ALERT: MI Sheriff's training on how to arrest OCers.

[Citizen]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

SNIP
Caution officers that the subject is not obliged to be cooperative.

Don’t lecture or make contact a test of wills.
Speak how you would like to be spoken to!

Don’t lecture or be judgmental.

That they felt they had to include these pointsspeaks volumes.

 

[Greggy_D]

imported post

It always astounds me that you are "not cooperative" if you invoke the Fifth Amendment and choose to STFU.

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

SNIP
Caution officers that the subject is not obliged to be cooperative.

Don’t lecture or make contact a test of wills.
Speak how you would like to be spoken to!

Don’t lecture or be judgmental.

That they felt they had to include these pointsspeaks volumes.

A biiig +1,000.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Greggy_D wrote:

It always astounds me that you are "not cooperative" if you invoke the Fifth Amendment and choose to STFU.

Yep. The cops redefined the word "cooperative." Its no surprise their version excludes your rights.

Just remember that by exercising your rights you are in fact cooperating to the full extent required by law and good citizenship. For comparison, look at how some people not-cooperate: spit, scream, hit, or kick the officer, run on foot--making him chase, run in a car--making the cop pursue.

I wonder whether one could sue for defamation if police tell the press you didn't cooperate, when all you did is exercise your rights?

 

[hopnpop]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Greggy_D wrote:

It always astounds me that you are "not cooperative" if you invoke the Fifth Amendment and choose to STFU.

I wonder whether one could sue for defamation if police tell the press you didn't cooperate, when all you did is exercise your rights?

Interesting point. I don't think that it would get anywhere in reality, but you make a good point. In fact I agree with your point but do defamation suits ever get anywhere?

 

[Venator]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

Venator wrote:

Keep in mind the slide show I posted was from early in the year and I think based on my comments to Mr. King has been modified a bit. So I think but am not sure that the latest version of the slide show is a bit better balanced.

I did hear that the presenters told of an incident in a northern small town that borders the woods of an 18 year old walking into town with his 14 year old brother. The 18 year old was OCing a pistol and carrying a shotgun (Coming out of the woods from hunting.) The both go into town to get a pop and the 18 year can't carry his guns into the store (Liquor license) so he hands them to his 14 year old brother to wait on the street while he goes in. Well someone calls the police and they investigate, they know OC is legal so they just called the parents and all ends well. Cute story I thought. In Warren they may have been arrested or worse.

I remember seeing this on TV, a good story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274138,00.html

Good story. It makes me sick that the one place he was asked to leave was the fricking American Legion. I wonder what all those vets fought for?

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

Venator wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

Venator wrote:

Keep in mind the slide show I posted was from early in the year and I think based on my comments to Mr. King has been modified a bit. So I think but am not sure that the latest version of the slide show is a bit better balanced.

I did hear that the presenters told of an incident in a northern small town that borders the woods of an 18 year old walking into town with his 14 year old brother. The 18 year old was OCing a pistol and carrying a shotgun (Coming out of the woods from hunting.) The both go into town to get a pop and the 18 year can't carry his guns into the store (Liquor license) so he hands them to his 14 year old brother to wait on the street while he goes in. Well someone calls the police and they investigate, they know OC is legal so they just called the parents and all ends well. Cute story I thought. In Warren they may have been arrested or worse.

I remember seeing this on TV, a good story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274138,00.html

Good story. It makes me sick that the one place he was asked to leave was the fricking American Legion. I wonder what all those vets fought for?

I agree the article kinda sucks, but the documentary I seen on TV was not so negative. I don't recall the show even mentioning the Legion. It was aired over five minutes ago, of courseI wouldn't remember.

 

[Venator]

imported post

The part where he states I attended is incorrect, but I did have eyes and ears there.

http://www.examiner.com/x-18561-Grand-Rapids-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d7-Open-Carry-Making-Headway

Open Carry Making Headway

October 7, 8:44 AM

Grand Rapids Gun Rights Examiner

Skip Coryell
A few days ago I got a call from a Michigan Sheriff who told me: "The Michigan Municipal League is making a presentation on open carry at the Sheriff's convention. I'll let you know what they say." This is the same municipal league who fought hard against the concealed carry law, so naturally I thought the worst. I just assumed they'd found a new strategy for arresting open carriers. (The old strategy wasn't working because sometimes when a misguided LEO arrests someone here a lawsuit against the municipality is filed.)

I called Brian Jeffs, President of Michigan Open Carry, and gave him a heads up thinking that he might want to attend the meeting. He did attend and afterward sent me the following email:

"Boy did you get it wrong. The talk wasn't about how to arrest OCers, just the opposite. It was about how you can't arrest them without facing a law suit."

"Okay, so I got it wrong. Would you believe that was the first time? Actually, this was one instance where I was thrilled to be wrong. Five years ago I was rabidly anti-Open Carry, but I've done a full about face since then and now support it to the max. Aside from being a basic human right, I believe it's a very important tool in the PR struggle to regain the hearts and minds of the public. There's nothing like a sunny picnic with kids playing on the swings, the smell of burgers on the grill, good talk with friends and family, and a gun strapped to every hip. I've become so supportive of open carry that I included five chapters on the topic in my last book "RKBA: Defending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms".

