• 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.

Citizen

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

This is a red-herring. A cop does not need to know the law in order to avoid illegally seizing someone, thus violating their 4th Amendment (search and seizure) rights.

A cop only needs to know whether he is absolutely certain the conduct is illegal. If the cop does not know to a cold moral certainty the activity is illegal, he cannot possibly know whether he has authority to seize the person to investigate.

Of course, he has to give a damn about seizing Americans in their own country, too.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Clarification follows: stomped as troll or created a future lurker after he gets back to this thread.

We should find out shortly -
Current Activity: Viewing Thread REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.
Last Activity: Today 12:34 AM

Current Activity: Replying to Thread REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.
 
Last edited:

BaconMan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
61
Location
Los Angeles
Just watched the video "Don't talk to the Police" and the professor made good points for individuals who were criminals. If you are a law abiding citizen, it does you know harm to talk to the police. By not talking during a stop or sounding like a person who is upset because you were stopped only makes matters worse. If the officer is there because he/she received a call, they have to respond. If they don't, people will complain, it's that simple. If the officer stops a person who is OCing to check the person out, oh well, that person has to comply and complain later is he/she felt the stop was unjustified. A word of advise to everyone, I say ask the officer if you are being detained, if they know their stuff they will tell you rite then, yes or no, so you know where you stand. If he/she says, yes, stay where you are, if he/she says, no, then excuse yourself and kick rocks.:dude:
 

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
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."
 

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
Just watched the video "Don't talk to the Police" and the professor made good points for individuals who were criminals. If you are a law abiding citizen, it does you know harm to talk to the police. By not talking during a stop or sounding like a person who is upset because you were stopped only makes matters worse. If the officer is there because he/she received a call, they have to respond. If they don't, people will complain, it's that simple. If the officer stops a person who is OCing to check the person out, oh well, that person has to comply and complain later is he/she felt the stop was unjustified. A word of advise to everyone, I say ask the officer if you are being detained, if they know their stuff they will tell you rite then, yes or no, so you know where you stand. If he/she says, yes, stay where you are, if he/she says, no, then excuse yourself and kick rocks.:dude:


Bring the tally up to one person on my side.
 

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
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.

I am afraid because you, as an officer, state that you do not even know all the laws. I know I do not know every law out there, so I can be reasonably sure that an officer, even if he/she doesn't know every law, will know more laws than I do. And a simple meet a greet that is not a detention or arrest, could easily turn into one if I am not careful with my words.
Example:
Me: "Am I being detained?"
LEO: "Nope, just wanting to chat. Noticed you are OCing and was curious."
Me: "Oh, well great! I OC everywhere I go, since, you know, it is legal."
LEO: "Yes it is, and I would love to see more people carrying firearms."
Me: "I would as well. In fact, I was just over in [names nearby city] to see a friend and.."
LEO: "Wait a minute here. You just said you OC everywhere you go and in [nearby city] it is illegal to OC."
Me: "What? No, I didn't OC there... I meant I OC whereever it is legal..."

Sure, its a "what if" thats basically pointless, but it helps to illustrate my point in that unless a cop is not on duty and not in uniform, that cop, no matter how friendly he/she may appear, is still a cop and may very well still be watching you and listening to you carefully to be sure that you have not commited any crimes. Hence why there is the "Am I being detained? No? Then am I free to go?" mentality.
 

N605TW

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
118
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Please don't take this as a personal attack BaconMan as it is not intended as one.
Are you pulling out the "if your not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have any problem waiving your rights" card? I don't like to waive my rights to prove I'm not hiding something. Last time I checked we are all innocent until proven otherwise.

I will get off my soap box now.:)
 

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
Please don't take this as a personal attack BaconMan as it is not intended as one.
Are you pulling out the "if your not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have any problem waiving your rights" card? I don't like to waive my rights to prove I'm not hiding something. Last time I checked we are all innocent until proven otherwise.

I will get off my soap box now.:)

Exactly. Just because I have nothing illegal in my home, doesn't mean I am going to let anyone search it without a warrant. Not going to give up my rights in order to make someone else feel like I am not doing something wrong.
 

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
I am afraid because you, as an officer, state that you do not even know all the laws. I know I do not know every law out there, so I can be reasonably sure that an officer, even if he/she doesn't know every law, will know more laws than I do. And a simple meet a greet that is not a detention or arrest, could easily turn into one if I am not careful with my words.
Example:
Me: "Am I being detained?"
LEO: "Nope, just wanting to chat. Noticed you are OCing and was curious."
Me: "Oh, well great! I OC everywhere I go, since, you know, it is legal."
LEO: "Yes it is, and I would love to see more people carrying firearms."
Me: "I would as well. In fact, I was just over in [names nearby city] to see a friend and.."
LEO: "Wait a minute here. You just said you OC everywhere you go and in [nearby city] it is illegal to OC."
Me: "What? No, I didn't OC there... I meant I OC whereever it is legal..."

