usmcbess
Regular Member
imported post
Very typical of my encounters while OC.
Very typical of my encounters while OC.
It APPEARS that you must be under ARREST to be required to ID??? Did I read this right?
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0840000710.HTM
That assumption would be false. Reading the law as it is written on the link, states that an Officer has the right to detain you if he or she reasonably believes that you have or will commit a crime. The key words there (Reasonably believes) or reasonable suspicion. If an officer can articulate a crime is or will be commited he can detain and assertain your informaiton. And you have to give it. Remember it is not what you think it is what he thinks. There are millions of laws that you will never ever think to know that you can and will be detained for. So don't get too cocky around officers. They may have moments. But, if they know their job, they will find someway of getting you.
That assumption would be false. Reading the law as it is written on the link, states that an Officer has the right to detain you if he or she reasonably believes that you have or will commit a crime. The key words there (Reasonably believes) or reasonable suspicion. If an officer can articulate a crime is or will be commited he can detain and assertain your informaiton. And you have to give it. Remember it is not what you think it is what he thinks. There are millions of laws that you will never ever think to know that you can and will be detained for. So don't get too cocky around officers. They may have moments. But, if they know their job, they will find someway of getting you.
Key phrase being: "If an officer can articulate..."
Saying, "I stopped you because you were openly carrying a firearm" in a jurisdiction where OC is lawful is NOT reasonable suspicion.
Or a elderly lady shopping in walmart notices a 6 foot tall white male roughly 225 pounds strutting down an isle with a gun strapped to his side, and is in fear that she may become the victim of a crime. Sounds reasonable to me.
Also remember there is no law stating that you can in fact carry a gun around. There just is not any law saying you cannot.
Or a elderly lady shopping in walmart notices a 6 foot tall white male roughly 225 pounds strutting down an isle with a gun strapped to his side, and is in fear that she may become the victim of a crime. Sounds reasonable to me.
Also remember there is no law stating that you can in fact carry a gun around. There just is not any law saying you cannot.
Key phrase being: "If an officer can articulate..."
Saying, "I stopped you because you were openly carrying a firearm" in a jurisdiction where OC is lawful is NOT reasonable suspicion.
cshoff- I appreciate all your knowledge and contributions. Who are you suggesting the officer has to articulate his reasonable suspicion to?
Also, as someone who has firsthand experience with this, are you aware these usually get written up as "Interfering with an officer/investigation" municipal ordinances, as opposed to state statute violations?
I was in an apartment doing nothing wrong when cops knocked on the front door. After we declined to answer, they opened the unlocked back glass door and walked in. When I refused to give my name, I was arrested. "Interfering with an Investigation". There was nothing articulate about these pricks coming into this apartment. On top of it all, a guy I know at the station tries to tell me - in typical copstryingtobullshitthehelloutofyou fashion - that if a cop asks your name, you must give it to him.
As a continued rant, you have little chance of winning such a case in municipal court. You have to pay a lawyer to lose there first, then pay him to appeal it, and pay every tax-stealing government body along the way. And if you win you're still down a decent bit of cash, not to mention the time and stress put upon so someone can know "your name, address, business abroad, and whither you are going...."
Or a elderly lady shopping in walmart notices a 6 foot tall white male roughly 225 pounds strutting down an isle with a gun strapped to his side, and is in fear that she may become the victim of a crime. Sounds reasonable to me.
Also remember there is no law stating that you can in fact carry a gun around. There just is not any law saying you cannot.
Or a elderly lady shopping in walmart notices a 6 foot tall white male roughly 225 pounds strutting down an isle with a gun strapped to his side, and is in fear that she may become the victim of a crime. Sounds reasonable to me.
Also remember there is no law stating that you can in fact carry a gun around. There just is not any law saying you cannot.
That is not "reasonable." It is a "fear."Or a elderly lady shopping in walmart notices a 6 foot tall white male roughly 225 pounds strutting down an isle with a gun strapped to his side, and is in fear that she may become the victim of a crime. Sounds reasonable to me.
That IS how law operates. That which is not denied is allowed.Waveceptor said:Also remember there is no law stating that you can in fact carry a gun around. There just is not any law saying you cannot.
Perfect example of why NOT to OC in KC. As soon as that officer touched your shirt you should have picked up your phone, dialed 911, and requested an IMMEDIATE supervisor on-scene so you could file assault charges upon the officer. Sounds extreme, but it SHOULD have happened. That's a LEO that needed to lose his POST certification and the Mo DPS needs to have a ZERO-TOLERANCE policy for this kind of behavior.
Not a lawyer here, but you WERE NOT in any way obligated to follow his instructions or orders based upon what you wrote. He had no PC to run you for warrants, let alone speak to you. You forgot Rule #1 with LEO encounters....EVERYTHING is intended to illicit a criminal response or obtain evidence...LEOs are permitted to lie, so use your 5th Amendment rights and your 4th Amendment rights. You were unlawfully detained and interrogated...LEO admitted he had no reason to believe you had committed a crime, thus there is no PC for the LEO initiating the contact.
In retrospect, I answered too many questions. I should have called it in and refused to answer him by asking my own questions. That is why I posted this. I have engaged hostile officers on a few occasions now and there is ZERO benefit to try and dialog with them. They are high on cop attitude and only want to find a way to "catch" you. If an officer is friendly and inquisitive, dialog might be ok but you must be careful if you proceed. They may be a hostile acting nice to "catch" you. When I see an officer now, I begin rehearsing my own questions in case they stop me. But the vast majority just nod sternly and keep moving. I don't even acknowledge them anymore. I just look at the next person in the crowd as if the LEO was just a random person in the crowd. Ignoring them, I think, causes them to ignore you mostly. If you engage in ANY way, you open the door for them to speak to you. I prefer to just avoid that altogether now.
That's the ticket! Now make sure you have a copy of a pocket Constitution with you as well as the ability to record from your phone. They can prove useful when harassed in such an unlawful manner. There's a great youtube video on the 5th Amendment posted by a college professor that brings in a LEO to illustrate why one should NEVER speak to LEOs.
Some LEOs simply don't understand the law and fail to realize that their failure to understand the law can make them lawless just like those they hope to investigate. Once they cross that bridge there's no turning back and it's something some of us have had to remind Missouri LEOs about.
You'd be surprised how a LEO will react when they attempt to play the "officer safety" disarming card (which is illegal) and they're given the appropriate response (which usually gets them pretty angry). The casual response should always be a firm no citing the 4th Amendment followed by informing that they assume all liability of the firearm and/or injures that may occur from your being disarmed. It's more shocking if you toss out there that should they make the mistake of pointing the muzzle of your own firearm at you (LE or not) that it will be deemed an unlawful use of deadly force (aka deadly force assault) and RSMO 571 justifies the use of self-defense with deadly force...the reaction is priceless contemplation from most, however some will stretch that into threatening harm to a LEO which it clearly is not.
This is usually the point where most will wet themselves at the possibility of other means being present on or near your person. During casual conversations with some of the LEOs local to me, I've given them this wake-up-call scenario and asked if they could lawfully charge someone with a crime after reading just the black and white of the law. Not a single one could come up with a proper charge and one even commented that such an irresponsible act by a LEO is cause for disciplinary action and could result in permanent dismissal from LE, especially if the agency faces a lawsuit over the action having pointed a person's own firearm at them after disarming them.
Now that all said, I do not fault our LEOs for treating everyone like there's a weapon present, we're in a pro-2A State after all. However, I do expect the departments to train their officers in techniques to handle lawful carriers without violating the law. I as a law abiding carrying taxpayer should not have to personally educate LEOs to their own municipal ordinances or State statutes involving 571, nor should any of you. But when the chance arises, educating them is VITAL to keeping a good report with them so they see that we're not out to create a controversy, we want them to better understand what they're facing and how to deal with lawful carry.
Think Terry v. Ohio. Absent valid RAS you are free to ignore their request for identifying information and walk away.
Key phrase being: "If an officer can articulate..."
Saying, "I stopped you because you were openly carrying a firearm" in a jurisdiction where OC is lawful is NOT reasonable suspicion.