stopped by off duty deputy at Wal-Mart

[PALO]

Thanks for your input. Now having said all of this, is it your opinion that the officer in question in the original OP's post acted out of his bubble... that he should have ignored the fact that the man was armed and obviously legally so?

absolutely. if he was so concerned, he should have gotten on his phone and called 911

and HOPEFULLY the call taker would say (as ours do) that they don't dispatch police to respond to people carrying handguns in a holster, because it's legally protected activity, despite how "concerned" it makes some people

of course that's in my state. don't recall what state this was in, etc. but the point is the cop should not have acted imnsho

 

[wrightme]

absolutely. if he was so concerned, he should have gotten on his phone and called 911

and HOPEFULLY the call taker would say (as ours do) that they don't dispatch police to respond to people carrying handguns in a holster, because it's legally protected activity, despite how "concerned" it makes some people

of course that's in my state. don't recall what state this was in, etc. but the point is the cop should not have acted imnsho

Now, if you would have simply posted that as your only response to this topic.........

 

[PALO]

Now, if you would have simply posted that as your only response to this topic.........

i'm sorry, but what i choose to post is not based upon what you want to see

just speakin' truth to power and supporting RKBA and OC

 

[wrightme]

i'm sorry, but what i choose to post is not based upon what you want to see

just speakin' truth to power and supporting RKBA and OC

Other than supporting RKBA and OC, you have also been telling others to give up some other valuable rights.

 

[PALO]

Other than supporting RKBA and OC, you have also been telling others to give up some other valuable rights.

no, i haven't.

in any particular situation, my advice would be to assess the relevant facts known to you and then make a decision.

for example, if i was pulled over for suspicion of DUI, and i was not DUI (which happened to me), i consented to FST's

i didn't HAVE to. but i think it was the optimal strategy

just because you have a right to do X, does not mean you should always exercise it

women have the right to abortion. does that mean every pregnant woman should exercise that right?

if somebody is a morbidly obese individual, they have a right to wear spandex in public (numerous cases have established clothing as an expressive right falling under the 1st)

would that be the best option?

you have pretty broad latitude to be a hostile jerk towards your neighbor. you can call him names, etc. however, i don't think that's usually an optimal choice

and etc.

rights involve CHOICES. you are implying the fallacy that anybody who has the right to do X, should do X. i would say it's situation dependent. and in some cases, it's not. it's just wrong to engage in racial hate speech. for example, in our country, distinct from many other nations that criminalize racial hate speech, holocaust denial, etc. we have MUCH broader rights ot engage in such speech. doesn't make it an optimal strategy or morally right

every (not otherwise disqualified person) in WA state has the right to OC. does that mean if somebody CHOOSES NOT TO, they are giving up rights?

it's called making a choice

that aside, i think in most respects, govt. has TOO MUCH Power to restrain liberty, pursuant to (some messed up) case law

that aside, you have the absolute right to ignore my posts, skip over them, or whatever. bully for you.

no govt. agent will use the ludovico technique to make you read them.

although i am sure obama is trying to get that power

 

[wrightme]

no, i haven't.

in any particular situation, my advice would be to assess the relevant facts known to you and then make a decision.
<snip a bunch of irrelevant stuff>

Other people word it differently, and you argue against then.


"Don't talk to cops" is what you just said. You just don't like it when it is said that way, so you falsely argue against it.

 

[wrightme]

rights involve CHOICES. you are implying the fallacy that anybody who has the right to do X, should do X.

False. I have not implied that fallacy. What I have done, is call you out for telling others that they should choose to give up a right.

 

[PALO]

Other people word it differently, and you argue against then.


