Police officer tactics/OC'er counter tactics during "interactions".

[carolina guy]

Bovine Scatology! If the officer has RAS he can detain you, all you have to do is ask. If he does not detain you, you are free to go, so it would really be stupid to think he had RAS and let you go. Sheeeesh!

If he does not have RAS and detains you it will cost the community some cashola. It surprises me that some people actually think this is a communist country.

+1

 

[carolina guy]

Exactly. But what about the situation where you keep asking if you are free to go or if you are being detained, and he won't answer? He just keeps avoiding the question. If he does have RAS (and, again, you have no way of knowing), and you don't ID yourself as required during a detention, you have then broken the law, even if there turns out to be no underlying crime.

That's why I always advocate making a non-aggressive move to leave if the officer will not make it clear if you are detained or not. If he let's you go, no detention. If he commands you to stop or grabs you, you have incontrovertibly established that you have been seized. Assume its legal, ID yourself to the extent required by law, and KYBMS.

Sounds like (and this is just my $0.02), if you ask if you are being detained, and the officer decides to not answer, a reasonable person could EASILY take the refusal to answer as a "no". Thereby, your "failure to ID" would not be part of a detention because the officer has not physically detained you, nor has he verbally detained you, hence no ID violation.

 

[carolina guy]

It is my belief and personal experience that if the officer did not immediately disarm and cuff the OCer, he had no real concerns about "officer safety"... and if he has NO concerns about his own safety, what possible RAS of a crime could he have?

Just because an officer does not feel immediate concern for his/her safety does not mean they have no RAS, or do not eventually intend to detain...

 

[Tackleberry1]

Just because an officer does not feel immediate concern for his/her safety does not mean they have no RAS, or do not eventually intend to detain...

Of course there are no "absolutes"... but... if he's responding to a call, the nature of that call will set the tone for what he expects to find.

A report of a guy "walking about with a holstered firearms" will illicit a different response than a report of a guy "waiving a gun around"...

Should the Officer you meet evade or deflect the question about RAS... His demeanor and actions will still tell you what he's thinking.

Knowing how to read "non verbal" communication can be quite helpful during these encounters.

Tack

 

[carolina guy]

Of course there are no "absolutes"... but... if he's responding to a call, the nature of that call will set the tone for what he expects to find.

A report of a guy "walking about with a holstered firearms" will illicit a different response than a report of a guy "waiving a gun around"...

Should the Officer you meet evade or deflect the question about RAS... His demeanor and actions will still tell you what he's thinking.

Knowing how to read "non verbal" communication can be quite helpful during these encounters.

Tack

Agreed. This can be said about most people, and is also part of RAS for the officer.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Just because an officer does not feel immediate concern for his/her safety does not mean they have no RAS, or do not eventually intend to detain...

The problem with the above is if the officer gives the air that the encounter is consensual, the RAS he does have means diddly. Walking up to a individual that he may have some RAS on and saying "Hi I am officer friendly, what is your name?" Should rightfully be treated as "None of your business". Until the officer gives a reason or detains, or arrests, the citizen is under no obligation to offer any information, even their name.

So it comes back to the officer either has to explain his RAS, or detain/take into temporary custody. As long as the citizen does not use fighting words he can respectfully tell the cop to go pound sand.

 

[carolina guy]

The problem with the above is if the officer gives the air that the encounter is consensual, the RAS he does have means diddly. Walking up to a individual that he may have some RAS on and saying "Hi I am officer friendly, what is your name?" Should rightfully be treated as "None of your business". Until the officer gives a reason or detains, or arrests, the citizen is under no obligation to offer any information, even their name.

So it comes back to the officer either has to explain his RAS, or detain/take into temporary custody. As long as the citizen does not use fighting words he can respectfully tell the cop to go pound sand.

I agree...but I have know a few officers that were VERY slick at putting people at ease and getting enough extra information for PC from minimal RAS. Which is all the more reason to keep your guard up at all times when dealing with governmental types.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I agree...but I have know a few officers that were VERY slick at putting people at ease and getting enough extra information for PC from minimal RAS. Which is all the more reason to keep your guard up at all times when dealing with governmental types.

