Defendant had right to walk away from approaching Police officer

[suntzu]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

TFred wrote:

Maybe I'm just dumb... if I am outside, even near my house, and a police officer is approaching me at a relatively high rate of speed (in this case the officer was on a bike), and he/she starts yelling at me to STOP, I very well am going to stop, because I would be afraid that if I did not stop, I'm about to be SHOT!

What normal citizen would react in any other way? Am I supposed to yell back "Am I being DETAINED?"

Crazy!

TFred

Oh you have no idea!

I had times where people just flat out walked away. Their excuse?

"I didn't think you were talking to ME!"

If a police officer wants to stop me and I'm not doing anything and they begin to ask me questions about who I am and where I'm going--my response to them would be "with all due respect officer, if I'm not breaking a law and you have no reason to detain me--I'd like to be on my way, if not--why am I being detained and interrogated?" This would of course all be on audio as well.

We have the right to not be detained or arrested or searched just because someone has a "hunch". The Court of Appeals actually did a good job here in favor of the people. Articulable facts that a crime has or is being committed should always be present to justify detaining or searching a citizen--if LEOs have no articulable facts--then no stop should be made.

This individual should sue the city of Norfolk for violation of his rights.

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

Alright all you, I'm-not-a-lawyers. Good discussion. I'd like to get to the meat of this for a moment.
What's wrong with:
Cop: "Sir, Wait right there. Can I talk to you for a moment?"
Me: "Sir, am I under arrest?"
Cop: "Well, no but ..."
Me: "Am I being detained?"
Cop: "Uh, no, but ..."
Me: "Good day sir."

No questioning his RAS, PC, etc. No rudeness. No sprinting.

While avoiding rudeness and debate is good, you err in assuming the conversation would go as you've outlined above.

More likely:
Cop: "Sir, Wait right there. Can I talk to you for a moment?"
You: "Sir, am I under arrest?"
Cop: "Keep your hands where I can see them!"
You: "Am I being detained?"
Cop: "I need to see your ID."
You: "...ummm, I don't have to..."
Cop: "Have you been drinking tonight?"
You: "No!"
Cop: "Where are you coming from?"
You: "I'd rather not answ...."
Cop: "Do you have a license to carry a handgun?"
You: "I don't need a license to open..."
Cop: "What are you, some kind of lawyer?"
You: "No, I just... "
Cop: "Step over here and put your hands behind your head."
You: "Am I under arrest?"
Cop: "At this time, I'm going to remove your handgun for your safety."
You: (thinking): "My safety?"
You: "Am I free to leave?"
Cop: "You don't have anything else I need to be concerned with, do you? No knives, needles, hand grenades, nuclear bombs, illegal substances?"
You: (thinking): "WTF? Did he just ask if I had a nuclear bomb?"
You: Ummmm, no sir?
Cop: "Place your hands right here on the hood, I'll be right back." (as he takes your pistol and ID and call them in for wants and warrants.
You: (thinking): "WTF just happened?"

Do not ever assume that you can best a street cop with superior knowledge, wit or logic. By temperament, experience, and training, they will deflect all your questions while asking their own. They will seem nonsensical to the honest person, and the more honest and logical you are, the more it will throw you off your game.

This is Street Patrol 101. A rookie with four weeks under an FTO has dealt with more lying sociopaths than the average Middle Class American will encounter in a lifetime. That's just life down on the gritty reality of the streets. Unless you happen to be one of the good and honest people who grew up street-wary in bad circumstances (like my wife), or you've dealt with this professionally (cop, corrections, paramedic, ER, mental health, convenience store clerk, etc.), chances are that you really aren't prepared to be baffled.

The more you prepare these scripts in your head, the less likely they are to play out as you planned.

I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic. We should all prepare for these encounters, but it's a mistake to believe that those we encounter would respond as we would. If that were the case, there would be no encounter to start with.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

SNIP While avoiding rudeness and debate is good...it's a mistake to believe that those we encounter would respond as we would. If that were the case, there would be no encounter to start with.

