Police officer looking for respectful dialoge

[stargateranch]

Hello,

I am a officer here in Utah, I support the right to keep and bear arms. I am attempting to educate myself and those I work with and also make contacting those who open carry a good experience for all involved. That said I will make a few statements so you understand where I am coming from and then ask several questions and would appreciate your insight.

Statements, These are my personal beliefs

1. When you open carry the police may be called. I work for the citizens of Utah both those who open carry and those who make the call reporting the activity. I have a duty to investigate even if that means driving by, smiling and waving, and then moving on. Please do not fault me for responding to a request from another citizen.

2. Guns make me nervous, some cops with guns make me nervous. I do not know you weapon handling skills, I do not know your intentions. Nothing personal you just get paranoid doing this job for too long. Why? because I have arrested individuals who were "open carrying" one had felony warrants, one had hidden red and blue lights in his car, one had handcuffs, pepper spray, police jackets, and other items, one had more heroin and syringes in the car then I could shake a stick at. These folks are the exception (I hope) not the rule. Yes I had violations of the law allowing me to identify and detain these individuals not just the fact they were open carrying. So, everyone makes me nervous its not just you.

3. Confrontational, if you are putting on a firearm then hoping the cops stop you so you can show how smart, right, or awesome you are you are stupid. You may be well within your rights but you are stupid. The purpose of carrying a firearms should be defense. Carry for the right reason.

4. Identification, I really just want to earn a paycheck so I can feed my kids and go home to my wife. I understand the reasons for not wanting to provide identification and if you refuse that's fine by me it's your right, assuming you have not violated any laws. But consider this, you know who else refuses to carry ID or identify themselves to police? Drug cartel members (they do it so they don't get deported again), individuals with warrants who have violated the law and refused to handle it correctly. So still not saying you have to ID yourself but it sends red flags to officers. Heck years ago I had an individual who refused to ID himself, long story short he murdered several people in AZ and was on the FBI's most wanted. If you were me would you be seeing warning signs?


Questions,

1. Do you mind being contacted in a casual manner? not detained. I seriously just want to talk to you, I love guns and assuming you are not carrying a gigantic piece of crap (hi-point comes to mind) I will ask you how you like it and how it shoots, and maybe if you are selling it (do not tell my wife). Unless you are super busy thats cool too.

2. Why not concealed? From a purely tactical standpoint I would rather have my weapon concealed. A concealed weapon lends to the surprise part of speed, surprise, and violence of action. I am looking for real reasons, not "cause I can". I will accept deterrence as a legitimate reason.

3. How do you want to be approached? Like I said before I cannot just ignore a call I get dispatched to. Man with a gun calls are not entirely uncommon, I must respond and make sure no laws are being violated, or are about to be. Is there anyway I can do that without stepping on your toes or making this a huge deal when it does not need to be? Keep in mind I just want to make sure that you are not going to kill or hurt anyone (that doesn't need killin'). I would have a hard time sleeping if I did not confront an armed individual who later killed someones child.

4. If you could tell a group of cops anything what would you tell us? I will pass it on to my co-workers and hopefully we can avoid stupidity on both ends.

Thanks for reading, thanks for replying.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Welcome to the forum!


1. Do you have a duty to investigate legal activity?
If someone were to call and say that they saw someone walking down the street with a red shirt, are you duty-bound to investigate?
What if they have a fear of dogs and make a report that someone was walking a chihuahua right down the middle of Main Street?
I have no problems with an officer driving by to make sure no criminal activity is taking place, that's what the city, county, state pays them for.
I do on occasion have a small problem with officers seizing either my person or papers, possessions etc., (making a stop or detainment) with no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

2. Guns make me nervous as well, cops with guns make me especially nervous, (my brother is in law enforcement and I've observed weapons qualifications that he's conducted. Officers being confrontational with me make me extremely nervous since I know I'm not the one who's going to be shooting anyone. So that only leaves one other person in the conversation that's gonna be dangerous.