Sure, its a "what if" thats basically pointless, but it helps to illustrate my point in that unless a cop is not on duty and not in uniform, that cop, no matter how friendly he/she may appear, is still a cop and may very well still be watching you and listening to you carefully to be sure that you have not commited any crimes. Hence why there is the "Am I being detained? No? Then am I free to go?" mentality.


If the prosecutor in your jurisdiction lets something like that go by. WOW. In that case, Yes, dont talk to the police. I know where I am from and most areas around me that would not result in an arrest. Not even close. And even if it did, would never hold up in court.
 

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,068
Location
Lawton, OK USA
I have nothing to hide, had a secret clearance for 21 years. A lot of this is about principle. Please come to our get together's so we can talk face to face. I know some of us are quite opinionated, especially online. Most of us mellow out in person. We just want to not be hassled when not doing something illegal. Me personally, I have had no problem with citizens or LEO. "Can't we all get along?". Rodney King.
Edit:
Just saw you are in MO. Still if you see someone OC'ing ask the them to sit down for coffee and have a rational discussion. We realize that police can't be everywhere. Just like the fire dept, police don't prevent crime, they usually respond to it. If I were ever have to draw my weapon, most likely I don't have time to run away or call 911.
 
Last edited:

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
I have nothing to hide, had a secret clearance for 21 years. A lot of this is about principle. Please come to our get together's so we can talk face to face. I know some of us are quite opinionated, especially online. Most of us mellow out in person. We just want to not be hassled when not doing something illegal. Me personally, I have had no problem with citizens or LEO. "Can't we all get along?". Rodney King.


I appreciate the invitation. However, that will probably not happen anytime soon based upon the amount of hate some individuals already have for me. If it does, You will not know I am QilvinLEO, that is for sure.
 

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,068
Location
Lawton, OK USA
I appreciate the invitation. However, that will probably not happen anytime soon based upon the amount of hate some individuals already have for me. If it does, You will not know I am QilvinLEO, that is for sure.

Like I said, some people on this and other forums are opinionated. I don't think any body hates you. Disagree: yes, Hate: no. If I am wrong, please put the flamethrowers down now.
 

1245A Defender

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

I appreciate the invitation. However, that will probably not happen anytime soon based upon the amount of hate some individuals already have for me. If it does, You will not know I am QilvinLEO, that is for sure.

You have not recieved any real hate...
You have responded well to questions about your official attitude toward your job.

You Still have alot to learn!
I like to talk to cops. when stopped for only my legal open carry, I will start spilling my guts about my fondness for ducks,
or the enjoyment I get from feeding the goldfish in my pond.
Sometimes I will initiate a consensual conversation on my own, just so I can yack them up about the kind of cars cops drive now.

I will tell you though, as soon as the cop turns the conversation into a fishing trip I tell him OK bye!
I do not ask about detainment, or ask if I am free to leave, I just go!
If a cop wants to detain me, or arrest me, My talking time is over, and their will be no question about
my freedom to leave because he will have to taze me, or restrain me to prove that it is not consensual!!!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Just watched the video "Don't talk to the Police" and the professor made good points for individuals who were criminals. If you are a law abiding citizen, it does you know harm to talk to the police. By not talking during a stop or sounding like a person who is upset because you were stopped only makes matters worse. If the officer is there because he/she received a call, they have to respond. If they don't, people will complain, it's that simple. If the officer stops a person who is OCing to check the person out, oh well, that person has to comply and complain later is he/she felt the stop was unjustified. A word of advise to everyone, I say ask the officer if you are being detained, if they know their stuff they will tell you rite then, yes or no, so you know where you stand. If he/she says, yes, stay where you are, if he/she says, no, then excuse yourself and kick rocks.:dude:

Yes. And, Professor Duane made good points for individuals who are not criminals. And, people who did not know they were criminals.

In case you missed it or forgot, he quoted two SCOTUS decisions about the 5th Amendment. In both, the Supreme Court says the 5th Amendment is for innocent people.

Here is a quote from one. Emphasis by me. Ullmann vs US:

Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege. Such a view does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights as a condition to acceptance of the Constitution by the ratifying States. The Founders of the Nation were not naive or disregardful of the interests of justice. The difference between them and those who deem the privilege an obstruction to due inquiry has been appropriately indicated by Chief Judge Magruder: Our forefathers, when they wrote this provision into the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, had in mind a lot of history which has been largely forgotten today. See VIII Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.1940) § 2250 et seq.; Morgan, The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 34 Minn.L.Rev. 1 (1949). They made a judgment and expressed it in our fundamental law, that it were better for an occasional crime to go unpunished than that the prosecution should be free to build up a criminal case, in whole or in part, with the assistance of enforced disclosures by the accused. The privilege against self-incrimination serves as a protection to the innocent, as well as to the guilty...

