Encounter at 7-11

[LEO 229]

imported post

possumboy wrote:

Whata BS answer - "You have to be F-ing kidding me [LEO 229]. This person did nothing. Based on what you said, he could ask anyone for ID, just because he thought he was a felon.

Carrying a firearm in not a crime. PERIOD, no questions about that. Case laws even let felons go free because of LEOs doing this BS. This in not "find[ing] bad guys" This is f-ing up and giving lawyers a paycheck and letting a criminal go free.

This would be same as an officer asking to see ID to everyone that walked in front of a school because the officer suspects them of be a sex offender. Even if the person doesn't even slow down.

The poster did nothing to give the officer the impression he was doing anything illegal. So no, it was not justified comment about being a felon.

Also, stop with the donut to bagel comparison here. I wonder how many drug arrest happen when they are doing something like getting a slushy and are just asked for ID.

He did nothing wrong and neither did the cop. They spoke to each other and he went on his way unobstructed. It is not a crime to ask questions.

In police work... you have to ask questions. You are not going to scratch a winning ticket every time but if you do not play... you will never get anything.

Giving cash to a guy on the street is not a crime either.. but sometimes it turns out to be a drug deal. Not everything is always as innocent as it appears.

You have no clue how many innocent encounters turned into major things. A traffic stop for a lane change turns up meth and big time cash.

In your logic.. the officer should only ask for a license and registration. He should not ask any other questions that may hint to criminal wrong doing that turns out to be a body in the trunk.

You truly have no clue what really goes on in the world....

 

[doug23838]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP I was unaware it was a violation to talk to someone and ask questions.

This was a little more than just talking to someone and asking questions:

Can I see your ID?

Huh?

Can I see your ID and make sure your not a felon?

No.

Don't you want to help out law enforcement and help me to verify that your not wanted or your a felon?

No. I don't consent to a search nor will I show you my ID.

Why do you have an issue with me seeing your ID?

Because, I'm not required by law to show you and I don't consent to a search. I'm not doing anything wrong or illegal.

If your not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem letting me see your ID. Your already scaring people by openly carrying a pistol in public.

I don't consent. Thanks tho and have a good night.

...Left 7-11 and went towards my car. Officer followed me out and wrote down my license plate numbers....

AND???!!!!!

Big F-ing deal!! Whaathe cop asked some questions.. Boo Hoo!!

Leo. Here's the blue line in action. You're on one side, me on the other. And (for me) it comes down to one thing. And it isn't that the cop asked a few questions. The cop did what most of us expect cops to do, (look for criminals).

The rub (to me) in this encounter is this:

Don't you want to help out law enforcement and help me to verify that your not wanted or your a felon?

(edited for brevity)
If your not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem letting me see your ID. Your already scaring people by openly carrying a pistol in public.

A: It isn't my responsibility to offer proof of my innocence.

B: The whole "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't object." tactic is steeped in aiding those without any cause to gain some.

Consider:

If I have no narcotics in my home, then I should not object to an unwarranted search? If I have not been fighting with my wife I should not object to a search for bruises? IfI no porn in my home, I should not object to the confiscation of my computer tosearch for it?

NO. I should object MORE.

Finally, the cop in this encounter makes an assertion that the open carry is "scaring people." To know this, he would have to know the thoughts, or observe by the actions, the behavior of others. Were they cowering behind the Fritos? Sweating profusely, with fixed stare, one hand on the emergency exit? Probably not so the "scaring people" was probably a Freudian slip at his own insecurity that some citizen had the testicular fortitude to carry a gun openly and not show his ID when requested.

As for the cop running the license plates. Form an LLC. Register your car in the name of your LLC. This will break the linkage between your car, you, and the fact that you have a CHP. Run the tags and the dispatcher says back to you: Vehicle is owend by "Bubba Gump Shrimpin LLC"

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

doug23838 wrote:

Leo. Here's the blue line in action. You're on one side, me on the other. And (for me) it comes down to one thing. And it isn't that the cop asked a few questions. The cop did what most of us expect cops to do, (look for criminals).