3. I wear a firearm for many reason, among them is to have the ability to defend myself and others. I don't wear one to show how bad-asked I can be to people. I also wear a firearm in order to 'normalize' the sight of openly carried arms and as an educational tool. I'd be happy as can be if I'm never confronted by an officer demanding that I justify being armed. Confront citizens for the right reasons.

If you are wearing a badge and going about hoping to show how big, how strong, how right it makes you, or how awesome you are, then you are stupid. ... mmm, does that sound 'confrontational'? I hope not, because I just wrote the same thing you did but changed it from 'gun' to 'badge.' Treat us with the same respect that you would expect to be treated and you'll get along here fine.

I know this is going to sound terribly impolite but, .....
Remember that the shiny badge on your chest only carries weight on the street. Here we are all equal; a badge carries no authority... but it can earn our respect.


4. Hey, thanks for conflating us with the drug cartels and murderers, classy.
I tell you what, unless I'm being detained for suspicion of a crime then you have no need to know who I am. Yes, it would make your job a hundred times easier, but I don't see that as my problem.


Questions:
1. Do you mind being contacted in a casual manner?
Not in the least, I enjoy conversations with people. I don't even mind you asking me to produce identification...
Just hand over Two Pieces of picture ID (with a current residential address) first and you can have mine. I'll just hold onto yours while we chat, m'kay? (Does that give you an uncomfortable feeling? Why?)

2. Why not concealed? I will accept deterrence as a legitimate reason.
Legitimate reason is given then. I'm sure you've noticed that in most states it's 'concealed carry' that is regulated. Have you wondered why?
Could it be that the honest man has historically had no need to conceal?
Why do patrol officers wear shiny badges, distinctive uniforms and custom painted, visible patrol cars?
Wouldn't it be much more effective to police in civilian clothes? The bad guys wouldn't now who was carrying a badge and who wasn't, right?
And shouldn't all cars be unmarked? Someone speeding down the highway would have no way of knowing if the Honda CRV in the next lane was going to put on some blue lights and pull him over for going 11-over.

3. How do you want to be approached?
I don't.

Unless and until you are prepared to go in front of a judge and articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, leave me alone.
Do you respond to calls of someone carrying a gas can down the street, he may be on his way to commit arson.
Do you respond to calls of someone carrying a tape recorder, he may be on his way to wiretap someone and blackmail them.
Do you respond to calls of someone carrying a chicken, he could be on his way to an illegal cockfight, right?
Do you respond to calls of a old white guy walking hand in hand with a minor, black child? He could be kidnapping her


4. If you could tell a group of cops anything what would you tell us? I will pass it on to my co-workers and hopefully we can avoid stupidity on both ends.
I'd remind them of the Peelian Principles of Policing, especially these two:
"The police are the public and the public are the police."
and
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

 

[stargateranch]

Thanks

Very good I especially like the last point. I will pass it on. I didnt mean to offend on some points they are just my opinion. I am not the smartest guy around for sure.

Also I am doing this because I have seen some people mistreated and I would like to avoid that. My heart is in the right place but I lack eloquence at times.

 

[JoeSparky]

Here is what I posted on ANOTHER thread on this forum just the other day....

"I don't care what the LEO's gender may be, this is what I want and expect for ANY Peace Officer, Police-PERSON, Deputy, or Sheriff....

I expect them to know the Constitution and the law they are enforcing (if a question exists--- learn about it) and recognize the limits it places upon them in the performance of their chosen occupation. I expect them to fairly enforce the law---- no matter the color, creed, race, gender, etc of the person the are interacting with. I expect them to remember that even though only 5% of the population may take up 95% of their time.... sometimes, or many times, they are not dealing with a criminal, but rather one who happened to MAYBE have committed an infraction or none at all-- that sometime will be taken up with the other 95%.
I want the Leo to remember that it is NOT an US vs Them scenario when they are dealing with a person who happens to be well versed in the Constitution of our Country and the State in which we reside. I fully recognize that our Constitutionally protected rights do make the Leo's job more difficult ( They were supposed to know this before they got the job and need to just deal with it!). I am not willing to Give up my rights just because....

