My recent encounter with LEO's

[eye95]

Sterile? Apologies, however I am not familiar with this term, please elaborate.

No ID. No permit.

 

[NRAMARINE]

No ID. No permit.

Thanks.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Check out posts number 4 and 11.

You may move on, but any time some says that LEOs "work for us" I will be there to point out that they do not.

"Work for us" implies an employee-boss relationship. We are not their bosses. We cannot hire or fire them. We make no personnel decisions. We do not set their pay.

Every time you say that they "work for us," you encourage some poor schlub you don't even know to say it to a cop. I will try to stop that piece of idiocy before it happens.

LOL you just can't resist ....lol...neither can I...

And I will be there to counter your argument it simply is hung on one premise with only a grain of truth to it and no cite.

We are their Boss....just like you work for the folks in your school district...just like our President, Senators, Congressmen/women, Mayors, state legislatures, Sheriff's department...etc. In our republic we are not there to do their bidding they are their to do ours.

Just because you don't like it don't make it idiotic (hmmm how insulting....) I find it funny how you went from "fact" to "idiom" to "implies" never have I disputed your we don't hire and fire them (although indirectly we do, and if wasn't for the strong unions, of Public Servants [LEO, city, county, teachers] we would have much more affect on this.

I encourage the moving past this Republican "authority" complex so many on the so called "right" believe in and back to a more constitutional, free loving country where our public employees respect us as their bosses and not the other way around.

 

[Citizen]

I haven't read the whole thread, so if these points are already addressed, please disregard.

1) There is nothing in 12031(e) authorizing a cop, or requiring a carrier to submit, to a magazine inspection. Unless required elsewhere by law, I might suggest politely refusing consent while complying.

2) The cop comment that he would remember you was clearly an attempted intimidation. Clearly he didn't like being thwarted--meaning he didn't like you exercising your right.

 

[Publius]

I haven't read the whole thread, so if these points are already addressed, please disregard.

1) There is nothing in 12031(e) authorizing a cop, or requiring a carrier to submit, to a magazine inspection. Unless required elsewhere by law, I might suggest politely refusing consent while complying.

2) The cop comment that he would remember you was clearly an attempted intimidation. Clearly he didn't like being thwarted--meaning he didn't like you exercising your right.

On Point #1
I agree and next time I will state at the beginning of all interactions "I don't consent to any search or seizures of my person or property, but I won't resist if you insist on proceeding with an e check.", that way when asked to inspect my mags I will simply reassert that I do not consent to searches.

On Point #2
Agreed, and I am working on having the Marysville Police Department address this, I will hopefully have more info on Monday in this regard.

 

[eye95]

LOL you just can't resist ....lol...neither can I...

And I will be there to counter your argument it simply is hung on one premise with only a grain of truth to it and no cite.

We are their Boss....just like you work for the folks in your school district...just like our President, Senators, Congressmen/women, Mayors, state legislatures, Sheriff's department...etc. In our republic we are not there to do their bidding they are their to do ours.

Just because you don't like it don't make it idiotic (hmmm how insulting....) I find it funny how you went from "fact" to "idiom" to "implies" never have I disputed your we don't hire and fire them (although indirectly we do, and if wasn't for the strong unions, of Public Servants [LEO, city, county, teachers] we would have much more affect on this.

I encourage the moving past this Republican "authority" complex so many on the so called "right" believe in and back to a more constitutional, free loving country where our public employees respect us as their bosses and not the other way around.

I hope the actions that I called "idiotic" are not offended by the insult I hurled at them. If a person chooses to assume that the insult was directed at him, that is HIS choice, not mine.

Again, stating that LEOs "work for us" or, worse, saying that we are their "boss" implies (or, worse, flat-out states) that there is an employee-boss relationship. "We" do not have the ability to hire or fire LEOs. Nor can "we" set their pay or take personnel actions. Therefore, "we" are not their "bosses." They do not "work for us." Saying, "You work for us," to a LEO would be idiotically antagonistic. I don't recommend such a foolish course of action.

 

[rodbender]

I hope the actions that I called "idiotic" are not offended by the insult I hurled at them. If a person chooses to assume that the insult was directed at him, that is HIS choice, not mine.

Again, stating that LEOs "work for us" or, worse, saying that we are their "boss" implies (or, worse, flat-out states) that there is an employee-boss relationship. "We" do not have the ability to hire or fire LEOs. Nor can "we" set their pay or take personnel actions. Therefore, "we" are not their "bosses." They do not "work for us." Saying, "You work for us," to a LEO would be idiotically antagonistic. I don't recommend such a foolish course of action.

What a hypocrit. If you call someone's ideas idiotic, you are in fact calling the person an idiot. It seems that eye95 can insult all he wants, but if you in the slightest way hurt his feelings you are on a personal attack and get put on the ignore list. I'll say it again louder.

WHAT A HYPOCRIT!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Daylen]

Why semantics are very important.

Interpretation of 2nd amendment by those with a changing understanding of semantics:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." oh this part means it pertains to the military or army or national guard "..., the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." oh the military can have any arms they want. oh and I guess since it says regulated that means the government can regulate arms.

A more origionalist use of semantics: "A well regulated militia..." ah a militia, which is all free people physically able to defend themselves and the state, that must be regular in operation or in other words functions properly"... being necessary to the security of a free State" ah the properly functioning militia is really important to us being free"..., the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Nothing shall stop the People from owning and having arms (from the "keep" part) and nothing shall stop or limit the People in "bearing arms" or carrying arms in a more modern lingua.

still think semantics smantics?

 

[NRAMARINE]

Why semantics are very important.

Interpretation of 2nd amendment by those with a changing understanding of semantics:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." oh this part means it pertains to the military or army or national guard "..., the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." oh the military can have any arms they want. oh and I guess since it says regulated that means the government can regulate arms.

A more origionalist use of semantics: "A well regulated militia..." ah a militia, which is all free people physically able to defend themselves and the state, that must be regular in operation or in other words functions properly"... being necessary to the security of a free State" ah the properly functioning militia is really important to us being free"..., the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Nothing shall stop the People from owning and having arms (from the "keep" part) and nothing shall stop or limit the People in "bearing arms" or carrying arms in a more modern lingua.

still think semantics smantics?

I agree.

 

[nonameisgood]

People frequently surrender their rights at a LE request. There is no law most places against asking a person to submit to a warrantless search. Although I submit that LE should be prohibited from asking, since most people are intimidated by the gun and badge and figure that the officer wouldn't ask if they had a choice. "Do you know how fast you were going?" is the loaded question, setting you up for self-incrimination.

As to "working for us": The police department works for an elected executive, whom is directly answerable to us. The individual officer works for the PD, not me.

Our recourse is through votes and courts. And ongoing dialogue, as the OP is doing. Good job.

 

[Nutczak]

Yes Police are classified as "Public Servants" I have the ability to prove it.
I found this out from one of the times where I was charged with "Battery of a Public Servant" (a long story, but the charges against me were dismissed in both instances)

I hope this puts an end to this off-topic ******* match.

 

[Citizen]

On Point #1
I agree and next time I will state at the beginning of all interactions "I don't consent to any search or seizures of my person or property, but I won't resist if you insist on proceeding with an e check.", that way when asked to inspect my mags I will simply reassert that I do not consent to searches.

On Point #2
Agreed, and I am working on having the Marysville Police Department address this, I will hopefully have more info on Monday in this regard.

That seems workable.

I wonder if it might be beneficial to tweak it slightly. Here is what I am thinking:

By refusing consent to searches or seizures not in view just yet, you might be unnecessarily triggering annoyance in the cop. I wonder if it would be better to consent to the (e)-check, and only refuse consent if something more is attempted or requested.