The rub (to me) in this encounter is this:

Don't you want to help out law enforcement and help me to verify that your not wanted or your a felon?

(edited for brevity)
If your not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem letting me see your ID. Your already scaring people by openly carrying a pistol in public.

A: It isn't my responsibility to offer proof of my innocence.

B: The whole "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't object." tactic is steeped in aiding those without any cause to gain some.

Consider:

If I have no narcotics in my home, then I should not object to an unwarranted search? If I have not been fighting with my wife I should not object to a search for bruises? IfI no porn in my home, I should not object to the confiscation of my computer tosearch for it?

NO. I should object MORE.

Finally, the cop in this encounter makes an assertion that the open carry is "scaring people." To know this, he would have to know the thoughts, or observe by the actions, the behavior of others. Were they cowering behind the Fritos? Sweating profusely, with fixed stare, one hand on the emergency exit? Probably not so the "scaring people" was probably a Freudian slip at his own insecurity that some citizen had the testicular fortitude to carry a gun openly and not show his ID when requested.

As for the cop running the license plates. Form an LLC. Register your car in the name of your LLC. This will break the linkage between your car, you, and the fact that you have a CHP. Run the tags and the dispatcher says back to you: Vehicle is owend by "Bubba Gump Shrimpin LLC"

It is not that I am on either side... There is only one side being bashed here and without just cause. The only reason is because the person was a cop. I see that neither person did anything wrong.

Both had the right to ask questions or walk away. Some members here do not like that one was able to do so while in uniform. I never see them attack citizens asking questions from OCers. This is OK... since they are not cops.

Your examples were not the same.. Showing an ID card is far different then going into your home. Your ID has no incriminating or embarrassing information on it.

If the cop thinks the weapon is scaring people then so be it. He is entitled to his opinion. Many people are scared of guns and maybe he witnessed some reactions.

 

[possumboy]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

He did nothing wrong and neither did the cop. They spoke to each other and he went on his way unobstructed. It is not a crime to ask questions.

In police work... you have to ask questions. You are not going to scratch a winning ticket every time but if you do not play... you will never get anything.

Giving cash to a guy on the street is not a crime either.. but sometimes it turns out to be a drug deal. Not everything is always as innocent as it appears.

You have no clue how many innocent encounters turned into major things. A traffic stop for a lane change turns up meth and big time cash.

In your logic.. the officer should only ask for a license and registration. He should not ask any other questions that may hint to criminal wrong doing that turns out to be a body in the trunk.

You truly have no clue what really goes on in the world....

WOW you got me, I know nothing about what goes on in the the world... Your so SMRT! You know what I do everyday of my life! Will you take care of me and cuddle me, and pat me on my head and call me George also?

Did I say the officer did anything wrong? I said the felon comment was notjustified. Did I say officers should not ask questions? I said they should respect peoples rights when invoked. Did I say the grass was the color of peaches?

Lets break downyour points.

"He did nothing wrong and neither did the cop. They spoke to each other and he went on his way unobstructed. It is not a crime to ask questions."
He did more than ask questions, he accused the OP of being a felon. Please read all the information provide. Not just what may prove what you want to prove. Wait, I believe you did read it all, just it didn't help you.

"Giving cash to a guy on the street is not a crime either.. but sometimes it turns out to be a drug deal. Not everything is always as innocent as it appears."
Was not done here, unimportant reference. Also, this is usually not a one time thing. A smart LEO will watch the person receiving the money to try to get a pattern. What was the point of this comment?

"You have no clue how many innocent encounters turned into major things. A traffic stop for a lane change turns up meth and big time cash."
Stop speaking from ignorance, you have no idea what I do and do not know. I have never questioned what you know. You may not be the only person in law enforcement on this board.

