• 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.

Man confronted for open carry, video

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
I respect you opinion that he instigated the initial contact. You also state that you felt it was fine for them to approach and demand ID. Let me ask you, what do you feel was the RAS for demanding ID? It is already established that filming the police during their duties is not illegal and that openly carrying a firearm is not illegal. The officer had already let the gentleman leave the area where the incident took place, so obviously he did not deem the man a threat at that time. What reasonable suspicion do you think the officer had that gave him the right to stop the man and demand that he identify himself?

It seems that we both agree on the outcome, but we may disagree on the circumstances.



Demand? Who said anything about demand? It is already been decided in court cases that officers are allowed to have casual contact with a "suspect" and I agree with that... there is nothing wrong with the officers approaching and asking (ASKING) to see ID. If their request is denied, and the person decides to walk away and say nothing or whatever, then that is fine too (obviously).

I never said it was ok for them to approach and demand ID, nor did my post even USE the word DEMAND. Good job at putting words in my mouth though.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Demand? Who said anything about demand? It is already been decided in court cases that officers are allowed to have casual contact with a "suspect" and I agree with that... there is nothing wrong with the officers approaching and asking (ASKING) to see ID. If their request is denied, and the person decides to walk away and say nothing or whatever, then that is fine too (obviously).

Officer: "Your ID, please."

Me: "Quite right, and so good of you to ask. In accordance with Federal, State, County, and Local law, however, I must decline. Good day, officer!"

Walks away.
 

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
Officer: "Your ID, please."

Me: "Quite right, and so good of you to ask. In accordance with Federal, State, County, and Local law, however, I must decline. Good day, officer!"

Walks away.



+1

A simple "no thanks" works too... ;)


I think a guy on here posted one of his LEO encounters where he stated something like "I know you're just doing your job, but I'm not going to give you ID... but out of respect for you officer, I"d be willing to be on a first name basis."

I thought that was a bit of meeting in the middle by being respectful and polite, but still standing your ground and being firm.... even if a bit wordy.
 
Last edited:

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Demand? Who said anything about demand? It is already been decided in court cases that officers are allowed to have casual contact with a "suspect" and I agree with that... there is nothing wrong with the officers approaching and asking (ASKING) to see ID. If their request is denied, and the person decides to walk away and say nothing or whatever, then that is fine too (obviously).

I never said it was ok for them to approach and demand ID, nor did my post even USE the word DEMAND. Good job at putting words in my mouth though.


You are correct sir, you never used the word "demand" , and for my implying you did I sincerely apologize. I used word, as it is my opinion that was what they were doing.
You are also correct that a LEO may "ask" anyone for their ID. I would, however, disagree with you that this was a casual contact. If an officer says you are not being detained and then stops you again after only a short time(while slowly following you) that makes it hard to justify that it is a casual contact. The officer had already stated that the gentleman was not being detained at the scene, and the gentleman left the area. The officer then stops the gentleman, gets out of his cruiser with his hand on his holster and proceeds to "ask" for ID. When the gentleman asks if he is required to present ID, the officer states that he does if he is carrying a firearm. For the majority of this interaction the officer has his hand on his holster. Does this strike you as a "casual" encounter? It does not strike me as such, and is why I don't view it as the casual contact you described. It is for that reason I asked what you thought the RAS was for the officer to stop and "ask" the gentleman for ID. If you think no RAS was required, then that is fine. I just don't understand how you view this as a casual stop.

You also state that while you don't agree with the officers lying to the gentleman, you understand why they do it. Why exactly do you think they do it and do you believe they are allowed to do it during a casual contact? Are they, in your opinion, allowed to come up to a citizen and lie about a crime having occurred and and the citizen matching the suspect's description and then ask for ID? This is not what happened in the video, I realize. I am just trying to get a handle on your opinion of not only why officers may lie, but when you deem it understandable.
 

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
You are correct sir, you never used the word "demand" , and for my implying you did I sincerely apologize. I used word, as it is my opinion that was what they were doing.
You are also correct that a LEO may "ask" anyone for their ID. I would, however, disagree with you that this was a casual contact. If an officer says you are not being detained and then stops you again after only a short time(while slowly following you) that makes it hard to justify that it is a casual contact. The officer had already stated that the gentleman was not being detained at the scene, and the gentleman left the area. The officer then stops the gentleman, gets out of his cruiser with his hand on his holster and proceeds to "ask" for ID. When the gentleman asks if he is required to present ID, the officer states that he does if he is carrying a firearm. For the majority of this interaction the officer has his hand on his holster. Does this strike you as a "casual" encounter? It does not strike me as such, and is why I don't view it as the casual contact you described. It is for that reason I asked what you thought the RAS was for the officer to stop and "ask" the gentleman for ID. If you think no RAS was required, then that is fine. I just don't understand how you view this as a casual stop.

You also state that while you don't agree with the officers lying to the gentleman, you understand why they do it. Why exactly do you think they do it and do you believe they are allowed to do it during a casual contact? Are they, in your opinion, allowed to come up to a citizen and lie about a crime having occurred and and the citizen matching the suspect's description and then ask for ID? This is not what happened in the video, I realize. I am just trying to get a handle on your opinion of not only why officers may lie, but when you deem it understandable.



Like I said I"m not necessarily ok with them lying... but I guess I just operate on the premise that they ARE lying... and likely AT ALL TIMES.... so I conduct myself accordingly. I only watched the vid once and did not analyze it. I think I can agree that if the officer is acting in a certain manner, ie: aggressive, hand on gun, etc... that it could probably be ruled a stop.... and possibly an illegal one at that... I"m not saying that I agree with all the officers did... and I guess my point was that I don't have a problem with officers "investigating" under the premise of casual contact... not necessarily that this was indeed casual contact if you picked up on details I may have missed.

EIther way, the "officer safety" seizure of weapons was pretty pussified.... they weren't "scared" until he stood up for himself. At no time was he aggressive or threatening.... they just did it to be dicks and cause they could. In all, everyone went home without a beat down.
 
Top