open carry and cops

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by jrob33

I recently posted in a thread where the OP was berated by multiple posters for not being confrontational enough with an officer, even though the officer made it clear that the poster was free to go from the very beginning...the argument that only police officers are confrontational is laughable.

You undoubted refer to this thread and misrepresent the context and conclusions there as well.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...call-for-mowing-my-lawn&p=1719574#post1719574

First let me say that I am not an enemy to OC, I have been waiting for OK to become an open carry state and fully intend to OC. And I realize that alot of police officers have an issue with citizens Open carrying even when it is leagal, and many seem to take it upon themselves to "stop" OC even after their state has deemed it legal. Those officers have to be dealt with strongly. But I dont feel that every single police officer should be treated as an enamy to "the cause" simply because he is a police officer. now genreally speaking i try to defer to the mods...BUT

to say I misrepresented the thread in question? how exactly did i misrepresent it? Are you trying to say the OP was not berated by other posters for his actions? here is a direct quote from the OP.

"Now I kinda feel stupid for bringing it up, people painting me as some benedict arnold for not fighting tooth and nail for my rights and telling this nice officer to eff off"

obviously the op felt "jumped on" as well, And this was only in the first page of the thread. The Op received advice ranging from just ignoring the officer completely to yelling at the officer to get the !*&$ off his property. So when I read a comment saying that its "always the officers here that are confrontational" is riddiculous. Or are you saying i misrepresented the officer? I counted at least 4 times in the first page where the OP emphasized that the officer was polite, friendly etc.

Appreciative of your support and interest in OCing. Would encourage you to get involved in the legislative process to help make it happen in OK.

Perhaps it is the tone and tenor of some of the choice of words and application in your posts that casts a certain aura. They contribute to making you appear openly contentious and that is truly not a good thing.

Examples:
"that does not (in my book ) turn you into some kind of traitor to the OC cause." - No one ever said it did.

"some are only referring to the rights THEY like, and dont wnt you to exercise your other rights" - Not the case, presumptuous.

"we are the ones PROVOKING confontation" - Really? Most here would disagree.

"Im sure I will win no popularity contests.." - Perhaps a less critical approach would help.

"would by and large jump on the OP" - Definitely not the case, many were openly supportive.

"many here beleive others should only exercise the rights that THEY like" - Really hammering that false assumption.

"after screaming about your own rights" - Didn't see anyone screaming, I saw discussion.

"hypocritical to jump on someone for choosing to handle a situation differently" - No one was jumped on - again it's discussion.

"would seem that individual rights are the most important thing in the world around here until someone is seen as "hurting the cause" then his rights take a back seat." - OC is perceived as an individual right, but OCDO is not a general rights forum. Posting here is a privilege, not a right.

"Thats cute but you seem to be blatantly ignoring" - No one ignored anything.

Another poster said: "The op is not about the response citizen chose, you are correct there, the citizen can respond as they choose AFTER the illegal contact by LE. The OP is about the mind-set of LE that prompted the LEO to even stop and make contact that required/forced a citizen to choose any type of response."

Part of my last post on the previous thread bears repeating here:

"In consensual stops/conversations such as the OP's, it is not so much what either party said as the underlying message/opinion delivered by the LEO that such conduct is not acceptable/good et al - that in this writer's opinion is unnecessary harassment. It is that to which I object. It is impossible for the officer to completely divorce himself from his official capacity.

How the OP responded is a matter of personal choice and I will not criticize him for his decisions. What we do is to analyze and respond to the event from our own personal experiences and knowledge - that is also what the OP requested.

What the OP did was fine - his choice. What the officer did was to push his personal opinion and thereby intimidate while representing his department - that is totally unacceptable.

Suggest that you lighten up your remarks that do seem somewhat overly critical of other posters.

Hope you take the suggestion in the spirit intended, not as a personal affront.

 

[Kivuli]

Sorry, I thought the idea was "if you talk s___ be prepared to back up what you say or look like an idiot."
You said the words, not back them up.

Post the "vitrolic comments" that you seem to think are so prevalent.

Then you were wrong about "the idea". We also differ on the definition of talking ____. I am stating my opinions; you are doing your level best to ridicule them. Ergo, I question your motives for having me post specifics out of a thread I already cited.

 

[Xulld]

This thread is still going strong? sigh, oh well.

Just thought for a moment, am I right to think vitriol is fairly extreme?

So I decided to look up the definitions for it.