Brian emailed me a copy of the powerpoint presentation given by two Michigan Municipal League Attorneys and I read and viewed it with interest. The presentation started with an historical overview of court precedence including cases like "Terry Vs Ohio", "People Vs Champion" and "People Vs Oliver". The presentation said:

"The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.... The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."

That last sentence was music to my ears, not that I believe people should be harassing police, but rather because I believe police should not be harassing citizens simply because they're lawfully carrying a firearm. While the powerpoint presentation was biased against the act of open carry (They don't like it.) It dida great job at teaching officers where their legal and civil limits are. This is a huge step in the right direction.

I know a lot of cops, and the vast majority of them believe in our right to keep and bear arms whether openly or concealed and will not only "not harass" us but will vehemently defend our civil rights. Have I had bad experiences with cops who went too far? Of course! Live long enough and free enough and that's going to happen. But the important thing to me is that, at least here in Michigan, the police are being educated as to our civil rights and their limits.

Whether you believe open carry is good or bad, you have to agree that police knowing the law and upholding our right to keep and bear arms is a very good thing. After all, without that, we are nothing more than a police state. Yes, this was one time I was very happy to get it wrong.

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

Very awesome! I will be spreading it over my blogs, facebook, youtube, etc

too bad this doesnt do much to confrony Warren or Canton. LMAO I actually printed off the presentation an carry it so if i get harasses then lecturednto I can show them the lecturing page an OC civil rights page

:celebrate

 

[Michigander]

imported post

Haven't had any trouble in Warren lately, have we? Last time I was there at the coney lots of cops went by, none stopped.

With Canton, I don't really like chili, but I'm looking forward to the chili fest.

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

you should change the title of this thread as its very misleading still!

 

[jeremy05]

imported post

you should change the title of this thread as its very misleading still!

 

[Venator]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

you should change the title of this thread as its very misleading still!

I can't change the title, only John or Mike can. PM them and ask.

 

[PT111]

imported post

I want to thank Venator for posting the PP Presentation and suggest that everyone read it with an open mind before jumping off the deep end like so many did initally. There is a lot of good information in it and some conflicts with some of the BS spouted off on this and many other boards both from and to LEO about OC and rights.

The slide on Dispatch was particularly informative as if implemented would eliminate most MWAG call outs. If Dispatch does it's job about a MWAG call then the tactics described about waiting for back-up etc. make sense as it would be more than just a MWAG call. Think of it from a LEO point of view that you have been called out for a person that is armed and is exhibiting more suspicion than someone just walking down the street. You may be totally innocent but someone has described you as acting more than just a little suspicious if Dispatch has done their job. It takes everyone doing their job correctly.

The first slide in the OC section made the following statements:

Goes against society's culture- I am not sure about this but I really can't argue either way. In MI it probably is against Society's Culture but maybe not in Alaska. Either way I doubt that you will get a majority of citizens saying that it is fine to walk around with a gun on your side.

Flies in the face of all good judgement I would not have included this statement as I don't believe such a blanke statement can be made.

Is aginst every officer's instinct of survival - Just as we don't want the BG's walking around with guns the LEO's don't want the average citizen with one either. I can't argue with this statemen.

Is contrary to every officer's safety principle that is taught when confronted with armed offenders - This says "armed offenders", not fine up-standing law-abiding citizens. The problem is that the LEO doesn't know which you are and his "Instinct for survival" tells him that you are a BG until proven otherwise.

I posted the above comments so that maybe those who had not looked at the presentation mist just take a look and some who did but found it so distasteful they couldn't finish may take a second glance. The definition of a "Terry Stop" worth the effort alone. You may find some of the statements repugnant but there were none that I could find that werefactually incorrect, only opiniated incorrectly.

On the penultimate data slide the following was stated that is sure to get some people going.

Always thank the subject for their cooperation and explain that they are likely to have Open Carry encounters with police in the future.


However I don't think it can be denied that they will probably have more encounters but hopefully they will get to be less and less expecially with training such as this.

 

[Venator]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

I want to thank Venator for posting the PP Presentation and suggest that everyone read it with an open mind before jumping off the deep end like so many did initally. There is a lot of good information in it and some conflicts with some of the BS spouted off on this and many other boards both from and to LEO about OC and rights.

The slide on Dispatch was particularly informative as if implemented would eliminate most MWAG call outs. If Dispatch does it's job about a MWAG call then the tactics described about waiting for back-up etc. make sense as it would be more than just a MWAG call. Think of it from a LEO point of view that you have been called out for a person that is armed and is exhibiting more suspicion than someone just walking down the street. You may be totally innocent but someone has described you as acting more than just a little suspicious if Dispatch has done their job. It takes everyone doing their job correctly.

The first slide in the OC section made the following statements:

Goes against society's culture- I am not sure about this but I really can't argue either way. In MI it probably is against Society's Culture but maybe not in Alaska. Either way I doubt that you will get a majority of citizens saying that it is fine to walk around with a gun on your side.

