VCDL Meeting - NOVA - Annandale - THU 02-17-2011

grylnsmn · Feb 18, 2011

Wish I could have made it

However, I have a very good excuse. I was busy at the hospital with my wife, as they moved our new son out of the NICU. He gets to come home tomorrow.

I am looking forward to the video, because I really wanted to see the presentation.

Perhaps next time, I'll be able to bring the wife and little one along as well.

user · Feb 18, 2011

Citizen said:
Great meeting. Glad to see you guys.

The uber-statist candidate for Loudoun sheriff was a joke. I was definitely unimpressed. He just confessed to being part of a vast sucking sound near my tax money and the national debt. Bet he just loves no-knock warrants.

The first speaker was a little better. At least he informed us on the state of our rights regarding defensive lethal force, rather than spend most of his time telling us how great he was. I would have liked to hear what he meant exactly when he said he supported 2A. We're a saavy crowd. We wanna hear the particulars; we know how politicians say they support 2A, but then say 2A only means guns for the National Guard.
...

And that first guy was dead wrong about most of his legal pronouncements. Neither said anything about having any experience in running a jail, providing courthouse security, or service of civil warrants and process.

user · Feb 18, 2011

Btw, I was a bit consternated about the failure to answer a few questions that had been rephrased and restated several times:

1) Why should a dispatcher be trained to tell an officer to investigate a simple "man with a gun" call at all? As Ed pointed out, that's functionally identical to "man with red shirt", though I was thinking, "man with a tree in his yard". Unless the call says something to indicate that the "man" (sexist bastards) is doing something threatening or dangerous with a gun, where's the need for a cop? No answer. The PFC said that he is required to investigate anything the dispatcher calls him on. Suppose he gets a call complaining that someone is carrying an open bottle of soda-pop down the street? No answer.

2) Why would the police demand to see a CHP when a person is openly carrying? No answer.

3) What if the person approached by the cop fails to say anything, ignores the cop, and just keeps walking? No answer.

I, myself, was a bit perturbed by the Lt., Gun Lee, who was clearly engaged in a P.R. mission. When someone asked about the requirement for self-identification, he gave an answer that was dead wrong. When I corrected him, he said that if I asked him after the "show", he'd research it and get back to me. Of course, I've already researched the issue, and I've got a stack of paper containing my notes, excerpts, and case authority, which I offered to give him. I gave him my card with an email address, but he pretty much blew me off in what I regarded as an extremely patronizing manner. It must be because I wasn't "in uniform". Btw, I'll "pdf" that stack of paper and put a link to it on my website in the next couple of days.

ed · Feb 18, 2011

user said:
Btw, I was a bit consternated about the failure to answer a few questions that had been rephrased and restated several times:

1) Why should a dispatcher be trained to tell an officer to investigate a simple "man with a gun" call at all? As Ed pointed out, that's functionally identical to "man with red shirt", though I was thinking, "man with a tree in his yard". Unless the call says something to indicate that the "man" (sexist bastards) is doing something threatening or dangerous with a gun, where's the need for a cop? No answer. The PFC said that he is required to investigate anything the dispatcher calls him on. Suppose he gets a call complaining that someone is carrying an open bottle of soda-pop down the street? No answer.

2) Why would the police demand to see a CHP when a person is openly carrying? No answer.

3) What if the person approached by the cop fails to say anything, ignores the cop, and just keeps walking? No answer.

I, myself, was a bit perturbed by the Lt., Gun Lee, who was clearly engaged in a P.R. mission. When someone asked about the requirement for self-identification, he gave an answer that was dead wrong. When I corrected him, he said that if I asked him after the "show", he'd research it and get back to me. Of course, I've already researched the issue, and I've got a stack of paper containing my notes, excerpts, and case authority, which I offered to give him. I gave him my card with an email address, but he pretty much blew me off in what I regarded as an extremely patronizing manner. It must be because I wasn't "in uniform". Btw, I'll "pdf" that stack of paper and put a link to it on my website in the next couple of days.

They did answer #1. They said if they receive a call about a man walking down the street with an open soda bottle.. they will dispatch. or wearing a red shirt.. dispatch. They say it is not (in FxCo) the responsibility of dispatcher to decide.. they are to gather as much info as possible and dispatch.

2. no answer.

3. They did answer. They said if I were to continue walking and not say a word that would do nothing but observe... this then branched out into the ability to record and video police.

Ed

Marco · Feb 18, 2011

grylnsmn said:
I'll be able to bring the wife and little one along as well.

Congrats on the new addition to your family, glad to hear they are doing okay.
As a parent that as been through a similar situation recently the prayers of me and mine are with you and yours.

BOT:

I look forward to the video..

Grapeshot · Feb 18, 2011

Really sorry that I could not make this meeting as I had looked forward to it with some anticipation.

From what I can gather, it would appear that some on going education/cooperation is very much needed with regard to our interaction with Fairfax County PD. To even suggest that nonsense calls (man with a red shirt or drinking a soda) should cause officers to respond is ludicrous. It would appear to me, that they are making excuses to justify "checking out" the honest citizen who in a calm and normal fashion happens to be OCing - something which is very legal in the state of Virginia - borders on or is outright harassment.

I know I'm being facetious, but one has to wonder if they check out everybody that might be driving a get away car.

We have indeed had a glimpse into their mind set. Gentleman if there is no illegal, threatening or dangerous action described, then keep your officers available for their full time day job and make your department more efficient.

Repeater · Feb 18, 2011

Approved Approved Approved

ed said:
They did answer #1. They said if they receive a call about a man walking down the street with an open soda bottle.. they will dispatch. or wearing a red shirt.. dispatch. They say it is not (in FxCo) the responsibility of dispatcher to decide.. they are to gather as much info as possible and dispatch.

