Fairfax County Police Video - How they respond to "person with a gun" calls

[Deanimator]

Edit to add: The reason they lie and ask things they can't is because they want to fish. They figure that 10 innocent civilians being lied to is OK if they can arrest one bad guy.

And yet we're supposed to TRUST them and believe ANYTHING they tell us.

Sorry, THAT ship has sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk with all hands.

Trust for the police is the deadest of dead letters, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[Deanimator]

Agreed. Here's an Endless Loop Routine:

Do

You: "Am I free to leave?"
Cop: "No."
You: "Am I under arrest?"
Cop: "No."
​

Loop

Repeat until the Cop tires of the endless 'Repeater' routine and finally answers "Yes"

When he says you're not free to leave, game over. There's no need for further questions.

"Officer, this is now a custodial interrogation and I have nothing further to say without my lawyer present."

Then you shut up and let them pound sand if they don't like it. They may lie to you about gibberish like "obstruction", as will apologists on line, but it's just that, GIBBERISH. Where lawful, record all encounters. Don't talk YOURSELF into actual trouble. Let HIM talk HIMSELF into a jam. As often as not, he WILL.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP...their assumption they have to know everything and it's my duty to tell them.

Some cops can be hilariously ridiculous. Yes, I too have noticed the "we have to know everything" angle, as though to exclude every possibility of criminality regardless of how remote. Yet, somehow they don't seem to bring that level of stringency to respecting rights. It proves they are capable, but don't care to apply their abilities to the subject of respecting rights.

 

[Citizen]

Furtive Movements Case Just Out from The Fourth Circuit

SNIP My response would be: "WTF is a furtive movement?...

The problem is that a furtive movement is pretty much anything the police say it is. The real issue is that the term contains both a fact and an evaluation about the fact. There is a movement (the fact), and it is given a secretive, shifty, or sneaky motive (the evaluation about the fact). So, the cops can say pretty much any motion or movement is furtive.

Coincidentally, the 4th Circuit (covers VA) just came out with an opinion that addresses this, putting a little bit of a limit on it.

Here is the blog post where I saw it. There is a link to the case in the blog post.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/03/05/suspiciously-mundane.aspx?ref=rss

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Is there a 10 code for an uncooperative citizen who knows his rights?

10-1791 (Date the federal Bill of Rights was ratified) Or,

10-1983 (Section of Title 42 that makes them liable for damages if they violate your rights)


It should be noted that calling a citizen "uncooperative" for exercising his rights is a cop tactic. It is meant to imply a person is bad in some way for not going along with whatever it is the police want. This is police moving the line. The simple fact is that exercising your rights during a police encounter is cooperating with them to the full extent required by our laws.

It is in no way "uncooperative." There is no way exercising your rights during a police encounter can be called uncooperative with intellectual honesty.

For comparison, lets look at some real uncooperation. Some people lie to the cop. Some people take a swing at the cop. Others try to knife, shoot, or run over the cop. If I do none of these things, and merely fully exercise my rights, I am cooperating.

These rights were won from rulers and elites with blood and suffering across centuries. Blood. Suffering. Centuries. I am not going to spit on the graves of those who obtained them for us, and those who defended them for us, by waiving them.

If any cooperation is required, it is cooperation from police to citizens in observing their rights.

I know Grapeshot knows all this. I'm just putting it out there for any new readers who may not have had the opportunity to consider such.

 

[Tess]

This was something that bugged me too at the meeting. If an officer sees that no laws are being broken, then that should end it before it starts. Why must the officer occupy his (and the public's) time on a non-issue?

When I asked that question, I did not get an answer.

 

[marshaul]

This was something that bugged me too at the meeting. If an officer sees that no laws are being broken, then that should end it before it starts. Why must the officer occupy his (and the public's) time on a non-issue?

Agreed. Short cop claimed they are "obligated to investigate" every call that is made.

B-f'in-S.

I can think of about a million calls I could make which would never get investigated. Most of which, rightly so.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP This was something that bugged me too at the meeting. If an officer sees that no laws are being broken, then that should end it before it starts. Why must the officer occupy his (and the public's) time on a non-issue?

Ahhhh. Grasshopper, this is a mystery you must strive to master. It is motive.

In his book Arrest-proof Yourself, former cop, former federal agent, and current attorney Dale Carson explains. Cops are hunters.

They want to find something. Of course, this and Carson's comment are a generalization. But, it has workability. Carson points out that cops are also visual--they look for things that are out of place or do not belong. The workability aspect is to keep yourself out of their sight, and not draw attention to yourself.

Of course, as OCers we violate that axiom all to hell.

Regarding any given individual cop, who knows? Personal antipathy to armed citizens? Support for 2A, but personal disagreement with open carry versus the socially acceptable (in the cop's eyes) concealed carry? Just think up any of the nonsense anti-OC commentary we've heard or read coming from cops.

To the degree and frequency Carson's hunter-cop explanation applies, the cop is looking for something he can use as justification to take it further.

For myself, I would add boredom to cops' motives. We already know from a number of reports from cops and ex-cops that they like the thrill. "Great! Maybe this OCer nut has a stolen gun or is a prohibited possessor. I can use the consensual encounter angle to get my foot in the door. I need a felony arrest this month, anyway."

Bottom line, he contacts you because he wants to.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Just keep in mind that this was said by an individual officer, and is not necessarily the policy of FCPD.

Not as a contradiction. Just taking an opportunity to broaden and pass along.

Whether FCPD has or has not a policy would sway me little. I have seen cops--everyday cops on routine activity--violate policy. And, nothing substantive was done about it.