Flies in the face of all good judgement I would not have included this statement as I don't believe such a blanke statement can be made.

Is aginst every officer's instinct of survival - Just as we don't want the BG's walking around with guns the LEO's don't want the average citizen with one either. I can't argue with this statemen.

Is contrary to every officer's safety principle that is taught when confronted with armed offenders - This says "armed offenders", not fine up-standing law-abiding citizens. The problem is that the LEO doesn't know which you are and his "Instinct for survival" tells him that you are a BG until proven otherwise.

I posted the above comments so that maybe those who had not looked at the presentation mist just take a look and some who did but found it so distasteful they couldn't finish may take a second glance. The definition of a "Terry Stop" worth the effort alone. You may find some of the statements repugnant but there were none that I could find that werefactually incorrect, only opiniated incorrectly.

On the penultimate data slide the following was stated that is sure to get some people going.

Always thank the subject for their cooperation and explain that they are likely to have Open Carry encounters with police in the future.


However I don't think it can be denied that they will probably have more encounters but hopefully they will get to be less and less expecially with training such as this.

Mr. King (co-author-presenter of this slide show) wrote an article on this topic in April in the MML newsletter, basically saying the same thing. I emailed him my comments both good and bad. He mentioned communicating with me at the most recent presentation of this talk to Michigan Sheriff's. From what I heard he may have modified this talk some. I guess I need to email him and ask for a recent copy and see.

 

[lapeer20m]

imported post

lots of good things in the presentation: Most of this powerpoint content is something that every open carrier should already know. RS, terry stop, free to go, etc.

here are some positive points from the presentation more officers should be aware of.

Slide 14 .O {font-size:149%;} [size=•][/size][size=[quote]When an officer literally has no idea whether a presumptively law-abiding citizen has violated the law, the Fourth Amendment clearly commands that government let the individual be. [/quote]][/size]
Slide 14 .O {font-size:149%;} [size=[quote]government may deprive its citizens of liberty when, and only when, it has a viable claim that an individual has committed a crime, and that claim is supported empirically by concrete and identifiable facts. [/quote]
Slide 23 .O {font-size:149%;} ][/size]

Possession of a pistol in a non-exempted place is NOT PROBABLE CAUSE or REASONABLE SUSPICION.

Slide 36 .O {font-size:149%;} [size=–][/size][size=[quote]Caution officers that the subject is not obliged to be cooperative. •Being a jackass is not a reason for arrest! •Contempt of cop is not a charge! [/quote]
Slide 37 .O {font-size:149%;} –][/size]

A note of caution should always exist that the incident could turn out to be open carry, so plan for de-escalation as soon as it is practical.

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

lapeer20m wrote:

lots of good things in the presentation:  Most of this powerpoint content is something that every open carrier should already know.  RS, terry stop, free to go, etc. 

here are some positive points from the presentation more officers should be aware of. 

Slide 14 .O {font-size:149%;} [size=•][/size][size=[quote]When an officer literally has no idea whether a presumptively law-abiding citizen has violated the law, the Fourth Amendment clearly commands that government let the individual be.

][/size]
Slide 14 .O {font-size:149%;} [size=[quote]government may deprive its citizens of liberty when, and only when, it has a viable claim that an individual has committed a crime, and that claim is supported empirically by concrete and identifiable facts. [/quote]
Slide 23 .O {font-size:149%;} ][/size]

Possession of a pistol in a non-exempted place is NOT PROBABLE CAUSE or REASONABLE SUSPICION.

Slide 36 .O {font-size:149%;} [size=–][/size][size=[quote]Caution officers that the subject is not obliged to be cooperative. •Being a jackass is not a reason for arrest! •Contempt of cop is not a charge! [/quote]
Slide 37 .O {font-size:149%;} –][/size]

A note of caution should always exist that the incident could turn out to be open carry, so plan for de-escalation as soon as it is practical.

[/quote]

None of those apply if you're an OC'er in Warren. :cuss: The way they stick a pistol barrel in your ear alone is enough to show their contempt for the law.

 

[hopnpop]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

None of those apply if you're an OC'er in Warren. :cuss: The way they stick a pistol barrel in your ear alone is enough to show their contempt for the law.

If I got a pistol barrel in my ear I'd sue them for a new pair of pants!!!

 

[manicdevery]

imported post

Very glad i read PP and all your comments.

Thanks to everyone, knowledge is more dangerous than my side arm.

 

[Slugslinger]

imported post

Let's hold off on flying this flag until it's been run up the pole!:cuss:

You think twice before you un-holster that pistol right?!? Sometimes words can be just as effective. No ones going to be arrested for legally doing anything without being presented with a fine opportunity for a lawsuit. I'm glad that we can get info right out via the Internet but the speculation needs to stay off the waves so we don't have boneheads running around presenting this as "fact":banghead:

point is-why talk like that untill plans to arrest us as we LEGALLY OC are in place.

:quirky:uhoh::dude::question:






:celebrate