+1

 

[suntzu]

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

ufcfanvt wrote:

Alright all you, I'm-not-a-lawyers. Good discussion. I'd like to get to the meat of this for a moment.
What's wrong with:
Cop: "Sir, Wait right there. Can I talk to you for a moment?"
Me: "Sir, am I under arrest?"
Cop: "Well, no but ..."
Me: "Am I being detained?"
Cop: "Uh, no, but ..."
Me: "Good day sir."

No questioning his RAS, PC, etc. No rudeness. No sprinting.

While avoiding rudeness and debate is good, you err in assuming the conversation would go as you've outlined above.

More likely:
Cop: "Sir, Wait right there. Can I talk to you for a moment?"
You: "Sir, am I under arrest?"
Cop: "Keep your hands where I can see them!"
You: "Am I being detained?"
Cop: "I need to see your ID."
You: "...ummm, I don't have to..."
Cop: "Have you been drinking tonight?"
You: "No!"
Cop: "Where are you coming from?"
You: "I'd rather not answ...."
Cop: "Do you have a license to carry a handgun?"
You: "I don't need a license to open..."
Cop: "What are you, some kind of lawyer?"
You: "No, I just... "
Cop: "Step over here and put your hands behind your head."
You: "Am I under arrest?"
Cop: "At this time, I'm going to remove your handgun for your safety."
You: (thinking): "My safety?"
You: "Am I free to leave?"
Cop: "You don't have anything else I need to be concerned with, do you? No knives, needles, hand grenades, nuclear bombs, illegal substances?"
You: (thinking): "WTF? Did he just ask if I had a nuclear bomb?"
You: Ummmm, no sir?
Cop: "Place your hands right here on the hood, I'll be right back." (as he takes your pistol and ID and call them in for wants and warrants.
You: (thinking): "WTF just happened?"

Do not ever assume that you can best a street cop with superior knowledge, wit or logic. By temperament, experience, and training, they will deflect all your questions while asking their own. They will seem nonsensical to the honest person, and the more honest and logical you are, the more it will throw you off your game.

This is Street Patrol 101. A rookie with four weeks under an FTO has dealt with more lying sociopaths than the average Middle Class American will encounter in a lifetime. That's just life down on the gritty reality of the streets. Unless you happen to be one of the good and honest people who grew up street-wary in bad circumstances (like my wife), or you've dealt with this professionally (cop, corrections, paramedic, ER, mental health, convenience store clerk, etc.), chances are that you really aren't prepared to be baffled.

The more you prepare these scripts in your head, the less likely they are to play out as you planned.

I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic. We should all prepare for these encounters, but it's a mistake to believe that those we encounter would respond as we would. If that were the case, there would be no encounter to start with.

+1 agreed

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

ufcfanvt wrote:

Alright all you, I'm-not-a-lawyers. Good discussion. I'd like to get to the meat of this for a moment.
What's wrong with:
Cop: "Sir, Wait right there. Can I talk to you for a moment?"
Me: "Sir, am I under arrest?"
Cop: "Well, no but ..."
Me: "Am I being detained?"
Cop: "Uh, no, but ..."
Me: "Good day sir."

No questioning his RAS, PC, etc. No rudeness. No sprinting.

While avoiding rudeness and debate is good, you err in assuming the conversation would go as you've outlined above.