Most times I talked to suspects it was friendly, it is part of the job to gain their trust to obtain evidence. There is nothing wrong with it, unless the officer is less than honorable. The problem is we have no way of telling who is or is not honorable. Everybody should know their rights, and they should have common sense. Common sense tells a person that a police officer does not need to know their name for friendly conversation.

To get my name the officer has to do at least one of three things, communicate his reason if it is legitimate, place me in custody, or detain me. Otherwise I am legally going to tell him to pound sand. And most officers would agree with that, how can a person help law enforcement if law enforcement makes illegal and illogical demands.

 

[carolina guy]

Most times I talked to suspects it was friendly, it is part of the job to gain their trust to obtain evidence. There is nothing wrong with it, unless the officer is less than honorable. The problem is we have no way of telling who is or is not honorable. Everybody should know their rights, and they should have common sense. Common sense tells a person that a police officer does not need to know their name for friendly conversation.

To get my name the officer has to do at least one of three things, communicate his reason if it is legitimate, place me in custody, or detain me. Otherwise I am legally going to tell him to pound sand. And most officers would agree with that, how can a person help law enforcement if law enforcement makes illegal and illogical demands.

+1

 

[Freedom1Man]

I agree...but I have know a few officers that were VERY slick at putting people at ease and getting enough extra information for PC from minimal RAS. Which is all the more reason to keep your guard up at all times when dealing with governmental types.

Once I got over my fear of arrest, it became easier to tell "officer snuffy" to go pound sand.

Once in jail everything I sign I am signing under thread and duress. I am told that my belongings may "disappear" if I refuse to sign their forms. When being released I am told that I can't have my belongings returned to me unless I sign their forms.

 

[eye95]

Judge: I am dismissing the charges of inducing panic. The lawful carry of a firearm, in and of itself, cannot be seen as inducing panic. It is a right. However, I am going to let the charge related to your refusal to identify yourself to stand. Even though there was zero evidence to support the underlying charge, I find that the officer, based on the 911 call, had reasonable suspicion that you were committing a crime, had lawfully detained you, and had lawfully demanded that you identify yourself. You refused that lawful demand, and the jury will determine whether you are guilty of that crime as a result of your choice.

Defendant: But, Your Honor, the officer wouldn't tell me the basis for the detention!

Judge: He is not required to do so. All he needs to do is to detain you. We can and should settle the question of the legality of the detention later. In this case, I find the detention to be lawful. And it is MY call, not yours nor the officer's.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Freedom1Man]

Judge: I am dismissing the charges of inducing panic. The lawful carry of a firearm, in and of itself, cannot be seen as inducing panic. It is a right. However, I am going to let the charge related to your refusal to identify yourself to stand. Even though there was zero evidence to support the underlying charge, I find that the officer, based on the 911 call, had reasonable suspicion that you were committing a crime, had lawfully detained you, and had lawfully demanded that you identify yourself. You refused that lawful demand, and the jury will determine whether you are guilty of that crime as a result of your choice.

Defendant: But, Your Honor, the officer wouldn't tell me the basis for the detention!

Judge: He is not required to do so. All he needs to do is to detain you. We can and should settle the question of the legality of the detention later. In this case, I find the detention to be lawful. And it is MY call, not yours nor the officer's.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

That gets over turned in APPEAL.

 

[Deanimator]

If you are not being detain why would one hang around and argue.

Staying and talking could very well lead to more trouble.

I have ZERO desire to talk to cops AT ALL.

I have LESS desire to talk to them by the side of the road.

If you're free to leave, get out of Dodge.

 

[Deanimator]

Understandable, you're simply advocating that you follow the letter of the law.

I've found that almost NOTHING will make an advocate of blind submission to police more LIVID with anger than stating your intention to obey the letter of the law, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TheQ]

@OP

If you ask if you are being detained and get a non-answer, just say: since you won't say you're detaining me, I must be free to go.

Then turn around and walk away. You'll find out REAL QUICK if you indeed are being detained.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I've found that almost NOTHING will make an advocate of blind submission to police more LIVID with anger than stating your intention to obey the letter of the law, nothing more, nothing less.

+1