If I am approached by an officer, I will be polite. I will attempt to protect my rights in a lawful manner and I expect them to be recognized!"

Also, please don't take it personally when you hear or read a comment such as this: "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away!".... it is simply recognizing that the police are outnumbered by 1000's to 1 (ratio of residents to police) and it is IMPOSSIBLE for the police to be exactly where they need to be when they need to be there with the information they need to EVERY LOCATION IN ANY COMMUNITY!

Also, know that I fully support the CONSTITUTIONAL and LAWFUL actions of ANY officer!

 

[stargateranch]

Right on. You are right, the minutes away thing is bogus since some of the most awful crimes take seconds.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Very good I especially like the last point. I will pass it on. I didnt mean to offend on some points they are just my opinion.

No problem,
If you Didn't have the force of will to be willing to express your opinions then you probably wouldn't be much good at being an officer.
Strong opinions are expected to be expressed, just be prepared to be resisted equally as forcefully.

 

[FallonJeeper]

If you're looking for insight, you'll soon find out, you've come to the right place. ;o)

 

[JoeSparky]

I don't believe the NON LEO ownership/possession of Handcuffs OR pepper spray is UNLAWFUL in Utah and by themselves will not support an accusation or conviction for impersonating. Adding, red/blue lights on the vehicle WITHOUT legal authorization would be a problem.

As for the POLICE jacket... the guy likes his music! LOL, I Jest!

 

[Whitney]

OMG a MWG

The salient points, I believe have be made. At the risk of sounding condescending I have some follow up questions.

So lets say I'm shopping in the local big box store and you are dispatched there as a result of a 911 MWG call.

Does infliction in the dispatcher voices cause angst or some other irrational emotion? (human nature suggests yes)

When you make contact will you see I'm just shopping and pass by? (open carry not your preferred method)

Would it matter if I'm wearing my gray hoodie and a drop leg rig, (stupid??) or a nice button down shirt with my sidearm at 3 O'clock? (not stupid??)

With regard to ID, why does it seem I am presumed guilty of something until you pass judgement?(Drug Cartel, really?)
I value my privacy and absolutely do not want to be asked for ID unless you are willing to provide me yours as was previously pointed out.

Lastly will you make contact with the caller and educate them with regard to open carry?

~Whitney

 

[MAC702]

...When you open carry the police may be called. I work for the citizens of Utah both those who open carry and those who make the call reporting the activity. I have a duty to investigate even if that means driving by, smiling and waving, and then moving on. Please do not fault me for responding to a request from another citizen....

First, Welcome to the forum! I don't think I'm alone in thinking that was a very respectful introduction and set of questions for us.

Some of my thoughts have been addressed already, but here's one I just had:

If a citizen calls and reports a vehicle that is speeding and driving recklessly, giving a very accurate description, and you investigate by arriving in the area and actually see the vehicle that was described earlier, but it is being operated in a safe and legal manner the entire time you watch it, are you still duty-bound to investigate further? Indeed, are you even allowed to pull over the vehicle and check out the driver based on a (perhaps anonymous) phone call? I do not know the answer, so I am not baiting you.

In this case, assuming the witness was telling the truth, the vehicle WAS doing something illegal.
In the case of a MWAG call for an open-carrier, at NO time was anything illegal being done, even though the person is still open-carrying when you arrive to investigate.

What do you do for each of these cases?

What questions are asked of a caller by your dispatcher? If you don't know, can you find out for us, please?

I frequent UT quite a bit. It is one of my favorite states for traveling and road trips. I am certified by your state BCI to instruct, also. If you are still active here (and I hope you are) when my renewal comes up, maybe we can get together for a lunch up in the north part of the state where you are. And I promise not to request that you be disarmed for my safety, ha.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I am a officer here in Utah...Thanks for reading, thanks for replying.

I always love it when a new cop shows up on the forum. They are such a wealth of information on the law enfarcement viewpoint.

 

[hazek]

1. A question back at you: If you do respond to a call, given the amount of experience on your job so far, how difficult would you say is it to determine from just a few moments of observation from afar whether or not said reported armed individual is up to no good or not, especially when they are perhaps merely enjoying a cup of coffee or a meal or walking around with their family or walking their dog or peacefully shopping?

2. Another Q: Why do guns make you nervous? Aren't guns merely tools? Shouldn't the specific people be the ones that make you nervous especially in cases when a seemingly unarmed person for which you have reasonable suspicion could still be concealing a weapon of some king and have a malicious intent to harm you? In short, shouldn't you worry about the people you approach and not the tools they visually carry?

3. Q: Define "confrontational". Is calmly but firmly refusing to ID being perceived as confrontational? Also have you considered that your approach of an individual from a psychological aspect is almost always an intrusion into their present routine and is unexpected and disturbing, for many even frightening, and may cause a certain type of a guarded response that may seem confrontational(much like a response to a marketing technique called cold calling) and you need to first establish a rapport with the person in order to have a normal conversation meaning them being actually confrontational could really be you failing to do so?

4.
Q a: Did you swear an oath to the constitution? How do you then reconcile your request for ID with the 4th amendment?
Q b: If you have reasonable suspicion, does it matter if they refuse?


Answers:
1. It depends what you mean by "in a casual manner". If it's just casually walking up to me and greeting me, I don't mind. In fact the last time I met with an officer I was guilty of a small property damage crime and yet I tried to be as friendly and as polite as possible. On the other hand if it's tactically approaching me from two or three different angels with hands at the ready to draw your guns with a threatening body posture, you're scaring me and I'd prefer not to be contacted.

2. Deterrent, I'm a bit on the skinny side of body types and could be easily perceived as an easy target.

3. I'd rather not be, but if you must, I prefer to be approached so I can see you coming, casually without any threatening moves and saying a simple "Hi" and a hand shake.

4. Even if it's not what your department requires from you, please have the intellectual integrity to study on your own "the law of the land" and how it came about and why and what it really means to be free, might I suggest you start with:

[video=youtube;_nOMbfsgZ9s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s[/video]

 

[Citizen]

SNIP When you open carry the police may be called. I work for the citizens of Utah both those who open carry and those who make the call reporting the activity. I have a duty to investigate even if that means driving by, smiling and waving, and then moving on. Please do not fault me for responding to a request from another citizen.

No duty to respond at all. Courts have said so. Castle Rock vs Gonzales is one case.

Changing argument: asks about contacting OCers, but discusses only driving past.

Shifts the weight: says he has a duty to investigate, then later phrases it as responding to a request from a citizen.

 

[Citizen]

2. Guns make me nervous, some cops with guns make me nervous. I do not know you weapon handling skills, I do not know your intentions. Nothing personal you just get paranoid doing this job for too long. Why? because I have arrested individuals who were "open carrying" one had felony warrants, one had hidden red and blue lights in his car, one had handcuffs, pepper spray, police jackets, and other items, one had more heroin and syringes in the car then I could shake a stick at. These folks are the exception (I hope) not the rule. Yes I had violations of the law allowing me to identify and detain these individuals not just the fact they were open carrying. So, everyone makes me nervous its not just you.

Sloppy reasoning. Failure to distinguish between a consensual encounter and detention.

Whether he's nervous or not has no place in a consensual contact. A consensual contact gives him no authority to seize a gun for officer safety, although state law might depending on licensing requirements, for example, if Utah requires a permit to open carry on foot or in a vehicle. See Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases for the law on whether the officer can seize a gun during a consensual encounter.

