"Do you know why we're here?" (question posed by LEO)

hermannr said:

If I am OC on my own private property, and my neighbor calls the police because of my OC (this is valid almost everywhere in the US), the police do not even have the right to enter my property to talk to me unless I invite them too....as I am doing absolutely nothing illegal.

BTW: I do business on this property also, and do have occational customer visits. If I invite you to come onto the property and you are OCing...and let's say my neighbor calls...the police still do not even have the right to come on my property (in an official capacity) even though I do have a business license and I do business on this property. (This doesn't actually happen because all my neighbors are 2A friendly, and the closest is 1/4 mile away, but lets just say it did...for argument)

So, lets translate that to Wal-Mart. Ever had a fender bender in a Wal-Mart parking lot? Well, the police around here will not even check drivers license, insurance or write a report (unless there is an injury) on a parking lot accident here. Why? It's private property. You do not need a license or insurance to drive on private property.

Wal-Mart is private property, under control of Wal-Mart management. Therefore, if Wal-Mart has a criminal complaint (say shoplifting), the police will respond...not a criminal complaint they won't...For purposes of this exercise, OC and CC are ok on private property, no permit necessary, for the owner or with the owners permission...Wal-Mart's stated corporate policy is to follow state law...The police have no reason to even come to investigate that customer complaint of OC at Wal-Mart. The proper method is for the customer to notify Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart to notify the local police if they deem it necessary. Legal activity on private property is none of the local police's business...legal activity on private property...they have no reason to be there in an official capacity. Criminal activity, yes, no crime, nope....

BTW: If you missed the latest of these, and I am assuming the one that started this thread...the guy that was questioned by officer friendly and a couple of his buddies in a Wal-Mart, the officers had come because of a call from a customer who had already been told by a Wal-Mart employee that the OC was legal and welcome, but the customer called 911 anyway. The breakdown in the system here was the 911 operator...the caller should have been told to contact Wal-Mart management, then if/when the caller would have said he did but they were doing nothing about it, the 911 operator should have said, well then Wal-Mart must not think it is a problem for the police... and hung up.... or charged the person for misusing the 911 system.

I will say, in my county, if you call about a MWAG and you tell the 911 operator that the person is not doing anything but just has a gun in a holster...the 911 operator will say, that is 100% legal and hang up.

Click to expand...

I fully understand that. I repeat: Anyone can report a crime in progress or suspicious activity. How the police chose to respond is another matter.

BTW - Wal-Mart's position of following state law is not a contract - it is a policy, which is subject to immediate change, which by the way would still be following state law.

I gotta believe that most MWAG calls will result in a officer contact or a least a drive by. Because lets say they do not come and a guy starts shooting. Looks bad for them. I think some of it is driven by liabilty, he came ,he saw, he made contact no problem. Not that I like it. Just saying, when KOMO asks the cheif "why didnt you respond when you got the first call?"

Grapeshot said:

I fully understand that. I repeat: Anyone can report a crime in progress or suspicious activity. How the police chose to respond is another matter.

Click to expand...

What we all need to remember is that there are many variables at play, don't instantly assume the police are there to harass you. It can start with some little old lady calling 911 and saying there is a MWAG at Wal-Mart and maybe an ill-informed operator dispatching or maybe the little old lady hangs up and she said it with a scared tone of voice, So then there is no more information, simply a MWAG call rather than a man with a gun in a holster. So the police investigate, this is when you should meet the police with respect and handle accordingly

Play this when questioned...
[h=1]Chappelle 'I plead the Fif' - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CzocBkrWpA[/h]

ghosthunter said:

I gotta believe that most MWAG calls will result in a officer contact or a least a drive by. Because lets say they do not come and a guy starts shooting. Looks bad for them. I think some of it is driven by liability.

Click to expand...

The police have no duty to protect, therefore claiming that their motives are based on liability would be a real stretch.

Dave_pro2a said:

The police have no duty to protect, therefore claiming that their motives are based on liability would be a real stretch.

Click to expand...

I think by "liability" he meant to say a PR liability.

Just my take.

Their job is to "protect", but they can't be held liable for not protecting. Don't take this the wrong way, I won't rely on them for protection just like any of you but that's how I see it

ghosthunter said:

I gotta believe that most MWAG calls will result in a officer contact or a least a drive by. Because lets say they do not come and a guy starts shooting. Looks bad for them. I think some of it is driven by liabilty, he came ,he saw, he made contact no problem. Not that I like it. Just saying, when KOMO asks the cheif "why didnt you respond when you got the first call?"

Click to expand...

This is a feel good statement with no base IMHO.

Your statement might be correct IF by driving by the officer can say with 100% knowledge that the MWAG is not going to do anything but there is just no way to tell 100%.

I can make a similar point/statement as you regarding KOMO, might even sound worse: Why did your department respond to a MWAG call and let the individual go about his business just for him to later shoot up the place.