Ed

That seems very similar to the Drivetime commericals, where the guy rubber stamps every request for a loan:

Approved Approved Approved

Translation:

Dispatch Dispatch Dispatch

crazydude6030 · Feb 18, 2011

One of the officers had given a hypothetical reason about a man with no kids taking pictures of children in a playground (or something to that effect). It seemed to me like they tried to come of with a "better safe then sorry attitude". So to be fair its not in dealing with MWG calls they were talking about but any calls dealing with suspicious persons.

Repeater · Feb 18, 2011

crazydude6030 said:
One of the officers had given a hypothetical reason about a man with no kids taking pictures of children in a playground (or something to that effect). It seemed to me like they tried to come of with a "better safe then sorry attitude". So to be fair its not in dealing with MWG calls they were talking about but any calls dealing with suspicious persons.

I've heard of paranoia ("better safe then sorry attitude") like that.

crazydude6030 · Feb 18, 2011

Repeater said:
I've heard of paranoia ("better safe then sorry attitude") like that.

I have too, but in this case I think it has to do with public outrage if that person taking pictures turned out to be some freak and well you get the idea.

architect · Feb 18, 2011

lessons learned may not be what the teachers intended

I came away from the meeting having learned two valuable lessons:

1) Decline to participate in any and all "casual interactions." It appears that anything you say can and will be used against you whether in a court of law or to get you into one. This makes every LEO encounter adversarial (if only potentially so).

2) Do not give your name (when it is legal not to do so). The reason they gave for wanting your name was "I need it for the report my boss makes me write." Now I have no problem with a cop knowing my name, but I sure as hell do not want it permanently stored in any kind of reporting database that is going to be mined for who knows what at some future date.

Grapeshot · Feb 18, 2011

architect said:
I came away from the meeting having learned two valuable lessons:

1) Decline to participate in any and all "casual interactions." It appears that anything you say can and will be used against you whether in a court of law or to get you into one. This makes every LEO encounter adversarial (if only potentially so).

2) Do not give your name (when it is legal not to do so). The reason they gave for wanting your name was "I need it for the report my boss makes me write." Now I have no problem with a cop knowing my name, but I sure as hell do not want it permanently stored in any kind of reporting database that is going to be mined for who knows what at some future date.

1) Polite but firm and the shorter duration the better.

2) Too late to worry about that, I'm afraid. :lol:

crazydude6030 · Feb 18, 2011

architect said:
2) Do not give your name (when it is legal not to do so). The reason they gave for wanting your name was "I need it for the report my boss makes me write." Now I have no problem with a cop knowing my name, but I sure as hell do not want it permanently stored in any kind of reporting database that is going to be mined for who knows what at some future date.

I took this away as well but with a * next to it

*some localities may require the name to be given and it also depends on rather its day or night.

crazydude6030 · Feb 18, 2011

nova said:
So carrying a firearm is a suspicious activity and is no different than a creep taking pictures of kids at a playground?

They used that as an example. They also said they would go out on any call. I didn't get the impression that they would only harass people with firearms but anyone who was reported. They also used an example of a person walking down the street who was reported but never checked out then as it turned out a few days later he had raped a few people.

I'm not really 100% sure because there was a few bits of conflicting information being sent around the room. BUT
I think the point they were making was that people calling in can be ignorant and either misreport the facts or just wanna have someone checked out. At that point they will send someone out to get the real story. Again I think that's the point.

crazydude6030 · Feb 18, 2011

nova said:
I understood that part, that they dispatch for everything. However I didn't like the officer comparing a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm, to a pedo or a rapist.

He wasn't, it was an example of why they go out not a direct comparison.

ed · Feb 18, 2011

Repeater · Feb 18, 2011

Alleged creep

nova said:
So carrying a firearm is a suspicious activity and is no different than a creep taking pictures of kids at a playground?

Remember, any person with a camera is an alleged creep.

But seriously, what's creepier: taking pictures of kids, or taking pictures of a power plant?

Of course, taking pictures is not a crime, but Americans continue to get arrested -- and they continue to sue.

Tess · Feb 18, 2011

My takeaway from the meeting

My takeaway -

"We're police; we'll control the interaction."

When they couldn't answer a question to the questioner's satisfaction, they held up their hands in that "quiet, class" dismissive gesture, and moved on to the next question. It was educational, but I'm not sure they met their objectives. They did not convince me they respect all of my rights.

On the other hand, I felt the first question was confrontationally worded, and set the stage poorly. JMO.

crazydude6030 · Feb 18, 2011

Tess said:
On the other hand, I felt the first question was confrontationally worded, and set the stage poorly. JMO.

That first question was confusing as heck. I am not surprised the officers where by the door most of the night. I would have marked my escape route too had i been in their shoes :-D

user · Feb 18, 2011

crazydude6030 said:
One of the officers had given a hypothetical reason about a man with no kids taking pictures of children in a playground (or something to that effect). It seemed to me like they tried to come of with a "better safe then sorry attitude". So to be fair its not in dealing with MWG calls they were talking about but any calls dealing with suspicious persons.

Actually, what he said was that the man was taking pictures of the kids on the playground, with no kids around him. I would have figured that there were no kids around him because they're playing on the playground. But, then, everyone knows that only mothers take pictures of their children playing in playgrounds - fathers are supposed to be off working or something. Therefore, a man taking pictures of children in the playground is highly suspicious.

[signed] -- Mr. Mom of five, 1986 - 2010 (the youngest is now off seeking his fortune in C'ville).

VCDL Meeting - NOVA - Annandale - THU 02-17-2011

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate