Police officer looking for respectful dialoge

[JoeSparky]

I guess i just haven't had the negative experiences that would make me hostile.

the only hostility i have felt was from members here on the forum. I won't hate to fit in.

again my experience on life dictates that it is about attitude.

For me it is not a hostility but rather an effort to protect my rights.... as we have discussed before on other communications. We do, however, disagree per my understanding of your position on the appropriateness of Citizens choosing to utilize recording devices in an effort to provide an independent witness of what happens when there are "consensual encounters" or actual detainments of persons. All have a constitutionally protected right to bring witnesses in their defense for any action at court. Many if not all LE agencies have and utilize some form of "recording" in the patrol cars or on the officer's person. These have been used at times to exonerate the officer or agency on false claims and at other times it has been used to demonstrate that the officer's where actually in the wrong. it aviods the no win situation of "he said, she said" encounters especially when their are no other witnesses. I will reserve all of my Constitutionally protected rights. If you find that this is not something you are comfortable with.... then I guess that will be your problem.
No matter what we do disagree on there is much more that we are in agreement with. This I don't want to lose. The choice is yours as I will force no person to associate with me. Again, I and many others on this forum do not see themselves as enemies of Law Enforcement but protectors of their and YOUR rights for with OUR rights: We either ALL have our Constitutionally protected rights or NONE OF US HAVE THEM. I prefer the former.

 

[Grapeshot]

Yawn....
Im going to bed.
Nothing to do with guns.:uhoh:

That is not your determination here.

It has everything to do with OC and RKBA.

While dissenting opinions are welcome on OCDO, trollish behavior, provocateur attitude, and dismissive/insulting replies are not.

Post responsibly or don't post at all.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Momma can you pass the popcorn?

No, I don't think you'd like it. It's liberty flavored.

 

[Tucker6900]

No, I don't think you'd like it. It's liberty flavored.

Lmao! Hahahaha! Good one.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

No, I don't think you'd like it. It's liberty flavored.

Owed one standard keyboard please!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[hahah]

No, I don't think you'd like it. It's liberty flavored.

That is just hostile and rude.

You don't know me well enough to make those judgments of me. I bet you would like me alot if you gave me a chance.

 

[hahah]

For me it is not a hostility but rather an effort to protect my rights.... as we have discussed before on other communications. We do, however, disagree per my understanding of your position on the appropriateness of Citizens choosing to utilize recording devices in an effort to provide an independent witness of what happens when there are "consensual encounters" or actual detainments of persons. All have a constitutionally protected right to bring witnesses in their defense for any action at court. Many if not all LE agencies have and utilize some form of "recording" in the patrol cars or on the officer's person. These have been used at times to exonerate the officer or agency on false claims and at other times it has been used to demonstrate that the officer's where actually in the wrong. it aviods the no win situation of "he said, she said" encounters especially when their are no other witnesses. I will reserve all of my Constitutionally protected rights. If you find that this is not something you are comfortable with.... then I guess that will be your problem.
No matter what we do disagree on there is much more that we are in agreement with. This I don't want to lose. The choice is yours as I will force no person to associate with me. Again, I and many others on this forum do not see themselves as enemies of Law Enforcement but protectors of their and YOUR rights for with OUR rights: We either ALL have our Constitutionally protected rights or NONE OF US HAVE THEM. I prefer the forme

Would you consider yourself a Sovereign Citizen?

 

[Grapeshot]

That is just hostile and rude.

You don't know me well enough to make those judgments of me. I bet you would like me alot if you gave me a chance.

Not rude - sarcastic humor. Not judgmental at all.

You have an opportunity to post responsibly and earn respect each time you make an entry here. Succeed or fall short at your option - others will respond accordingly.............including myself.

You have ignored the advice and warnings given previously as to attitude, provocation and trollish style - such are not appreciated here and will henceforth be dealt with more directly. Hope that is clear enough.

Note to all - if your post does not relate to the OP of this thread, it is off topic.

 

[hahah]

So you are saying that these illegal requests for your ID happen whether you are armed or not. Interesting! My apologies for doubting you!

you assume the requests were not legal. I think that they were fine. make sense to me at the time and still do.

 

[hahah]

Not rude - sarcastic humor. Not judgmental at all.

You have an opportunity to post responsibly and earn respect each time you make an entry here. Succeed or fall short at your option - others will respond accordingly.............including myself.

You have ignored the advice and warnings given previously as to attitude, provocation and trollish style - such are not appreciated here and will henceforth be dealt with more directly. Hope that is clear enough.

Note to all - if your post does not relate to the OP of this thread, it is off topic.

are you a moderator on this forum?

 

[MAC702]

you assume the requests were not legal. I think that they were fine. make sense to me at the time and still do.

What you think is irrelevant.

Being bent over making sense to you has nothing to do with whether or not everyone else should.

Cops should have better things to do, if you think about it.

I assume the requests were illegal based on you not providing what was observed as reasonable, articulate suspicion of your crime before you were detained and interrogated. If I missed it, I apologize.

 

[hahah]

What you think is irrelevant.

Being bent over making sense to you has nothing to do with whether or not everyone else should.

Cops should have better things to do, if you think about it.

I assume the requests were illegal based on you not providing what was observed as reasonable, articulate suspicion of your crime before you were detained and interrogated. If I missed it, I apologize.

No sir,
i have not shared the details. I think i have learned what information I did seek on my quest on this forum.

Mac you were very helpful so I shall thank you.

I feel that I alone can determine if I should feel wronged by my interactions with any one person or group.