The fact that the police drive by or even make contact and then let the individual go who then later decides to shoot up a place seems to be of higher liability concerns than that of not even responding to a lawful citizen to me.

The fact of the issue is your not breaking the law until your breaking it. No matter the course taken up to that point, if its to happen it will. The police react to crimes, they for the most part don't prevent them. The officer should not be interfering with the citizen if he is not breaking the law, its a waste of resource and likely will change nothing.

slapmonkay said:

This is a feel good statement with no base IMHO.

Your statement might be correct IF by driving by the officer can say with 100% knowledge that the MWAG is not going to do anything but there is just no way to tell 100%.

I can make a similar point/statement as you regarding KOMO, might even sound worse: Why did your department respond to a MWAG call and let the individual go about his business just for him to later shoot up the place.

The fact that the police drive by or even make contact and then let the individual go who then later decides to shoot up a place seems to be of higher liability concerns than that of not even responding to a lawful citizen to me.

The fact of the issue is your not breaking the law until your breaking it. No matter the course taken up to that point, if its to happen it will. The police react to crimes, they for the most part don't prevent them. The officer should not be interfering with the citizen if he is not breaking the law, its a waste of resource and likely will change nothing.

Click to expand...

+1 Well put

slapmonkay said:

I can make a similar point/statement as you regarding KOMO, might even sound worse: Why did your department respond to a MWAG call and let the individual go about his business just for him to later shoot up the place.

The fact that the police drive by or even make contact and then let the individual go who then later decides to shoot up a place seems to be of higher liability concerns than that of not even responding to a lawful citizen to me.

Click to expand...

I would like to add to this thought while I am at it.

This would likely raise concern within the legislative body with help of anti-guners and LEO that would raise the question of: how could this of been prevented, the system responded and nothing was found, is there something that should be illegal that's not that would of allowed us to catch this guy... AWW yes I can see it now, Here comes some more gun control.

That would require someone open carrying in public, willingly and succesfully interacting with police and then commiting a crime which is a stretch in my opinion. We who open are law abiding citzens and though we sometimes attract undue attention, we know that this attention is the very reason criminals do not open carry. I'm all for gun control, our government should make sure all citizens go armed

See, Andy of Mayberry would not even do a drive by. I think all the Mayberry RFD shows should be required viewing by all LEOs.

"LEO asks; "Do you know why we're here?""

No, I have no idea but if you ask around maybe someone else knows why. Excuse me now, I have shopping to finish (or my dinner is getting cold).

"Do you know why we are here?"
"No"
"Step outside for a minute"
"Am I being detained?"
"No"
"Then, since I am doing nothing illegal, you have no further business with me. Good day"

FMCDH said:

I'm afraid you are incorrect, you are interpreting the law too broadly on CC without a permit. There are exceptions to where you need a CPL but they are limited generally to; IN your place of business or IN your place of abode, with a few other exceptions. Nowhere do the RCWs allow you to CC without a permit on all private property.

You may wish to review the relevant RCWs
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050
(Exceptions)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060


As for the proper screening of 911 calls, it has long been understood by most that the police in this state are under no obligation to respond to EVERY 911 call, and that normally efforts are made by the dispatcher to determine actual emergency from concerned citizen calls. Officers are then dispatched according to resources available. It comes down to a matter of education for all the parties of the chain of events, from the caller to the carrier.

My problem with this system is that the education of the public seems to be placed by and large on the shoulders of the carrier, when it SHOULD be handled at the higher level of the enforcement chain.

Still, the idea that the OP brings up holds true, that unless we make sure the officers that are responding to these calls GET the point that they need to be contacting the caller and educating them, then following up up their chain, and not bothering the carrier, we should be using wording to make them think about their assumptions and not just supporting the same tired chain of unnecessary contacts by agreeing with them that "Yes, I know why your here."

Click to expand...

I have had one (in over 40 years) "talk", it was with a Chelan Co Sheriff's deputy, about a MWAG call...this was years ago (mid 80's?). The contact was because I was shopping for supplies at a Manson grocery while on a hunting trip. Deputy pulls up in his SUV as I am loading my camper, steps out and asks "hunting"? I answer "yep". That was our total conversation...then, more to himself than anyone "now I have to go find that woman that called and tell her there is nothing illegal going on here"

Since that time I have moved over to the dry side to live and I do know, for positive, that the 911 operators here ask if the person they saw with a gun is doing anything with it (beside carrying it in a holster). The 911 operator will then notify the caller that is legal and no-one will be dispatched...end of call.

I remember another thread awhle back where someone at the Mount Vernon DoL overheard a call put in to the Skagit 911 that received the same treatment as you would get here...

If you observe criminal activity, sure call 911. If you are in Wal-Mart and want a response, get ahold of a Wal-Mart (or any other store) employee. It is for them to determine that the activity is inappropreate on their property (unless of course, someone is shooting up the place, but then their security would have already called....) I think people should be charged with misuse of the 911 system when they call even after they have been told the activity was legal and ok. That would stop some of this nanny male bovine excreatment.