If a cop is all that nervous about guns, and has no reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) for a detention, maybe he should just not contact the OCer at all. In fact, if police want to investigate they can always observe from a distance.

Added inapplicable argument: not knowing the contact-ee or detainee's weapons handling knowledge or skill has no place in the considerations. Is this officer saying he expects the OCer to handle his gun during a police encounter?!?!!?!?

 

[stargateranch]

my best shot

This is just me I cannot speak for another officer,

Every disptacher is differnt, I do not let that affect how I handle a call.

I will probably try to talk to you and not just pass by, if you tell me to pound sand so be it. Unless I have other reasons to detain you at that point your free to keep going.

I don't really care what you are wearing and I hope that I don't let that affect how I treat you. I wore some stupid stuff in the 80's, who didn't.

As far as ID I would probabaly just ask for a name, my full name is clearly dispalyed on my uniform. If you want to see my ID I will show it to you if you ask. I think cops are conditioned to ask for ID and it's almost second nature. I am human and life experience plays a huge role in what I do. Not saying everyone who does not give me ID is a drug dealer but when someone refuses ID I flash to all the past experiences I have had with those who refuse to ID themselves. Do I treat you differntly at this point, no. But I would be lying if I said I was not thinking differntly.

If the caller is in the area still I will probably contact them and explain you are doing nothing wrong. I will admit I am not likely to call them back, maybe I should change that though.

 

[stargateranch]

First, Welcome to the forum! I don't think I'm alone in thinking that was a very respectful introduction and set of questions for us.

Some of my thoughts have been addressed already, but here's one I just had:

If a citizen calls and reports a vehicle that is speeding and driving recklessly, giving a very accurate description, and you investigate by arriving in the area and actually see the vehicle that was described earlier, but it is being operated in a safe and legal manner the entire time you watch it, are you still duty-bound to investigate further? Indeed, are you even allowed to pull over the vehicle and check out the driver based on a (perhaps anonymous) phone call? I do not know the answer, so I am not baiting you.

In this case, assuming the witness was telling the truth, the vehicle WAS doing something illegal.
In the case of a MWAG call for an open-carrier, at NO time was anything illegal being done, even though the person is still open-carrying when you arrive to investigate.

What do you do for each of these cases?

What questions are asked of a caller by your dispatcher? If you don't know, can you find out for us, please?

]QUOTE]

Yes I can stop the vehicle if the information is considered acurate and reliable (I had court on a similar case a couple of months ago and won). I cannot take action however (issue a ciatation) without the witness signing the cite since I did not see the violation. An anonymous phone call has to be weighed for its content. Alot of calls are weeded out by dispatch if they are unable to give an accurate description, location, or violation. If the call is anonymous but it seams to have valid information a traffic stop could be made but no action can be taken without proof of the violations (I have won that in court too).

For the second scenario, alot of calls we go on turn out to be unfounded. No law was violated so no action was taken. On man with a gun calls dispatchers get all the regular stuff then usually gun info. We commonly get MWG calls in rural areas of Salt Lake we still respond but its usually guys plinking with 22's or whatever. We show up, shoot the bull, let them shoot one of my personal guns in my trunk, then leave. I guess I look at it this way. If I stay cool responding to the call can't hurt anything if no law has been broken I clear it an head to the next.

If you are headed through Salt Lake County Email me at ssr10clerk@gmail.com.

 

[Citizen]

3. Confrontational, if you are putting on a firearm then hoping the cops stop you so you can show how smart, right, or awesome you are you are stupid. You may be well within your rights but you are stupid. The purpose of carrying a firearms should be defense. Carry for the right reason.

I wonder if he always condescends to those from who he would ask a favor?

And, why would he inject this into the discussion at all? Does he really think he needs to educate us while asking us about contacts and trying to build bridges?