World English Dictionary
vitriol (ˈvɪtrɪˌɒl)

—n
1. another name for sulphuric acid
2. any one of a number of sulphate salts, such as ferrous sulphate (green vitriol), copper sulphate (blue vitriol), or zinc sulphate (white vitriol)
3. speech, writing, etc, displaying rancour, vituperation, or bitterness

—vb , -ols, -oling, -oled, -olling, -olled
4. to attack or injure with or as if with vitriol
5. to treat with vitriol

. . . well and I come to the same conclusions I reached earlier. Some folks are a little bitter about specific incidents of police corruption, and rights violations, and perhaps they do wish to attack these things in order to reduce or remove such incidents, but I have to say that the word vitriol isn't really appropriate except in some extreme cases. I also think if someone is going to claim something is vitriolic it would be worthy of a direct quote. That way we can better understand the usage for them personally.

 

[MKEgal]

First off, to the OP, welcome aboard.
I strongly suggest you read that thread motofixxer recommended.
Also, the search function is your friend. Most newbie questions have been answered time & again, and some of the long-time residents get a bit testy when people appear to be lazy about researching information.

D'ja ever get the feeling that the posters here are much more knowledgeable about, and respect the Law (capital "L") than those who are officers posting here?

No. I do get the feeling they're more confrontational about it, however.

In general, the people I know from these boards & our meet-n-greets are far more knowledgeable about firearms laws as they affect normal everyday citizens (and even to some extent the ones that affect LEO) than LEO themselves.

As for being confrontational, I can only think of one person (who I think is banned here) whom I would say is generally confrontational, seeking out interaction & trying to get the cops to screw up. But is it really entrapment if they'd do the crime anyway? Are the rest of us occasionally out to make a point? Sure. But for the most part, confrontations talked about here are brought about by other people, not the LACs.

In any state an officer can stop you for open carry and ask you for your identification but all you should do is politley surrender the weapon and give him or her your permit and ID... If you do it the rite way there will be no accidents.

Ho-lee cow. :shocker: :banghead:
You're looking at this entirely backwards. The government and its agents must prove a good & legal reason to interfere in the life of a citizen. [Hint: that means having Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime.] The citizen is under no obligation to prove to the government, via its agents, that said citizen is law-abiding. The default presumption in the law is that people are law-abiding until proved otherwise.

If the cops did things the "rite" [sic] way, they would at most observe the LAC & see that there's nothing wrong going on. Why should I have to be inconvenienced at all to make up for their lack of training, their lack of understanding of the Constitution they did swear to uphold?

Yes, anyone can approach me and ask to see my DL. I don't have to show it to anyone, unless I'm lawfully stopped by a LEO while operating a motor vehicle. And at least in WI, the only time I have to show my carry license is if I'm cc or if I'm carrying in a place where only licensees may carry, whether OC or cc.

As for "surrendering the weapon", that right there shows you're probably a LEO yourself.
a) I don't carry weapons; I've never handled a weapon
b) there's no reason for me to give a nosy person any of my property, no matter how he's dressed or who he's employed by
c) if it stays holstered, there's no way it'll go bang, so no accidents

They have to protect and they have no way of knowing who you are until they do so.

:banghead: :banghead:
Read Warren v. District of Columbia and get back to us on that "have to protect" thing. It's available on Wikipedia, with links to the actual documents if you want to read the originals.

In short, police are under no legal obligation to protect anyone who's not in custody.

• Even if your ex is in the middle of breaking down the door, yelling he's going to kill you, and you have a restraining order, if you call 911 the police are under no obligation to show up.

• If you call 911 to report intruders in your house, & a roommate apparently downstairs with them screaming about rape, the police are under no obligation to show up. If you call 911 repeatedly, they're under no obligation to show up. If those intruders end up holding you & your roommates captive for 2 days, taking turns raping you all, police are not liable.

Those are both real cases. Both times, courts ruled the police were not liable for (in the first case) death or (in the second) serious bodily harm, despite their knowledge of a dangerous situation & failure to act.

And if they want to try the "we don't know if you're a felon" line, there's no reason for them to suspect I am, so there's no need to disprove the theory. If they have a "most wanted" picture that looks like me, that's RAS. Otherwise, they're just being nosy.

Since they can't stop car drivers just to see if their license is valid, how much more illegal is it to harass a citizen solely for exercising protected civil rights?

Would you say it's reasonable for police to cordon off a city park & demand ID from everyone there, to make sure there are no registered sex offenders who aren't allowed to be near children? Or maybe to make sure there hasn't been a kidnapping?

I do not feel it is harrassment unless they will not let you go.