Ok, back to the license idea again. You do not need a license or insurance to drive in a Wal-Mart parking lot. It is private property. If you were to conceal on my private property, you would not need a license to drive a car either.

Same, yes, I know the law specifically states the owner and his employees, but as the police do not have the right to ask you for a license (barring actual criminal activity) on private property, it is de facto the same for an invited guest.

Remember, this was originally about Joe Bissybodie calling the police to come onto private property to check out a legal activty. Should have never happened. It should have stopped at the 911 operator.

Trigger Dr said:

"Do you know why we are here?"
"No"
"Step outside for a minute"
"Am I being detained?"
"No"
"Then, since I am doing nothing illegal, you have no further business with me. Good day"

Click to expand...

Works great in theory and often does work in real life

But then there are those LEO's who just won't let it go.....and I am not the only one who has experienced this, just ask Tom.

Also many LEO will take a tactic of evasive questions when they do have RAS, so even when they legally detain you they often won't tell you why and try to entrap into being "confrontational" or "resisting" arrest.

sudden valley gunner said:

Works great in theory and often does work in real life

But then there are those LEO's who just won't let it go.....and I am not the only one who has experienced this, just ask Tom.

Also many LEO will take a tactic of evasive questions when they do have RAS, so even when they legally detain you they often won't tell you why and try to entrap into being "confrontational" or "resisting" arrest.

Click to expand...

Every one of us needs to do the calculus every time an encounter with the cops takes place. Is this the one that I want to fight? Is this one not worth the time, effort and emotional/financial costs of taking it all the way?

Some are worth the fight. Some are not. But regardless of which response I reach, I am going to deal with the cops in public. No, I'm not going to scream and intentionally draw attention to the interaction - but on the other hand I'm not going to "step outside so we can discuss this quietly" either. We can discuss it quietly and calmly just as easily, and for me more comfortably, right here where I was when they first showed up. Well, yes, it also affords me potential witnesses, but that's not the point. Until they place me in custodial arrest (is there any other kind?) I have a right to be where they found me and I'm not giving that up. I'm not going to become belligerant or bellicose, and certainly not going to physically resist them. But I'm not voluntarily moving just to make them able to do whatever it is they are going to do without being so conspicuous.

This technique has worked for someone who called me rather concerned one night about being the subject of a sidewalk meeting with the police. I suggested they go into a nearby restaurant and order a cup of coffee and stay there either until the cops went away, the place closed, or I got there to lend moral support. The cops followed them inside and wanted to get them to walk back outside to "talk things over". Instead, they invited the cop to sit down on the other side of the booth and "talk things over" there. Turns out it's difficult to be authoritative and demanding when you are sitting down, and even cops know they look like fools standing over someone trying to cajole them into doing something instead of just slapping the cuffs on. By the time I got there most of the cops had gone away and the few that remained were outside trying to figure out how they got bested and what they might be able to do about it - which turned out to be "nothing".

As for all the "the cops have no right to come on private property without X/Y/Z" - who cares about that at the moment? They are there and you are going to have to deal with that fact. Later on you can address any concerns about their having committed a trespass or not.

Bottom line for me is I would prefer that the cop state why they are there rather than playing 20-Questions games. If they want to keep it vague and general that's fine with me, since I'm not required to tell them much beyond my name and address except in response to very direct questions - some of which may include "Do you understand each and every one of these rights as I have explained them to you, and understanding them are you willing to talk further with us?" On the other hand, if I'm being the very best witness I can, I will be eager to answer questions about what the BG looked like, what they were wearing, which way they went, and what if any weapons I saw them with or using.

stay safe.

sudden valley gunner said:

Works great in theory and often does work in real life

But then there are those LEO's who just won't let it go.....and I am not the only one who has experienced this, just ask Tom.

Also many LEO will take a tactic of evasive questions when they do have RAS, so even when they legally detain you they often won't tell you why and try to entrap into being "confrontational" or "resisting" arrest.

Click to expand...

Good post.

When dealing with liars, don't believe what they say.

Many cops will basically just do whatever they want to do, regardless of the legality of their actions.

My plan: "Am I free to go?" remain silent, request attorney, if arrested call one of the 5 I have programmed into my phone (or call with a jail phone from the card in my wallet).

I'm not going to argue the law with a cop. I will only tell them my name, and that I am not doing anything illegal. They can arrest me if they want to ::shrug:: Unless they totally fabricate evidence (plausible) I'll win. But bottom line, I don't believe I can 'talk' myself out of trouble with LEO -- and anything I do say will just be twisted around and used against me.

Hardbuck90 said:

If in a restaurant eating dinner as you suggest I would think that the officer would ask you to come outside as to avoid a scene, at this point is when you would ask if you are being detained and subsequently stay put and skip the "Am I free to go" line altogether, or something to that effect.

Click to expand...

That or follow up with "Am I free to stay? Am I being asked to leave?"