"In your logic.. the officer should only ask for a license and registration. He should not ask any other questions that may hint to criminal wrong doing that turns out to be a body in the trunk."
I may throw a warning flag on this. Where did you get this? Did the monkey in your a$$ hand it to you? I have always said officers could ask just about anything. But accusing a person who only committed a traffic violation to the officer's knowledge ofbeing a murdereris unprofessional. Stop making things up. Asking to search is OK. Accusing the person of being a murder because their is always the possibility of a body in the trunk is just plain stupid.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

possumboy wrote:

WOW you got me, I know nothing about what goes on in the the world... Your so SMRT! You know what I do everyday of my life! Will you take care of me and cuddle me, and pat me on my head and call me George also?

Did I say the officer did anything wrong? I said the felon comment was notjustified. Did I say officers should not ask questions? I said they should respect peoples rights when invoked. Did I say the grass was the color of peaches?

Lets break downyour points.

"He did nothing wrong and neither did the cop. They spoke to each other and he went on his way unobstructed. It is not a crime to ask questions."
He did more than ask questions, he accused the OP of being a felon. Please read all the information provide. Not just what may prove what you want to prove. Wait, I believe you did read it all, just it didn't help you.

"Giving cash to a guy on the street is not a crime either.. but sometimes it turns out to be a drug deal. Not everything is always as innocent as it appears."
Was not done here, unimportant reference. Also, this is usually not a one time thing. A smart LEO will watch the person receiving the money to try to get a pattern. What was the point of this comment?

"You have no clue how many innocent encounters turned into major things. A traffic stop for a lane change turns up meth and big time cash."
Stop speaking from ignorance, you have no idea what I do and do not know. I have never questioned what you know. You may not be the only person in law enforcement on this board.

"In your logic.. the officer should only ask for a license and registration. He should not ask any other questions that may hint to criminal wrong doing that turns out to be a body in the trunk."
I may throw a warning flag on this. Where did you get this? Did the monkey in your a$$ hand it to you? I have always said officers could ask just about anything. But accusing a person who only committed a traffic violation to the officer's knowledge ofbeing a murdereris unprofessional. Stop making things up. Asking to search is OK. Accusing the person of being a murder because their is always the possibility of a body in the trunk is just plain stupid.

It is obvious to me.. you don't really do not have a clue.

The cop was not accusing the guy of BEING a felon.... He used it in a manor to explain what he was looking for and that the person should not have any reason to worry unless he was.

Just like when your friends say.. "Your not a chicken are you" Or "Are you a baby?" It is just a means to get that person to go with it. I am sure you have done this with people you know. It is a mind game.

You may not like it.... but there is nothing wrong in how it was said. Cops can play mind games and they can lie to you. You are entitled to do the same.

Finally.. are you saying YOU area cop?

Wait.. if you tell me "no"... I will stop asking you questions because I do not want to upset you.:lol:


The bottom line is this gentlemen... GET OVER IT!! Cops ask questions and you do not have to answer. So stop bitching!


My monkey and I need to get some sleep.. Good night!

 

[ChinChin]

imported post

Dear heavens I can't beleive I'm about to type this. . .

I agree with LEO229.

Based upon the AAR by the OP I just don't see what amounts to any misconduct by the police.

He talked to the OP, asked (not demanded) to see ID. OP in essence said "no thank you" and walked.

Yes the Cop didn't mask taking down the plate number, but as others have pointed out you get that leaving the airport now. We've all had our plates run countless times by LEOs and never even knew it. Using the Tony's incidnet as the litmus test, this doesn't even compare.

When an officer has an additude and harasses, we should call them on it without question. This officer just doesn't fit that bill.

 

[zoom6zoom]

imported post

Your ID has no incriminating or embarrassing information on it.

I don't know about that... the picture is pretty bad!

 

[TheApostle]

imported post

Deprivation of liberty can come from any direction. I see no deprivation in this encounter. The OP did well. Officer did well. Liberty was preserved, and everyone went home safe. Can we not rejoice in a good day for Virginians?



Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept..."

 

[ufcfanvt]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote

Sorry... The tags belong to the DMV and the police can run them when they deem it necessary. In this case... I think he can justify it.

Nice try though..


We run everybody's tag at the red light. This is how we discover stolen cars. If we could not run tags.. people in stolen cars would NEVER get caught if they obey the traffic laws.

