MWAG call for mowing my lawn

[jrob33]

Perhaps it is due to your MP background that the 'premise' and the point escapes you.

Simply put, the officer knew before he made contact (the 'to contact' or 'not to contact' phase) that he had no legal grounds to make contact, yet he did anyway. The premise is that, citizens and officers accept the 'fact' that the officer knows that he can make contact,I will ignore everything after "likely beleives..because that is simply your assumtions, "LIKEY" based on your preformed negative opinion of officer in genreal...apparently around here there is no such thing as a consentual encounter....its either based on Probable cause or its illegal, however consentual encounters have been a large part of good police work, for MANY years. they are not illegal by any means...had the officer approached the OP and DEMANDED his id, then the encounter would have been illegal because the op could argue that based on the "color of law" he felt compelled to give the officer his ID..however unless you have had some discussion with the op that the rest of us were not part of....THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. so you are arguning that the officer plainly and in no uncertain terms told the OP he was free to leave, he was free to NOT talk to the officer etc.. YET the OP was acting under the premise that he was somehow required to interact with the officer????? I see nothing in the ops posting to suggest that he has a problem with his comprehension, and I see nothing in his posting to indicate that he felt he was somehow required to interact with the officer in question.

Folks walk right past the 'premise' and focus on all of the events that transpire after the officer decided engage in a consentual encounter

Every second of the OP was based on the premise that the officer knew he could/would make contact,huge assumption on your part..with all the videos on you tube its just as likely that the officer believed that a person who was carrying openly would react the same was as many posters suggested the op should have.

even though the officer knows and admits that he no legal authority to make contact.which he made crystal claer hence the term consentual encounter

In my view every thing past the actual moment of contact is a byproduct of a faulty premise. It is easy, however, to get caught up in the 'fluff' of the situation and not focus on the underlying issue. I find myself from time to time focusing on the fluff and not the underlying issue.

and it seems that the premise is that any action of a police officer (outside of doing nothing) is a bad thing. while I freely admit that some officers are out of control, i also know that many are simply trying to do a job that they beleive in, and there is a very large distinction between an officer politely engaging in a consentual encounter and a bad "stop" or "intimidation"

 

[Grapeshot]

and it seems that the premise is that any action of a police officer (outside of doing nothing) is a bad thing. while I freely admit that some officers are out of control, i also know that many are simply trying to do a job that they beleive in, and there is a very large distinction between an officer politely engaging in a consentual encounter and a bad "stop" or "intimidation"

"seems that....any action of a police officer (outside of doing nothing) is a bad thing" Really? Are you serious? Incredulous.

"there is a very large distinction between an officer politely engaging in a consentual (sic) encounter and a bad "stop" or "intimidation"

If the conversation is truly innocent of any other factors (just chatting) then I would agree. There are times that the so called consensual conversation is a fishing technique and I submit that is all to frequently the case. That is when it crosses the line and becomes a "bad"/unpleasant/unnecessary encounter - more so when intimidation is used/inferred.

From my perspective, I do not appreciate being treated like I am a criminal or even looking to see if I am one while doing so in a nice, polite fashion. You have true RAS or PC, fine - do your job.

Don't see why this is still being hashed and trashed. There are two parallel threads on this now, with the same thing being repeated and repeated. It's getting to be over done - and it has been done many times before.

OCDO does not allow LEO bashing, but that has not been the case here. It has been a discussion (pointed out before) of various reactions to "consensual encounters - I think that horse has been well beaten. Agree to agree or agree to disagree - its all been said.

 

[OC for ME]

Definition of CONSENSUAL - 1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing <a consensual contract> 2: involving or based on mutual consent <consensual acts>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensual

If the cop has to drive to my house to have a 'consensual encounter' it is not a consensual encounter. I did not call him to come to my house, so I had no say in the matter.

Consensual encounter is just another name for detainment, a 'soft' detainment.

Do me a favor, the next time a cop 'consensually encounters' you, just turn, without a word, and walk away. Nothing may happen, then again something might happen.

I've been there and done that. Not once did a 'consensual encounter' actually end up as a mutually agreed to, two parties consent to, the encounter.

Grapeshot is correct....time to bury this dead horse.

 

[jrob33]

I will not argue this point any further, but ints interesting to note that you post YOUR parting argument than decide its time to bury the "horse" . that says alot to me...

 

[Grapeshot]

I will not argue this point any further, but ints interesting to note that you post YOUR parting argument than decide its time to bury the "horse" . that says alot to me...

He did not say it was his "parting argument"; however, you did say "will not argue.....further, but".

That says something too = advancing to the rear with a parting shot.

 

[tricolordad]

Not all cops

In regards to the OP, glad it went well for you. It doesnt always, especially at your age (im 28, not much older...). Age plays a factor. Young is generally assumed to equate to stupid. Keeping your cool always helps.

Responding to all the posts about cops being bad, or being the opposition...im not a fan of police. That being said, ive met a lot who are extremely professional. Before coming to this forum, i contacted my local sherrifs dept and asked for help understanding the laws. The deputy who assisted me was very truthful and decided it was time to brush up on the laws himself. He actually wrote down what was ILLEGAL and told me basically, try not to do those. Not in those exact words.

Had a few encounters while OC, but the fact is your demeanor while you carry ultimately decides how the interaction goes. I suggest acting like yourself. People who know you will notice a change and then talk about it as guns in general are a point of interest to a lot of people.