"Don't talk to cops" is what you just said. You just don't like it when it is said that way, so you falsely argue against it.

what i said repeatedly is that a BLANKET POLICY not to ever talk to police is a wrong policy.

that it's situation dependant

either you are lying, or you have a problem with reading comprehension

and regardless of that, you are devolving to a "but you do this but you do that" vs. discussing issues, which is what adults usually prefer to do

again, don't like my posts. feel free not to read them

you have the right to be or remain ignorant, so feel free to make that choice

hth

 

[PALO]

False. I have not implied that fallacy. What I have done, is call you out for telling others that they should choose to give up a right.

if by giving up a right, you mean advising people to make situation dependent situation based on facts known to you when talkin to cops, then yes. i am absolutely ADVISING PEOPLE that imo that;'s a superior strategy to deciding REGARDLESS OF CASE FACTS to never talk to police

fwiw, i am not telling people ot do anything. i am stating this is my opinion, that it's an optimal strategy imo

i realize you have a hard time with free choice, but it is what it is .

in one thread, somebody MADE THE CHOICE to cover his OC weapon in McD's playland. i supported his DECISION. with the clear statement that it was HIS decision, and his locus of control.

libertarianism is about choice, not blindly following what others say.


i did NOT say "if you arein McD's playland you should always cover your OC"

that logical distinction may be difficult for you. sorry

 

[wrightme]

what i said repeatedly is that a BLANKET POLICY not to ever talk to police is a wrong policy.

that it's situation dependant

No, it is a VERY GOOD blanket policy. You simply do not see it that way, and get rude when others challenge you on it.

either you are lying, or you have a problem with reading comprehension

A very good example of your rudeness.

and regardless of that, you are devolving to a "but you do this but you do that" vs. discussing issues, which is what adults usually prefer to do

And yet another good example of your rudeness.

again, don't like my posts. feel free not to read them

you have the right to be or remain ignorant, so feel free to make that choice

hth

I am also free to respond to your right restrictive stance with posts.

You have attempted to tell others that they should not exercise their Right, because to you, it is situation dependent. It is sad that someone who has been in Law Enforcement actually does suggest that, though it isn't surprising. Many LE feel that getting citizens to give up their Rights freely is 'good police work.' Trust me, MANY citizens disagree.

 

[wrightme]

if by giving up a right, you mean advising people to make situation dependent situation based on facts known to you when talkin to cops, then yes. i am absolutely ADVISING PEOPLE that imo that;'s a superior strategy to deciding REGARDLESS OF CASE FACTS to never talk to police

fwiw, i am not telling people ot do anything. i am stating this is my opinion, that it's an optimal strategy imo

i realize you have a hard time with free choice, but it is what it is .

in one thread, somebody MADE THE CHOICE to cover his OC weapon in McD's playland. i supported his DECISION. with the clear statement that it was HIS decision, and his locus of control.

libertarianism is about choice, not blindly following what others say.


i did NOT say "if you arein McD's playland you should always cover your OC"

that logical distinction may be difficult for you. sorry

Can you even ATTEMPT to share a viewpoint without being rude?


I am FOR 'free choice.' I am against someone attempting to tell others what that choice should be.

 

[marshaul]

Can you even ATTEMPT to share a viewpoint without being rude?

No.

I was going to say, at least he hasn't called you a liar yet, but then I realized, nope, he definitely has.

 

[nikerret]

I don't care if his "badge" says FBI, CIA, DEA, or lowly deputy.

Are you the same person who posted on GT on CT? You were more polite there. WTF?

Does an off duty police officer in civilian clothes have the same power and authority as he does when on duty, dressed in my police uniform? Is he within his authority to exercise the same powers as he may when on duty?

Each State can be different. Within that State, jurisdictions may be different. As a general rule, yes, they have the same authority off-duty, however, it is usually reserved for person felonies (in practial application).

I can only speak to KS, but we are not automatically given LE authority outside our stated jurisdiction. ie. County Deputies are only in their jurisdiction in the County they hold Sheriff appointment cards for. However, we are regulated and certified through the State. Also, our jurisdiction follows to anywhere we are asked to assist or when the crime occured in our jurisdiction and went into another, we are allowed in "fresh pursuit".

I just thought of something that gave me a "duh" moment. It wouldn't have made any difference whether or not this officer was on or off duty, whether or not he was in full uniform or jeans and a flannel shirt. This incident took place on private property! The officer has no jurisdiction on private property unless called by management/ownership (or to intervene in the obvious such as theft or malicious activity).

