In another thread,
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ts-Open-Carry-Encounter&p=1951824#post1951824 a video shows an OC'er stopped by officers. The OC'er asks numerous questions such as "Am I being detained?" or "Am I doing anything illegal?", and in every instance, the responding officers reply by completely ignoring the questions, or by inserting non-sequiturs such as, "We just recieved a call...." etc. that have absolutley nothing to do with the question being asked.
I've noticed this enough for it to become an obvious tactic employed by officers during interactions. As with any "tactic" in any situation, overuse becomes predictable, therefore, ineffective over time.
What are some good "tactics" to employ during encounters, and what things should we, as OC'ers, be aware of during officer interactions?
I always try to use questions requiring explanatory answers instead of "yes" or "no". "Yes" and "no" are answers easily avoided. One simply ignores the question. (It's easy to conclude that the question requires an affirmation or denial without much thought, and bypassing it by discarding the entire question is easy, and the transition is seamless: One simply inserts a non-sequitur, and moves on.)
Asking, "Why am I being detained?" or other questions requiring more than affirm/deny analysis requires the mind to actually form an answer before making a say it/discard it decision. This takes much more time, and a seamless transition in conversation is nearly impossible.Since the insertion of a non-sequitur would be entirely too obvious, it isn't as easy to pass right on over it as if the question didn't exist.
Q: "What probable cause do you have to detain me?"
A: "......Hmmmm. Wow. This makes me have to think of an appropriate lie instead of lying by omission in discarding a yes/no answer entirely. Good question. I wish I could ignore it without being so obvious."
I'd also try inserting a "Why are you completely ignoring my valid questions?" or "Why are you not answering?" after a non-sequitur. ("Questions beginning with "Why" seem to be a good thing as "Why" doesn't seem to be easily answered with a "yes" or "no".)
Anyone know of any good "tactics" to employ against the "officer non-sequitur"? Right now, I'm stuck with asking hard to ignore questions and calling obvious attention to avoidance. Noticing how often these "ignore the question" tactics are employed by officers in interactions where they wish to avoid accountability, I think a discussion of "counter-tactics" helps the entire OC community by helping raise awareness of all OC'ers to situations where officer culpability is in question and attempts are being made by the officer to avoid acknowledgement of it.
Just be aware of falling prey to several subliminal "tactics" used by officers during interaction with the public:
1) Siezing control of the conversation by "dominance" or "wielding authority". (If one acts "in charge", the majority of times, bystanders will subconciously "submit" as someone has already assumed the role of "leader".) This is half the battle. When an OC'er is knowledgeable about the law, or "takes charge" of his own destiny by refusing to relinquish complete control of the situation to the officer, many confilicts resulting from this are simply the officer trying to re-establish dominance of the conversation in order to assert authority. Asking questions the officer is uncomfortable with also provides an unwanted opportunity for the officer to appear lacking in control, therefore, lacking in authority.
2) Avoiding questions establishing officer culpability.
Anyone have more things to be aware of in officer encounters? The more we openly discuss these things, the better prepared we all will be in potential future encounters as our awareness of things detrimental to our rights and freedom will be more noticeable, and therefore better prepared for.