So if you want to complain about us running tags.. please do not complain that we are taking too long to get your stolen car back. :lol:

I'm definitely not complaining about he police power to run tags. That is certainly legit. I am complaining about the retaliatory nature of this tag run, especially it was obviously being done in order to obtain what the LEO in this situation had no right to, this orderly, law-abiding gentleman's ID.

 

[ufcfanvt]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I cannot believe your actually prompting someone to complain just to get the cops file thicker when you know knew he did nothing wrong.

Just because you are asked a question or checked out does not mean a complaint is in order. Drug dealers do this in DC to cops they know make drug arrests. Once enough complaints have been made the officer is removed from the area and is less productive. Is that what your looking for?

You want cops to go out and find bad guys... but in the same breath you want to complain when they ask a question. The guy was not forced to do anything and the officer simply made requests and allowed the person to walk away.
rou
This is worth making a bullshit complaint over? Just to get his jacket thicker?

You have to be F-ing kidding me Citizen.I just have lost all respect for you now. :cuss:

Bad guys don't open carry. PW police have been warned. There is no reason to use these sorts of tactics on a citizen who's going about his business.

If it comes out that Xeni was parading around w/ 5 "Hos" and throwing up gang signs while passing money around on the streets, we'll ALL be wrong.

Until then, he's a law-abiding, Big Gulp drinking citizen w/ no intention of hurting anyone. Run his plates if you want to, but intimidating and harassing him make the police look worse.

 

[ufcfanvt]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

None of really like to be checked out.... but there are times when it is permitted and does not cause any harm to you physically.

Copscan be persistent... I would submit that the cop was not looking to hassle the guy.. he just wanted to check him out and be sure the guy was legal and all.

But he did let the guy go and did not physically stop him.

Your point is very well taken and I agree. It was a positive encounter. This is a forum though for the RIGHT to carry a gun openly. A right is not something to be questioned by an agent of the state. That is what happened here.
I also would be offended by two things:
1) the LEO questioning if this guy was a felon
2) the LEO doing a back-door ID check when refused the front-door.

Again, these are tools the LEO has and I would not want to take them away, but it is our right to complain when these tools are used recklessly or w/out merit. The system works! :celebrate

 

[W.E.G.]

imported post

I don't know whether the Arlington County police department tries to enforce this statute or not. But, be careful if you are in that jurisdiction.

Arlington County Code §17-13(c)

"Identification. It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification."

It would appear that verbal identification is all that is required. The triggering requirement is highly subjective. While many on this board would like to believe otherwise, the presence of a firearm - no matter how innocuous - is probably going to pass muster for an inquiry as to identity.

In any event, better be damn sure of yourself if you play the "I'm not showing ID" game with the police.

Sounds like the cop in this instance knew the limits of his authority. He was probing the OP. Sure, go complain. If it makes you feel better. You're kidding yourself though if you think this guy's Chief is gonna initiate any adverse action toward the officer.

 

[mobeewan]

imported post

Renegade wrote:

Here is another version to consider:

LEO - Excuse me, can I ask if you are a prostitute?

Nope, just a girl walking home from school.

LEO - Then, why are your carrying reproductive organs?

Mostly for self pleasure.

LEO - Why do you need them?

Because I live in Prince William County.

LEO - Well, how do I know you're not gonna attract any studs like me?

I won't. But, I don't know if you are gonna pop off in your pants either.

LEO - I won't, I've gone through background checks to wear this black leather mask and shiny badge.

...

LEO - Can I see your breasts?

Huh?

LEO - Can I see your reproductive organs and make sure you are not a prostitute?

No.

LEO - Don't you want to help out law enforcement and help me to verify that your not wanted or you are a prostitute?

No. I don't consent to a search nor will I show you my reproductive organs.

LEO - Why do you have an issue with me seeing your breasts?

Because, I'm not required by law to show you and I don't consent to a search. I'm not doing anything wrong or illegal.

LEO - If your not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem letting me see your reproductive organs. Your already attracting people by displaying your attractive face and properly clothed body in public.

I don't consent to your perverted search. Thanks tho and have a good night...by yourself.