Am I wrong with this?

You also have to consider Wal-Mart is a public venue. Any LEO has the right to be there, as much as anyone else. If they see a crime, they may react to it. There may also be an arrangement between local LE and the store; official or unofficial. Of course, the store has the right to use trespass laws against individuals.

Open carry indside Wal-Mart, which is private property, would be legal, unless there is some provision that limits such activity in State or Local law. That's for each of you to look up, in your own places of business, residences, and travel.

Flashed a badge and what??

Call 911. Right now. Report a police impersonator. Tell them you are holding him until they get there. And you have a gun.

You have no way to check his credentials. And until the police arrive, he's the one who gave you PC.

Anyone can hold a badge....

Really? You're going to "hold" an identified LEO? All in the hope that is an impersonator of a LEO. What if he tries to leave? What are you going to do, then?

This post contains, almost completely, terrible advice.

What happened to: get his information and confirm he is a LEO (may be harder to get an answer in large jurisdictions as dispatch may not know LEO's names)? I would definitely try that before this poster's crap idea.

OP should have kicked the off duty cop in the balls

You would take an encounter where you may be wronged and make sure you break a law to physically wrong someone else. That makes OC look real good. OC'er gets arrested for battery of off-duty LEO. Way to go, dumbass.


_____________________________________________________________________________
As far as the OP, I see fails on both sides. It definiely leaves more questions than answers on the LEO's side of things. Handling a carry firearm inside a store is never a good thing. OP should have done some things differently, as well.
_____________________________________________________________________________

This place has sure changed...I haven't been around here in a few years. Now, it's all about recording devices, asking if you're being detained every other sentence, and hating cops. Sad.

 

[wrightme]

Really? You're going to "hold" an identified LEO? All in the hope that is an impersonator of a LEO. What if he tries to leave? What are you going to do, then?

It isn't an 'identified LEO' by 'flashing a badge.'

This place has sure changed...I haven't been around here in a few years. Now, it's all about recording devices, asking if you're being detained every other sentence, and hating cops. Sad.

Do you see a problem with recording devices?

Why would a citizen not want to ascertain if he was being detained?

 

[nikerret]

It isn't an 'identified LEO' by 'flashing a badge.'




Do you see a problem with recording devices?

Why would a citizen not want to ascertain if he was being detained?

He also had the LEO's name. This means there was more ID than just a badge.

No, in fact, LEO's are usually recording, as well. Said recordings have shown complaintants to be liars in their accusations toward me twice in the last year, or so. What I find sad, is how many, on here, get all geared up looking for an altercation with LE and want to have it on record. Quit wasting cops and courts' time.

No problem with asking once, or again, if substantial time and events have passed. However, asking "repeatedly" is only an annoyance and slows down the progress of getting everyone on their way.

All of this should be common sense; which has evaded most people.

 

[wrightme]

He also had the LEO's name. This means there was more ID than just a badge.

The name can be on a badge, and the badge need not be real.

No, in fact, LEO's are usually recording, as well. Said recordings have shown complaintants to be liars in their accusations toward me twice in the last year, or so. What I find sad, is how many, on here, get all geared up looking for an altercation with LE and want to have it on record. Quit wasting cops and courts' time.

Very good. Then you should easily be able to understand why citizens would also desire recordings. You know, because cops are not required to tell the truth to the citizen, and some have shown that they are also willing to lie to gain a conviction against an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
Most of us here do NOT 'look for altercation with LE.' But, carrying and using a recorder CAN be a good idea IF such encounter were to happen.

As for 'quit wasting cops and court's time?' Recordings that show an LE to be a liar only waste cops and courts time by pointing out a bad cop, who likely shouldn't have contacted a law-abiding citizen in the first place. Otherwise, a recording won't waste anyone's time, it will simply be a second record of an event that the LE should already be recording. how is that a 'waste of time?'

