1245A Defender

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

I read QilvinLOE post before any replys were made.

I realized that It was pure stupidity!
The reply by MKEgal said all that needed to be said, really well.

I doubt that the OP is a cop, or an adult, or intelligent!
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I have a feeling some of you might not be as polite as you are stating, but we will go with it.
SO WHAT? The LEO is the one initiating the undesired encounter.
QilvinLEO said:
How many people are your place of employment dont completely understand their jobs? Or know every single small rule?
I take it by your question that Law Enforcement hasn't gone ISO yet...... :rolleyes:
QilvinLEO said:
Now try to understand every single aspect of the law that is changing on a day to day basis.
Does your legislature meet more than once every two years? No? Then suck it up and read.

QilvinLEO said:
. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS.
If your department has that policy, it sounds like high time to replace the leadership. Get someone in charge who has you respond to relevant calls, not time-wasters.


QilvinLEO said:
Come on people, TALK TO THE POLICE.
Nope. Come on LEO, do YOUR job.
 
Last edited:
Top