It's harassment if there's no legal reason for them to interfere with the citizen, esp. if it happens repeatedly with the same person, or there's a pattern of behaviour across many citizens who have been stopped solely for exercising a protected civil right.

If they have no RAS of a crime & they in any way intimate that you are not free to go, it's illegal.

On these forums I see frustration, I see anger, I see some degrees of bitterness but it almost always seems specific, not generalized. It always seems targeted toward a specific event, person, or place with reference to an injustice, or perceived injustice. Which tends to make it justified.

Amen!

 

[jrob33]

Examples:
"that does not (in my book ) turn you into some kind of traitor to the OC cause." - No one ever said it did. Comments comparing him (in a negative way) to Rosa parks seem to support my opinion. They may not have SAID it but it was very clearly implied. Its very difficult for me to imagine that a man as intelligent as you cant see that it was Def implied and reinforced over and over again..


"some are only referring to the rights THEY like, and dont wnt you to exercise your other rights" - Not the case, presumptuous. again my opinion based on what I read.

"we are the ones PROVOKING confontation" - Really? Most here would disagree. ok I will reword it to suggesting/calling for/supporting confrontation...

"Im sure I will win no popularity contests.." - Perhaps a less critical approach would help. probably, but in my opinion the Original poster was being jumped on for handling the situation in a civil manner, I tend to get riled when I see someone getting beat up for doing nothing wrong..(according to the way I perceive it of course) or as in this thread I see groups of people being painted with a broad negative brush, epsecially when it appears (to me) to be a case of the pot and the kettle.

"would by and large jump on the OP" - Definitely not the case, many were openly supportive.
My definition of Many and yours differ, especially when even in being supportive he was still told he was wrong. Words like intimidated, etc, Or being called a troll and a liar. (interesting that we are having this discussion because I have spoke out in defense (perhaps a little loudly) of the OP, but the ones who called him a liar and a troll seemed to not raise an eyebrow...) roughly 15 posts were about how the OP did wrong, with probably 5 actual supportive post those being the ones free of hey you did good "EXCEPT" or you shouldnt be "INTIMIDATED" or "NEXT TIME" you should...or you did good,"HOWEVER"...language like that sets the tone that the op was WRONG.

"after screaming about your own rights" - Didn't see anyone screaming, I saw discussion. fair enough, screaming was the wrong word...looked more like let us tell you why you were wrong to me..I donr consider that a discussion.


"hypocritical to jump on someone for choosing to handle a situation differently" - No one was jumped on - again it's discussion. Again we will just agree to disagree




Another poster said: "The op is not about the response citizen chose, you are correct there, the citizen can respond as they choose AFTER the illegal contact by LE. The OP is about the mind-set of LE that prompted the LEO to even stop and make contact that required/forced a citizen to choose any type of response."********* I would argue that since the officer made it clear it was a consentual encounter from the beginning there was nothing "illegal" about it, and the majority of the posts I read were NOT about the officers state of mind, but were about telling the OP what he did wrong, and/or what he should have done...




What the OP did was fine - his choice. What the officer did was to push his personal opinion and thereby intimidate while representing his department - that is totally unacceptable.****
I fail to see where the officer "intimidated" surely he isnt intimidating because hes wearing a gun??? it would appear that most here claim not to be intimidated by a uniform or a badge. The officer approached the op, and VERY clearly set the ground rules, that the Op was free to not talk to him, and that the OP was doing nothing illegal. I see NOTHING in the OP's posting to support the popular opinion that the officer in question was anything but polite, and professional......is it a given here that an officer should not speak or interact with any citizen unless he has "PC" to believe that citizen has committed a crime? I see nothing wrong with an officer attempting to engage in a consentual encounter with a citizen if the officer does it the right way..and thats exactly how the OP described this officers actions. he didnt "intimidate anyone, he didnt "demand" anything. he laid the terms out nice and clear.

Suggest that you lighten up your remarks that do seem somewhat overly critical of other posters.****** Ill give you that, but id say that applied to the entire thread. The Ops actions and the officers.

Hope you take the suggestion in the spirit intended, not as a personal affront.

I dont take it personal, but (except as noted) I stand by my original statements, . (saying nothing of the snide remark about my prior servive as an MP)

I apologize to the original poster for this turning into a discussion of my postings in another thread it was not my intention to hijack, but I took exception to being accused of "misrepresenting" the facts,

grapeshot you and I obviously disagree, and If I recall correctly this is not the first time....hopefully this one can end as politley as the last.