More likely:
Cop: "Sir, Wait right there. Can I talk to you for a moment?"
You: "Sir, am I under arrest?"
Cop: "Keep your hands where I can see them!"
You: "Am I being detained?"
Cop: "I need to see your ID."
You: "...ummm, I don't have to..."
Cop: "Have you been drinking tonight?"
You: "No!"
Cop: "Where are you coming from?"
You: "I'd rather not answ...."
Cop: "Do you have a license to carry a handgun?"
You: "I don't need a license to open..."
Cop: "What are you, some kind of lawyer?"
You: "No, I just... "
Cop: "Step over here and put your hands behind your head."
You: "Am I under arrest?"
Cop: "At this time, I'm going to remove your handgun for your safety."
You: (thinking): "My safety?"
You: "Am I free to leave?"
Cop: "You don't have anything else I need to be concerned with, do you? No knives, needles, hand grenades, nuclear bombs, illegal substances?"
You: (thinking): "WTF? Did he just ask if I had a nuclear bomb?"
You: Ummmm, no sir?
Cop: "Place your hands right here on the hood, I'll be right back." (as he takes your pistol and ID and call them in for wants and warrants.
You: (thinking): "WTF just happened?"

Do not ever assume that you can best a street cop with superior knowledge, wit or logic. By temperament, experience, and training, they will deflect all your questions while asking their own. They will seem nonsensical to the honest person, and the more honest and logical you are, the more it will throw you off your game.

This is Street Patrol 101. A rookie with four weeks under an FTO has dealt with more lying sociopaths than the average Middle Class American will encounter in a lifetime. That's just life down on the gritty reality of the streets. Unless you happen to be one of the good and honest people who grew up street-wary in bad circumstances (like my wife), or you've dealt with this professionally (cop, corrections, paramedic, ER, mental health, convenience store clerk, etc.), chances are that you really aren't prepared to be baffled.

The more you prepare these scripts in your head, the less likely they are to play out as you planned.

I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic. We should all prepare for these encounters, but it's a mistake to believe that those we encounter would respond as we would. If that were the case, there would be no encounter to start with.

That's why you keep it SIMPLE.

"Am I free to leave?"

If he says "yes", LEAVE.

If he says "no", ask WHY.

If he won't tell you whether you're free to leave, ask a reasonable number of times. If he still won't answer, try to walk away. At that point, he HAS to give overt indications through words or deeds that you are not free to go, otherwise you ARE. If he uses an authoritative tone of voice to tell you to stop or physically restrains you, you're NOT free to leave.

Regardless of what follows, except to identify yourself and your place of residence, refuse to speak without an attorney present. Your example above violates that handy rule of thumb six ways to sunday. Refuse consent to ALL searches.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

you guys kill me with this stuff.....

And the nice thing is that knowing my legal rights only kills YOU.

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

you guys kill me with this stuff.....

And the nice thing is that knowing my legal rights only kills YOU.

No one is trying to take your legal rights away......geesh

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

you guys kill me with this stuff.....

And the nice thing is that knowing my legal rights only kills YOU.

No one is trying to take your legal rights away......geesh

It would seem that most/many disagree with the shopkeepers and cop apologists.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

you guys kill me with this stuff.....

And the nice thing is that knowing my legal rights only kills YOU.

No one is trying to take your legal rights away......geesh

Odd that you seem so put out at my KNOWING them. And even more odd that you seem even more put out by my being willing to EXERCISE them.

What's YOUR alternative?

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

you guys kill me with this stuff.....

And the nice thing is that knowing my legal rights only kills YOU.

No one is trying to take your legal rights away......geesh

Odd that you seem so put out at my KNOWING them. And even more odd that you seem even more put out by my being willing to EXERCISE them.

What's YOUR alternative?

Dean --

This has nothing to do with me being put out at youknowing or exercising your rights.....way off base.

Its just that once again, a thread that started with an innocent, interesting story has degenerated into an anti-police mantra. The "I'm going to ruin your career and take your house if you ask me a question" nonsense is ridiculous. What could have been a lively discussion on a court case has now become "How to sue a cop for asking your name". Look at these statements....