Judging a group or an entity by the actions of a few would be wrong.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Momma can you pass the popcorn?

No, I don't think you'd like it. It's liberty flavored.

That is just hostile and rude.

You don't know me well enough to make those judgments of me. I bet you would like me alot if you gave me a chance.

She and everyone else knows you by what you've said here. From your words and attitudes we form our opinion of you.
That it's not a high opinion is not the fault of the reader.

 

[Grapeshot]

are you a moderator on this forum?

That is correct.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I have a sneaking suspicion from whence "haha" came and from whence he will return.
I've been there, I've seen the attitude.
Should "haha" chose to take leave of our company, he will go back amongst those like himself; as many have done that no longer post here.
We have formed our opinion of them from actions of the many.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

I bet you would like me alot if you gave me a chance.

You don't know me well enough to make those judgments of me.



hahah, if you prefer to roll over and submit to every request/unlawful demand/investigatory search by a cop, then that is your business. But to come here and claim that negative encounters exist 'in our heads' just because you've never seen it on the news or experienced it for yourself is dangerously naive.

No, no all cops or encounters are bad, but what are you going to if you find yourself at the wrong end of a bad encounter? The (partial) purpose in this thread is to explain why our conduct with cops is only to the extent required by law; no more. You can learn from that if you wish, or continually dismiss what we have to offer, in favor of your 'feelings' about whether such requests are fine or not.

 

[JoeSparky]

For me it is not a hostility but rather an effort to protect my rights.... as we have discussed before on other communications. We do, however, disagree per my understanding of your position on the appropriateness of Citizens choosing to utilize recording devices in an effort to provide an independent witness of what happens when there are "consensual encounters" or actual detainments of persons. All have a constitutionally protected right to bring witnesses in their defense for any action at court. Many if not all LE agencies have and utilize some form of "recording" in the patrol cars or on the officer's person. These have been used at times to exonerate the officer or agency on false claims and at other times it has been used to demonstrate that the officer's where actually in the wrong. it aviods the no win situation of "he said, she said" encounters especially when their are no other witnesses. I will reserve all of my Constitutionally protected rights. If you find that this is not something you are comfortable with.... then I guess that will be your problem.
No matter what we do disagree on there is much more that we are in agreement with. This I don't want to lose. The choice is yours as I will force no person to associate with me. Again, I and many others on this forum do not see themselves as enemies of Law Enforcement but protectors of their and YOUR rights for with OUR rights: We either ALL have our Constitutionally protected rights or NONE OF US HAVE THEM. I prefer the forme

Would you consider yourself a Sovereign Citizen?

Are you asking me if I have aligned myself with those that refuse to get/possess a driver's license, or a license plate on their cars, or refuse to file an income tax return? If so, ABSOLUTELY NOT... but you know that already!

I consider myself a citizen of a great county that would be improved if it's leaders and employees at all levels would actually read, understand, and strive to follow the Supreme Law of the Land and the Constitutions of the various States, recognizing the limits and restrictions that are placed upon the various branches and levels of government and then strive to LIMIT the actions of Government and it's employees to that which is actually authorized by the Supreme Law of the Law and the Supreme laws of the various states. In this is ALL Citizens of our great Country would have MINIMAL intrusions upon their lives by the various levels of government and all would prosper. The Morality of the Citizens has a great impact upon this as those that are dishonest or without morals will elect those who themselves are dishonest or without morals.

Do you disagree?

BTW... I don't think it was intentional but the manner in which you "quoted" me isn't formatted appropriately so that it indicates what I actually posted and the query you posted. If this was intentional it would be considered a serious breach of forum rules.

 

[JoeSparky]

you assume the requests were not legal. I think that they were fine. make sense to me at the time and still do.

Assuming one is not engaged in an activity where the law requires one to provide identification or carry a permit---

To clarify... A REQUEST of ID, as in a "Consensual Encounter", by an officer is something that ANYONE can chose to ignore without repercussions of any kind. IF a Request is Actually a Demand (a detention) the the Demand would have to be supported by at a minimum of Reasonably Articulable Suspicion. A Demand of ID made by an officer without a minimum of RAS would in fact be a Violation of the Civil Rights of the one upon whom the demand was made.

And this situation is one of the reasons that many carry a recorder or three in an effort to have an independent record of the event. This recording would tend to support the officer's version or not, all depending upon the accuracy of the documentation made by the officer about the event including the actual tone of the communications between those involved---- something that can get easily lost in a transcription of an event ( I would refer you to the movie of a few years ago--- My Cousin Vinny, and the verbal report of the arresting officer of his conversation with the defendants while on the stand and testifying. Yes, I recognize this is a "Hollywood" fiction and I use it simply for the example!

 

[OC for ME]

you assume the requests were not legal. I think that they were fine. make sense to me at the time and still do.

If there is no RAS there must be no contact.

"Consensual contact" is a detainment. A LEO has court approval to detain me, to interrupt my comings and goings, to start a consensual encounter, as he is permitted to define consensual.

Any citizen who chooses to relinquish even a smidgen of his rights to 'get along', diminishes all of our rights.

A 'police officer looking for respectful dialog' would do well by not 'disrespecting' citizens by starting a dialog where the police officer has not been invited by that citizen to engage in a dialog.

If a LEO has RAS there is no citizen consent required, if he does not have RAS he is fishing for RAS when he detains you.....consensually of course.

 

[marshaul]

...those that refuse to get/possess a driver's license, or a license plate on their cars, or refuse to file an income tax return...

You make it sound so awesome.