Rights are rights are rights are rights. No justification is needed. Certainly the opinion of a government employee is always suspect. Our cop pretends to say you are within your rights, but then pronounces a sort of thought crime. So, you are within your rights to carry. But, you are not in your rights to have your own reasons. This is what we get when we allow government to think about rights. This one presumes to tell us the only acceptable reason to carry. The only right reason (singular), according to his words.

According to him, people who are a bit shaky on their own identity and want to bolster it to themselves have no right to self-defense. People who want some additional attention--maybe their parents were indifferent to them or worse as children--people who want some additional attention have no right to self-defense. People who want to show others the right-ness of being able to defend self and loved one have no right to self-defense.

Having multiple reasons for carrying is not acceptable. Defense is the only "right" reason, and of course, he will tell us what is right.

If you look closely, his "right" reason does not include OCing to educate others on their rights to defense of self and others.

 

[stargateranch]

Sloppy reasoning. Failure to distinguish between a consensual encounter and detention.

Whether he's nervous or not has no place in a consensual contact. A consensual contact gives him no authority to seize a gun for officer safety, although state law might depending on licensing requirements, for example, if Utah requires a permit to open carry on foot or in a vehicle. See Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases for the law on whether the officer can seize a gun during a consensual encounter.

If a cop is all that nervous about guns, and has no reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) for a detention, maybe he should just not contact the OCer at all. In fact, if police want to investigate they can always observe from a distance.

Added inapplicable argument: not knowing the contact-ee or detainee's weapons handling knowledge or skill has no place in the considerations. Is this officer saying he expects the OCer to handle his gun during a police encounter?!?!!?!?

Sorry, I am not as clear as I should be. I am not talking about legality of the contact or taking a weapon. I am telling you what is going through my mind. What I am thinking and why. It makes me nervous cause I have seen accidents with firearms people who don't know what they are doing and shoot themselves in the leg. Also I would prefer the gun stay right where it is, I don't understand why some cops want to take it. It is there I can see it lets leave it there. Don't get to technical on me its not me vs you.

 

[stargateranch]

Duty

No duty to respond at all. Courts have said so. Castle Rock vs Gonzales is one case.

Changing argument: asks about contacting OCers, but discusses only driving past.

Shifts the weight: says he has a duty to investigate, then later phrases it as responding to a request from a citizen.

When I say duty to respond I am refering to my moral/ethical duty to respond. Citizen I am not trying to fight, I am looking for ways to improve myself.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP 4. Identification, I really just want to earn a paycheck so I can feed my kids and go home to my wife. I understand the reasons for not wanting to provide identification and if you refuse that's fine by me it's your right, assuming you have not violated any laws. But consider this, you know who else refuses to carry ID or identify themselves to police? Drug cartel members (they do it so they don't get deported again), individuals with warrants who have violated the law and refused to handle it correctly. So still not saying you have to ID yourself but it sends red flags to officers. Heck years ago I had an individual who refused to ID himself, long story short he murdered several people in AZ and was on the FBI's most wanted. If you were me would you be seeing warning signs?

My, my.

So, our visitor equates exercising rights with crime, hmm? That is very good to know.

Nevermind that its insulting. Associating law-abiding citizens exercising their rights with criminals is his way of building bridges? Or, is this a deliberate attempt to plant a seed for readers so they think, "Gee, I don't want to be associated with criminals or do what criminals do." A conversational tactic to dissuade exercising rights?

"If you were me, would you be seeing warning signs?" he asks. Only if lots of sheep routinely waived their rights and I were mentally unable to recognize that some people actually exercise their rights routinely. If lots of people exercised their rights, ID document refusals would be so routine cops wouldn't attach much to it. So, really, in the final analysis, it boils down to whether a cop has been refused often enough, and by who, to affect his thinking about rights, not what the rights really are. (Remember, he said "warning signs" go with refusals.) Sad, sad, sad state of affairs.