Prof. Duane also spends time on examples of innocent people who have been convicted. And, gives examples of how an innocent person can give police information that can be used against him.

You may have watched the video; but it didn't sink in.

Separately, many of us longer-term members can still recall the FOIAd police video where two cops were very friendly while talking to the OCer, but moments later back at the car, one officer can be heard saying to the other, "There has to be something we can get him on." Meaning, the cop who said it was looking--actively seeking--for something she could use to cite or arrest the OCer, even though she knew the OC itself was legal.

So, lets just cut through the bull$hit, shall we? Rights are rights are rights are rights. They require no justification to use. That is why they are called rights. Not talking points. Not reasons that have to be explained. Not argument tactics. We owe no-one an explanation for why we want to exercise rights. We don't have to educate people on why its a good idea, explaining all the myriad ways things can go wrong (re-justify them). The justifications for the right to silence were worked out over the last five hundred years. People have been tortured over this right. Literally. Even as late as the 1930's, people were beaten by police in violation of this right with some regularity (See Miranda vs Arizona).

Enough is enough. No amount of 'splaining by a government agent or a half-knowledgeable poster can overcome the 500-some years of very good reasons for this right.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Please dont just walk away.

Translation. "Its a voluntary contact. So, we cannot or are not seizing you. But, I'm gonna try to convince you hereby to remain anyway and do for us what we cannot make you do."

"Which ends up at the same result. You're here doing what I want you to do. Answering questions. Giving me the opportunity to develop RAS so I can seize you. And, maybe giving me the opportunity to turn the RAS into probable cause so I can cite or arrest you if you keep talking."

Note to Readers: If he doesn't have RAS, and has only justification for a voluntary contact, he's going to have a real hard time honestly developing RAS, and even dishonestly developing RAS, if you keep your mouth shut, speaking only to invoke rights, ask your own questions. Its even harder for him to develop RAS to seize you if you just politely excuse yourself and walk away (if you're not being detained).
 
Last edited:

Citizen

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

You know, fellas, between this quoted excerpt and several other statements in his same post, one finds it almost inescapeable that we are the recipients of knowing spin. A one-man public relations campaign.

He knows as well as anybody else that when an OCer is contacted by a cop, the OCer has no way to know whether he is facing a "good" cop or a "bad" cop. By the time the OCer figures out he's facing a sneaky-nice bad cop, it may well be too late.

Separately, does he really think we haven't figured out that even so-called good cops protect bad cops by the Blue Wall of Silence?

One bad encounter? The internet is full of cop abuse videos. The news recently is full of cops arresting people for videoing the cops, the cops abusing a wiretapping law. The news almost weekly has stories of cops reinstated or being hired elsewhere after abuses, internal affairs investigations that almost always clear the cops unless there was incontrovertible evidence of wrong-doing, etc., etc., etc.

Yet, YouTube, the blogosphere, and the news is completely devoid of the outrage by so-called good cops against the bad cops. No threatened strikes by so-called good cops unless bad cops are removed, or policies that protect bad cops are changed. No urgent calls for broad reform by police unions or so-called good cops. No demands to end the Blue Wall of Silence and everything it hides.

(Oh, I'm sorry. I did see one--exactly one--essay in the blogosphere by a "good" cop saying cops shouldn't mind being video'd by citizens.)

So, I'm supposed to not be careful around rattlesnakes because I didn't get bitten, or only got bitten once myself. I'm supposed to turn a deaf ear to all my friends and fellow countrymen who got bitten, ignoring their experience.
 

Citizen

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

Oh, my. This is what happens, folks, when you "justify" your rights to government agents. They go off on tangents. He spends all this time on side stuff and practically forgets that "talk to the police" was his original argument. Oh, well.

How is maintaining the Blue Wall of Silence and everything it hides "building trust?"

There is an obvious difference between responding and contacting, and responding and observing from a distance.

Its already been explained--he has no duty or obligation to respond. The courts have said so.

Also, note that he is basically saying "we reserve the right to investigate and put in legal jeopardy even people who are doing absolutely nothing suspicious for political reasons--popularity of police."

(yawn) I guess this is really just a game of convincing him we know most of his PR tricks and spin. I guess at some point we'll knock enough holes in his arguments and specious reasoning that he'll be convinced he can't BS us. Until then, I guess we'll just have some fun.

Lessee if he picks up and continues to try to BS us that we should talk to police. That was the original point of this thread.
 

1245A Defender

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

Please check out More of QilvinLEO idiotic thoughts in the "why open carry" sub forum.
This guy is really a piece of statist waste matter.
Ive tried to be polite so far, but he really is not here to learn or promote the OC right.
Some how the thought that OC might save me from being attacked in the first place is
an abomination to his sensibilities, because my safety means that I have doomed some one else to being attacked.
 
Top