Part of my concern here is a discussion on this forum some time back about an (e)-check necessarily being a consensual search, meaning if you refuse consent--not just refuse compliance--it could open the door to arrest. I cannot recall the details of that discussion, only that the arguments seemed reasonable.

Here is the relevant sentence from 12031(e): "Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section." It does not say consent is mandantory, or implied by carrying. But, if a snarky cop decides to press the issue, it will just be your word against his that you said, "I won't resist if you insist on proceeding with an (e)-check."

I know this really getting down in the weeds. I don't want to make anybody paranoid. The quoted poster's solution seems pretty workable, too.

 

[okboomer]

From a purely human nature perspective, asking a PERSON to do something you just refused to do tends to rub people the wrong way and they react accordingly. From what I heard, he was not detained, or disarmed so the argument COULD ( not should) be made that the encounter wasn't entirely official. ( I don't agree with that argument personally, however it could be made.)

Ah, but the officer was not operating at a PERSONAL level, he was operating 'under color of law' implying that there was a legal requirement for the OP to comply with his (unlawful) requirement of the OP to produce identification. And then implying that if the OP '[had] nothing to hide, then why not show his ID' to which the OP quite properly (Yay for you!) replied, 'My privacy'

IMHO, after the officer being so contentious to the OP, I feel that the OP had every right to enquire of the officer's name and that the officer should have provided it IF HE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE NOR DONE ANYTHING WRONG.

As the famous 'talking to the cops' videos demonstrate, circular responses of answering officers' questions with a question, interjecting the "am I being detained/am I free to go", and being as pleasant as possible in refusing to comply with attempts at entrapment or violation of civil rights is our [citizens'] current method of enforcing our civil rights.

What is also being overlooked is the fact that the OP had left the original scene, which made the second stop a seperate action from anything that had happened at the original scene (but check with a lawyer for verification of applicable local/state law IANAL), implying that the original encounter was over and done with. Re: traffic stop, officer writes the ticket, hands it to you, then asks to search your vehicle. You can refuse as the purpose of the stop has been completed and the search request or any other conversation is a seperate incident.

 

[McX]

listened to the recording. i got the feeling of an implied threat toward the OCer. the cops were polite, and didn't push, but seemed to infer they would be pushing another time.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

listened to the recording. i got the feeling of an implied threat toward the OCer. the cops were polite, and didn't push, but seemed to infer they would be pushing another time.

Same feeling here....

 

[Daylen]

You make it seem like LEOs are expected to be beyond issuing threats, an easily shown fallacy. One good reason not to give ID or tell a name unless you are required to.

 

[Publius]

You make it seem like LEOs are expected to be beyond issuing threats, an easily shown fallacy. One good reason not to give ID or tell a name unless you are required to.

Waiters are not beyond getting my order wrong, but when they do I will call them out on it. LEO's are human beings like the rest of us, and like the rest of us, they should be called out when they do something improper.

 

[eye95]

Waiters are not beyond getting my order wrong, but when they do I will call them out on it. LEO's are human beings like the rest of us, and like the rest of us, they should be called out when they do something improper.

Exactly.

 

[Citizen]

Waiters are not beyond getting my order wrong, but when they do I will call them out on it. LEO's are human beings like the rest of us, and like the rest of us, they should be called out when they do something improper.

You can combine both scenarios, even.

"Officer, the Bill of Rights is not a menu from which you get to choose. I do the choosing, and I want everything on the menu."



PS: I wish the darn smileys didn't shuffle around the margin of the post composition page from one post to another. The darn things are never in the same place twice, and I always have to hunt around to find the one I want.

 

[ixtow]

If LEOs don't work for us, pray tell, who do they work for? Teh gubermint? And who's dat? Why are they, while having so much power, held to lower, or no, standards?

...and why on God's Green Earth are we allowing it?

Patrick Henry was a troll, too...