No problem with asking once, or again, if substantial time and events have passed. However, asking "repeatedly" is only an annoyance and slows down the progress of getting everyone on their way.

If the answer is 'no, you are not being detained,' there is no 'process' to slow down.

All of this should be common sense; which has evaded most people.

It hasn't 'evaded most people.' What has happened, is you falsely view 'most people' as being what you don't agree with, yet it hasn't shown to be accurate.

 

[MAC702]

...Quit wasting cops and courts' time...

You are addressing "Law" Enforcement Officers, here, right?

 

[nikerret]

The name can be on a badge, and the badge need not be real.

I'm not saying it can't be on there, but I have never seen it. The most identifiers I have seen are badge/radio number and rank. Beyond that, I have not seen (or heard of) an idividual's name being on their badge. Please show me one example.

Most of us here do NOT 'look for altercation with LE.' But, carrying and using a recorder CAN be a good idea IF such encounter were to happen.

If you rereard my post, you will see that part was referencing those who go out looking for an altercation.

As for 'quit wasting cops and court's time?' Recordings that show an LE to be a liar only waste cops and courts time by pointing out a bad cop, who likely shouldn't have contacted a law-abiding citizen in the first place. Otherwise, a recording won't waste anyone's time, it will simply be a second record of an event that the LE should already be recording. how is that a 'waste of time?'

You are addressing "Law" Enforcement Officers, here, right?

If you rereard my post, you will see that part was referencing those who go out looking for an altercation. Also, many places are requiring paperwork be cut for any incident/call/report of/contact and many places are having the courts look them over to make sure no charges should be filed.

OC'er decides to go out and get into an altercation with LE
LE does paperwork documenting incident where no laws were broken, but a report had to be made due to someone calling OC'er in
Prosecutor's office looks over report to make sure they don't want to file any charges
-How is that not an epic waste of time? Except that the OC'er can be the big dick on the intenet.

You two's replies reek of an agenda.

I am very pro-OC. Before I was a LEO, I OC'd in many places where I was one of the first to do so. I don't know how many of my old posts are still on here, but you may be able to look those up. However, many of the OC'ers, now, want altercations with the cops and revel in anything a cop does wrong. They do not want cops to be pro-OC. When I OC'ed, we minimized the display of the firearm; it seems the trend is now to flash it.
Remember, every LEO that has a bad encoutner with an OC'er makes other LEO's think poorly of OC, as a whole.

 

[wrightme]

I'm not saying it can't be on there, but I have never seen it. The most identifiers I have seen are badge/radio number and rank. Beyond that, I have not seen (or heard of) an idividual's name being on their badge. Please show me one example.

Well then, the badge would not identify the officer at all in this instance, would it.
I responded about that, since you seemed to present the case that 'flashing the badge' authenticated him as an LE. It didn't.

 

[wrightme]

If you rereard my post, you will see that part was referencing those who go out looking for an altercation.

Lets review....

No, in fact, LEO's are usually recording, as well. Said recordings have shown complaintants to be liars in their accusations toward me twice in the last year, or so. What I find sad, is how many, on here, get all geared up looking for an altercation with LE and want to have it on record. Quit wasting cops and courts' time.

Very good. Then you should easily be able to understand why citizens would also desire recordings. You know, because cops are not required to tell the truth to the citizen, and some have shown that they are also willing to lie to gain a conviction against an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
Most of us here do NOT 'look for altercation with LE.' But, carrying and using a recorder CAN be a good idea IF such encounter were to happen.

As for 'quit wasting cops and court's time?' Recordings that show an LE to be a liar only waste cops and courts time by pointing out a bad cop, who likely shouldn't have contacted a law-abiding citizen in the first place. Otherwise, a recording won't waste anyone's time, it will simply be a second record of an event that the LE should already be recording. how is that a 'waste of time?'

I responded to what you said. You claim 'many on here' go looking for an altercation. I replied that "Most of us here do NOT 'look for altercation with LE.' "


I simply do NOT see 'many on here' gearing up looking for an altercation. Even then, those who may do that, are not breaking the law, are they?