"cop who is trying to coerce consent"

"If a police officer approaches me, his personnel file is in jeopardy. Each and every misstep will be the subject of a bullet-point in a formal complaint, if not a lawsuit. If I am going to be in legal jeopardy. He is going to be in career jeopardy, or financial jeopardy, or both"

"the police can use various sneaky conversational tactics to get me to incriminate myself"

A good majority of people here seem to think that a cop wakes up in the morning and on his "to do" list for that day is #1 'Violating someone's civil rights' . Now we have blow by blow imaginary conversations on what you will say to bait a cop into violating your rights. What's next? 101 excuses to avoid a speeding ticket?Top 10 things to list in a 1983 lawsuit?

I can think of plenty of times where I've walked up to a person and asked them for their name, or for identification. Perhaps I was serving a civil paper and someone was John Smith Jr. vs. John Smith Sr.. I'm simply trying to verify which is which so that I can mark service correctly on the court's documents. Maybe someone who is from another country tells me that their name is Dimitrioploius Constantigliadore and I can't understand them when they spell that in broken English - I'd like to read it off something, like a driver's license. Perhaps I'm asking you if you live around here because I'm looking for a suspect and if you live there, you may have seen them, or something suspicious that may help me solve a crime. Maybe I needed to get your name to tell you that someone in your family was injured in a car accident. Not every interaction with a cop involves him trying to circumvent your legal rights.

In 12 years in LE, I can say that I never saw any officer harass anyone who was lawfully carrying a handgun. Now that I've spent the last year and a half on the civilian side, I've never been stopped, harassed, intimidated, questioned, interrogated or anything of the like by law enforcement and I carry every day.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

...SNIP

This has nothing to do with me being put out at youknowing or exercising your rights.....way off base.

Its just that once again, a thread that started with an innocent, interesting story has degenerated into an anti-police mantra.

SNIP...

I do not see it that way. Certainly a few have suggested that enforcing their rights might end up in court and with civil suits, I do not see any of that as Bashing.

Frankly I may have misread your comment that the scenarios presented are "killing you". I thought you meant you were finding some humor in them as presented.

In a more general context, what I do see in a lot of threads is hyperbolic discussion, coupled with a lot of postulation, based on hypothetical situations. For some reason, the LE folks see this as LEO bashing, when in fact is is really just hypothetical discussion. All the LE folks keep yelling "That never happened" and they are right because it is a hypothetical. I don't understand why they can't see and accept that. During those discussions statements like "Sue him", "Get him fired" and the like are a short hand meaning that the person would stand up for their rights.

Now I would concede that outright name calling is uncalled for. Without listing a lot of specific terms and references intended to be offensive, you guys all know the kinds of term I mean. A LEO is nothing more than a human doing a job. They bring to that job all the human failings each of us brings to the job. Do a few abuse the authorities they have? Yes we all know that. But guess what everyone does that to a certain extent on their job and it is unreasonable to scapegoat LEOs and act like that does not happen.

Now before all you guys jump in with the "Yes but police have power over citizens". All of us know and understand all that, and it has all been said before. The fact is that most LEOs are good folks doing a good job at what we pay them for. Yes there are a few bad ones, and yes they can and do cause a lot of problems. But that does not justify the name calling pages of back and forth flame wars on that topic.

The fact is you guys should all stop directing your energy at the tools of enforcement of unjust laws, and start focusing all your energy on the courts, legislatures and local governments that are empowering them. If you want more accountability in your police force, get your local government to disband you local police force and return to the Sheriff system. At least Sheriffs are elected and directly accountable to the people. A police force is accountable ONLY to the local governing body, not directly to the people.

Last we should all remember that this forum is now receiving aninternational audience. A lot of that attention is from press organizations and legislators. I know everyone feels strongly about these issues but lets try to make the place look professional by eliminating all this name calling about LEOs. We can discuss these issues without all that intentionally derogatory language and flaming.

Regards

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

The "I'm going to ruin your career and take your house if you ask me a question" nonsense is ridiculous.

Who said that? Not me.