NO MEANS NO!

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are, that's funny.

I laughed so hard my sides are sore.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

Bad guys don't open carry. PW police have been warned. There is no reason to use these sorts of tactics on a citizen who's going about his business.

If it comes out that Xeni was parading around w/ 5 "Hos" and throwing up gang signs while passing money around on the streets, we'll ALL be wrong.

Until then, he's a law-abiding, Big Gulp drinking citizen w/ no intention of hurting anyone. Run his plates if you want to, but intimidating and harassing him make the police look worse.

Are you speaking on behalf of all bad guys? How is it that you know ALL the bad guys? :lol:

I would be careful with that statement... Some bag guys DO openly carry... I have seen bank robbery video where they guy had a holster.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

LEO 229 wrote

Sorry... The tags belong to the DMV and the police can run them when they deem it necessary. In this case... I think he can justify it.

Nice try though..


We run everybody's tag at the red light. This is how we discover stolen cars. If we could not run tags.. people in stolen cars would NEVER get caught if they obey the traffic laws.

So if you want to complain about us running tags.. please do not complain that we are taking too long to get your stolen car back. :lol:

I'm definitely not complaining about he police power to run tags. That is certainly legit. I am complaining about the retaliatory nature of this tag run, especially it was obviously being done in order to obtain what the LEO in this situation had no right to, this orderly, law-abiding gentleman's ID.

No retaliation.... Can you tell me what the cop did to him by running his tag? Did he write up a parking ticket or a summons? Nope...

The cop did what many of you would have suggested as an alternative had he demanded and taken the ID in the store.

He used the system to get the information he needed to check out a man with a gun.

Remember... he "asked" and it was refused. He ran the tag and got what he was looking for. I am sure he discovered the registered owner was not a criminal.

He never made demands or went hands on so this should be a positive encounter. Just because someone says "No" does not mean the cop is going to stop and run away. He used alternate methods available to him.

 

[Marco]

imported post

"OP"

You handled the situation well.
Assert your position/rights then

and leave.
It takes two to have a conversation.


Edit:

LE: Excuse me, can I ask if you're law enforcement?

OP: Nope, a citizen.

LE: Then, why are your carrying a handgun?

OP: For self defense. It is legal and soam I.
Have a good day officer.

LE: Why do you need one?


OP: :quirky

Refuse all other attempts at conversation by the officer.


edit:

Typo's

 

[Carpetbagger]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The officer suspects that the person may be a felon... he even said so in the conversation. It was done for criminal justice purposes.

The purpose was to be sure that the subject armed with a gun was legal to do so. This did not cause any harm or delay to the subject who was allowed to go on his way.

At the risk of further beating this very deceased equine...

The officer had absolutely no reason to suspect that the OP was a felon. It was a fishing expedition, pure and simple. That doesn't make it wrong, butto say that the officer suspected anythingoverstates the case.

That being said, this was an OK (not good) encounter. Certainly does not warrant a complaint.

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

THis is the kind of double-speak that I have a problem with:

At 6:15 on 17 Dec, LEO229 stated: "The officer suspects the person may be a felon....he even said so in the conversation".

At 10:35 on 17 Dec, LEO229 stated: "The cop was not accusing the guy of BEING a felon".

Which is it LEO229?:what:

 

[NytoVa]

imported post

vrwmiller wrote:

This may be an incorrect belief, but I had once heard that it was unlawful for LEO to run a driver's plate unless they were suspected in a crime or had been observed violating a driving law. Is this a correct assumption?

I believe they canrun a plate at will. This month's Popular Mechanics has an article about surveillance technology.

Some LEO agencies use a plate scanner that can read up to 900 plates per minute from up to 50 ft away at 95+ % accuracy. Can be mounted on the front bumper or stationary at a toll booth or bridge. Gives a signal if the plate gets an NCIC hit.

 

[Lee]

imported post

Yes, the law on plates is that as long as the officer is viewing your plate from a place they have a legal right to be, they can run your plate. The USC cited the 'plain view' rule.

No worries, you know your history better than anyone.