I would like to point out that this situation is being discussed over on gundigest.com; it is on the main page and titled "CCW profiling." The officer who has written the article says that MKEgal's situation could have been avoided if she just would have shown some courtesy. I guess the writers at Gun Digest believe giving up our rights and freedom is what we should all do. How about this: this could have been avoided if they would have let her be when she told them to call the owner and confirm her right to be there, or I know, this whole thing could have been avoided if THE INSANE OFFICERS DIDN'T ARREST HER FOR CONCEALING A FIREARM WHEN SHE WASN'T CONCEALING A FIREARM!!!!
Take a look at the comments as well. One poster by the name of "observer" believes it best to temporarily confiscate legally possessed weapons for HIS SAFETY! I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but our rights trump his safety. Until an officer can deem someone a threat, they have no right to violate our freedoms (at least they don't here in KY). I am entering the field of law enforcement because I want to help people. Will I disarm people because I am afraid of the job? No! If I can't allow people to exercise their rights because I am too afraid, then it would probably be best to find a different career. The poster says once you look down the barrel of a gun it makes an officer realize they need to disarm anyone with a weapon. Well, I have looked down the barrel of a gun, and I am not afraid of a gun now anymore than I was before this incident. This just shows the mentality of most of our "peace officers" today. Please go to the article and take up for her actions, and for what is right.
This article is just what I expect from a cop.
Kevin D. Michalowski COP and article author said:
"Officer Benitez and another officer approached the driver of the car who was sitting there, computer open, looking at the internet, because they said the scene looked suspicious. I’m a cop. I know about Terry Stops. This likely qualifies.
This is what the court said:
In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren wrote
And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. (392 U.S. at 21)
You think "looked suspicious" = specific and articulable facts which point to a crime? HA!
Kevin D. Michalowski COP and article author said:
The cops say they want to see some ID....Now, in some cases, it is your right to refuse to talk to the police......But if something is out of the ordinary, then things change.
Something feels out of the ordinary = RAS? Christ.
Kevin D. Michalowski COP and article author said:
But it all could have been avoided with some common courtesy........ In the end, the citizen won the court case. But did she win the larger battle? She still got arrested that night. She could have avoided that
I like this implication that the lack of courtesy lead to the charges,
NOT any actual crimes she was charged with.
It's probably correct.
If you are not doing anything illegal,
AND you properly prostrate your self for the cops, you can probably avoid arrest. But it apparently has to be both.