I said I'd ruthlessly go after a cop in court who violated my rights. And I meant every word of it. Any reason why I SHOULDN'T? Any reason why the cop shouldn't go afterME civilly if I wrongfully harm HIM?

I won't physically resist a cop, regardless of what he does that violates my rights. As an alternative to physical resistance, I reserve the right to destroy his life as he knows it using the civil court system. And believe me, there are places where that is the ONLY way to get redress if a cop not just violates your rights, but in fact if he wrongfully KILLS you.

And whether you care to admit it, there ARE cops who get up in the morning with the idea of violating the law and people's rights. The names Jon Burge, Jerome Finnegan, and Keith Herrera come to mind.

The idea that ALL cops are criminals is silly. The idea that NO cops are criminals is just as silly and a lot more dangerous.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

...SNIP

The idea that ALL cops are criminals is silly. The idea that NO cops are criminals is just a silly and a lot more dangerous.

Exactly. The people on this forum are intelligent enough to raise the level of discourse such that it does not include name calling and still make their points.

Regards

 

[Repeater]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

Look at these statements....

cop who is trying to coerce consent

Well, I'm the one who wrote that. Do you have a problem with that? LEO's attempt to coerce consent all the time, or the appellate courts wouldn't have to deal with the issue so often. Even the usually pro-government Court of Appeals had to reverse a conviction because the cops gave the guy an ultimatum: Consent to our "request" (demands) -- or else! Or else we will hold you up while we call the drug dogs out on you and sniff out your vehicle.

Middlebrooks v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 52 Va. App. 469, 664 S.E.2d 499 (2008).

The court found that holding up Middlebrooks for the arrival of the drug dogs amounted to an illegal seizure. His only alternative would have been to capitulate to the officer's demands (request).

Walking away remains a good way to avoid an abusive cop. While it is certainly true that most cops are not abusive, you really can't tell by looking and there's no point in finding out the hard way.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

And whether you care to admit it, there ARE cops who get up in the morning with the idea of violating the law and people's rights.

I think I am going to have to agree here. But Thank God, it's not 50%, 60% or 70% of them. And probably not even 80% of them.

I think the racist cop in this video went to work every single day of his short lived career with the intention of treating certain groups of people he came into contact withvery differently. Flagrant racism is a violation of the law and people's rights.

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/local/30192389.html

EDIT: spelled people wrong

 

[ChanFu]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Repeater wrote:

Citizen wrote:

TFred wrote:

SNIP That's why this ruling seems so puzzling... apparently walking away despite your yelling at them to stop is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Thankfully Mendenhall expressly includestone of voice on the part of the officer as a possible circumstanceor sign of whether a reasonable person wouldfeel free to disregard an officer's inquiries and walk away.

I like the idea that you are truly free if you can walk away from a cop who is trying to coerce consent, something of an oxymoron, I suppose.

Suppose you are freely walking about, open-carrying. A cop, seeing the exposed gun, wants to talk to you. You don't. you keep walking. The cop asks/orders you to stop. You refuse.

You are supposed to have that right. Yes, asserting your constitutional rights in the presence of a belligerent LEO can be dangerous. But ultimately, are we Sovereign, or are we Sheeple?

I see your point.

But, you have to include the other parts of the picture. If the copconsiders he's got RAS to involuntarily stop you, and you refuse, he'sgoing touse force to effect your temporary seizure.

In VA, if you resist, you're in trouble. See Commonwealth vs Hill. Obstruction would be the least charge, I'm guessing. Assaulting a police officer, if you hit him.

Yes, you have the right. But only if the court determines after the encounter that you had that right during the encounter. I think itsHill that discusses or quotes to the effect that close questionson this subject should not be fought-out on the streets, rather decided in the courtroom--meaning the court gets to decide.