I'm betting that half the policies are there for other reasons. For example, to get certification from an accreditation agency thus to get better rates on municipal insurance. For example, command can wave a few papers around in case a cop causes some brouhaha in the press, "See we've got this policy! We don't condone what Officer Thug did!" And, of course, to avoid the training deficiencies and policies angles in a civil rights lawsuit.

For FCPD policy to sway me into thinking it was an individual officer and not the PD, I would have to see express policy proscribing the action, and examples of its enforcement against individual officers. Otherwise, it is officially condoned, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Marco]

I'll be sure to post my encounters this spring/summer as " the guy taking pics/video of kids in the park".

 

[Repeater]

'Furtive' movements & Parkinson Disease

The problem is that a furtive movement is pretty much anything the police say it is. The real issue is that the term contains both a fact and an evaluation about the fact. There is a movement (the fact), and it is given a secretive, shifty, or sneaky motive (the evaluation about the fact). So, the cops can say pretty much any motion or movement is furtive.

Coincidentally, the 4th Circuit (covers VA) just came out with an opinion that addresses this, putting a little bit of a limit on it.

Here is the blog post where I saw it. There is a link to the case in the blog post.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/03/05/suspiciously-mundane.aspx?ref=rss

Imagine someone like Michael J. Fox having a LEO Encounter. Many persons who have Parkinson Disease have uncontrollable twitches that could easily be described as furtive. So, that could result in a detention while an office "investigates" -- never mind the innocence of the individual.

 

[Repeater]

You missed about an HOUR of individual conversations in the hallway with the each of the police and Captains. With VCDL members posing their own scenarios and answers as well. I think the police learned as well.

Don't get me wrong.. there is ALWAYS room for improvement.. abd I am not tryign to convince anyone right or wrong on how I feel.. I am just stating my opinion. Just remember.. I am from NORTHERN Virginia and our opinions may be different.

The concern here is that it was in the hallway -- away from the cameras. Why not say whatever was said in the hallway in the meeting while the cameras were rolling?

 

[Repeater]

It should be noted that calling a citizen "uncooperative" for exercising his rights is a cop tactic. It is meant to imply a person is bad in some way for not going along with whatever it is the police want. This is police moving the line. The simple fact is that exercising your rights during a police encounter is cooperating with them to the full extent required by our laws.

Well that's right. A standard LEO reply if you dare assert yourself is that you are being "uncooperative" -- well, too bad. Being "cooperative" on the cop's terms will mean it that will be used against you later.

 

[Repeater]

This court provides an answer

When I asked that question, I did not get an answer.

I saw this over at FourthAmendment.com; I'm pasting the relevant text here:

911 report of a man carrying a handgun in Texas was not sufficient for reasonable suspicion without more. Here, the officer encountered the man and saw nothing that corroborated the informant because the man was carrying only a white water bottle. When the officer saw the defendant, he ordered the defendant to the ground. United States v. Wali, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21221 (N.D. Tex. March 3, 2011)*:

Before delving into its analysis, the court believes that it must first draw a distinction between reported activity that is per se illegal and reported activity that is potentially illegal. Reported activity that is per se illegal contemplates reported conduct that is, by itself, absolutely against the law, such as the possession of narcotics. See United States v. Roch, 5 F.3d 894, 899 (5th Cir. 1993). Reported activity that is potentially illegal contemplates reported conduct that is against the law only if one or more additional elements are also present. See id. In the latter instance, when there is no indication that those other necessary elements are present, there cannot be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity arising out of the potentially illegal conduct. See id. Accordingly, the 911-caller’s complaint described activity that was potentially illegal instead of per se illegal. The court therefore determines that the 911-caller’s complaint, without more than just the bare bones assertion that the person was carrying a handgun, did not constitute a report of criminal activity. See id. Unless the tip was accompanied by sufficient indicia of reliability, further investigation was required before a forcible stop of the suspect could be authorized. Adams, 407 U.S. at 147.
​

The court makes an important distinction between activity that is potentially illegal, and activity that is illegal per se. This case is from Texas, which is not currently a 'Gold Star' state. Even so, the reasoning used in this case would apply to Virginia for those who are in fact openly carrying a handgun. Merely carrying a handgun, without more, is not illegal per se.

Detaining and investigating Virginians because of a complaint of potentially illegal activity is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

 

[Citizen]

Well that's right. A standard LEO reply if you dare assert yourself is that you are being "uncooperative" -- well, too bad. Being "cooperative" on the cop's terms will mean it that will be used against you later.

I developed a declaration to correct twisting the concept by LEOs to the detriment of rights. As opposed to arguing the point, or just contradicting it. It goes like this:

Cop: "You're going to be uncooperative?"

Citizen: "Oh, I'm sorry officer. I'm a patriotic American. I will cooperate to the full extent required by our laws."

Cop: "That's better. Now, whatareyoudoinghere?"

Citizen: <silence>

They'll get the idea. And, immediately recognize you just undermined the nasty little premise of their tactic. And, the smarter one's will recognize there is no come-back that is going to work.

 

[Citizen]

I saw this over at FourthAmendment.com; I'm pasting the relevant text here...[US vs Wali text]

I'm less certain. Notice the last sentence about indicia of reliability. It is as though the 911 caller gave insufficient information about themselves or the defendant to meet a reliability threshold.

Wish we could read the whole opinion.

I do agree that it reinforces the idea that mere OC without more is insufficient for a detention. We already knew that from even stronger, more fundamental arguments. But, its nice to have reinforcement.

 

[Sheriff]

Is there a 10 code for an uncooperative citizen who knows his rights?

The official police code for this is "contempt of cop".

You won't find this crime in the state code, trust me!

But it's all downhill from there.