So, it may be moreaccurate to say, "You mighthave the right.Its just that youlikely won't know for sure until a court says youhad it during theencounter. And since you can't do a whole lot about it anyway withouttriggering a forceful response from the cop, and further resistanceafter that mightgetchargeswhen you might have gotten no charges by cooperating, you really havelittle or no way to safely exercise that rightduring an involuntaryencounter."



Commonwealth vs Hill (look for case number1012526 when the search return page comes up. Itshould be near the top):

http://www.courts.state.va.us/searchs/textopinions_g.idq?searchterm=resist+unlawful+detention&gflag=g

Good argument. For, "involuntarily stop" read, "detain" (probable cause is always assumed, as you say). Except for outrageously obvious circumstances, a LEO's word has priority over yours in court. And don't dare go in there and whine about your Constitutional or even locally legal rights. For all intents and purposes, there is no longer a Constitution and America's Police State status has been established since the afternoon of 9/11. There are really only 4 possible outcomes in a situation like this, and in 3/4 of them, you're either dead or in prison. Considering the circumstances in America today, whether OC or CC, the one thing you need to leave home, locked securely in the gun safe, is your ego. Your freedom, such as it was, is hostage to fear and power - locked safely away in D.C., but on loan to any LEO.

I keep my ID and CCP in quick-draw, flip-out, plastic

I'm a newbie here, but it's a pretty reasonable forum. I'm always surprised that OC is not subject to the same principles as CC (proof of gun safety training, criminal record examination, all the Va. conditions for purchasing a handgun, etc.) - it's a legal loophole just as "gun shows" are. I'm sure you've been to "gun shows" and I'm sure that you understand that they're pwned by gun dealers who pretend not to be gun dealers just to sell guns for +retail simply to avoid the troublesome issue of proving
(heh...) competent ownership.

All that said, there are a few reasons (some quite subtle) for OC as it now stands. The first two, IMO, are to appear armed (which is actually a threat) and to exercise an established legal right. The reason I think that OC requirements should parallel CC requirements is obvious. In opposition, what the OC laws and the "private sale" laws do is circumvent the competency requirements of both the Federal Firearms act and State CC requirements. Upsetting the psychological balance of normal society by toting an obvious weapon because it's "legal" is foolish. That's just my opinion, of course, as reason permits.

I'm a life member of the NRA and a two-tour Vietnam veteran. I have a law degree and I defend the Constitution of the United States in any way I can. Feels kinda like the Alamo right now...

Cheers

 

[suntzu]

imported post

Repeater wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

Look at these statements....

cop who is trying to coerce consent

Well, I'm the one who wrote that. Do you have a problem with that? LEO's attempt to coerce consent all the time, or the appellate courts wouldn't have to deal with the issue so often. Even the usually pro-government Court of Appeals had to reverse a conviction because the cops gave the guy an ultimatum: Consent to our "request" (demands) -- or else! Or else we will hold you up while we call the drug dogs out on you and sniff out your vehicle.

Middlebrooks v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 52 Va. App. 469, 664 S.E.2d 499 (2008).

The court found that holding up Middlebrooks for the arrival of the drug dogs amounted to an illegal seizure. His only alternative would have been to capitulate to the officer's demands (request).

Walking away remains a good way to avoid an abusive cop. While it is certainly true that most cops are not abusive, you really can't tell by looking and there's no point in finding out the hard way.

Indeed they do. They also try to make you feel like a criminal if you refuse consent--words such as "well if you have nothing to hide--why not just let us search?"

They just don't understand the term "no officer, I do not consent to search, and no, I refuse to allow you inside my home." If they have to ask--they have no reason OR justification for a search--and learn to accept that no means no--and let it go at that. Quit trying to shame the people, quit trying to intimidate the people--and treat us with respect and decency--that is not so much to ask.

 

[ChanFu]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

you guys kill me with this stuff.....

And the nice thing is that knowing my legal rights only kills YOU.

No one is trying to take your legal rights away......geesh

Odd that you seem so put out at my KNOWING them. And even more odd that you seem even more put out by my being willing to EXERCISE them.

What's YOUR alternative?

Dean --

This has nothing to do with me being put out at youknowing or exercising your rights.....way off base.

Its just that once again, a thread that started with an innocent, interesting story has degenerated into an anti-police mantra. The "I'm going to ruin your career and take your house if you ask me a question" nonsense is ridiculous. What could have been a lively discussion on a court case has now become "How to sue a cop for asking your name". Look at these statements....

"cop who is trying to coerce consent"

"If a police officer approaches me, his personnel file is in jeopardy. Each and every misstep will be the subject of a bullet-point in a formal complaint, if not a lawsuit. If I am going to be in legal jeopardy. He is going to be in career jeopardy, or financial jeopardy, or both"

"the police can use various sneaky conversational tactics to get me to incriminate myself"

A good majority of people here seem to think that a cop wakes up in the morning and on his "to do" list for that day is #1 'Violating someone's civil rights' . Now we have blow by blow imaginary conversations on what you will say to bait a cop into violating your rights. What's next? 101 excuses to avoid a speeding ticket?Top 10 things to list in a 1983 lawsuit?

I can think of plenty of times where I've walked up to a person and asked them for their name, or for identification. Perhaps I was serving a civil paper and someone was John Smith Jr. vs. John Smith Sr.. I'm simply trying to verify which is which so that I can mark service correctly on the court's documents. Maybe someone who is from another country tells me that their name is Dimitrioploius Constantigliadore and I can't understand them when they spell that in broken English - I'd like to read it off something, like a driver's license. Perhaps I'm asking you if you live around here because I'm looking for a suspect and if you live there, you may have seen them, or something suspicious that may help me solve a crime. Maybe I needed to get your name to tell you that someone in your family was injured in a car accident. Not every interaction with a cop involves him trying to circumvent your legal rights.

In 12 years in LE, I can say that I never saw any officer harass anyone who was lawfully carrying a handgun. Now that I've spent the last year and a half on the civilian side, I've never been stopped, harassed, intimidated, questioned, interrogated or anything of the like by law enforcement and I carry every day.

Where's "LE"? Los Engleses?

You seem to be a cop and a sensible one.

When we don't have any more sensible cops who know the law and try to enforce it,
we'll probabably be relying on Blackwater employees who were guerrillas in Colombia... Oh, wait....

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

ChanFu wrote:

...SNIP

I have a law degree

SNIP...

Well that explains a lot. But what it does not explain is all the other alvine discharge in your post.

Clearly the law school you went to is very different from the one most other lawyers went to. Most of them do not view our RIGHTS as a "Loop hole". The fact that YOU like the "reasonable restrictions" part of the current thinking in the courts does not make it correct or legal. You may beg to the court for your rights as you wish, but do not presume to force that requirement on the rest of us.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

SNIP 1. "If a police officer approaches me, his personnel file is in jeopardy. Each and every misstep will be the subject of a bullet-point in a formal complaint, if not a lawsuit. If I am going to be in legal jeopardy. He is going to be in career jeopardy, or financial jeopardy, or both"

2. "the police can use various sneaky conversational tactics to get me to incriminate myself"

1. The other side of the coinbeing that a cop who deeply respects my constitutional rights and does fully observe them has nothing to worry about.

I'm notsure if you realize it, ProShooter, butyour objection seems to be anobjectionto exercising rights and pushing back when they're pushed on.

2. Yes. I am a rights advocate. I've read too many accounts of some police using various tactics that would indicate they view the Bill of Rights as something to try to get around, rather than a bright line in the sand that deserves genuine respect from every American. It cannot possibly be valid for some police to use the discussed tactics against citizens, without it being even more valid for citizens to use the same tactics to discover and handle government agents who are out of line, citizens of a country where the government is subservient to the citizens, where the government derives its powers from the citizens.