close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

OC = legal; legal <> RAS; therefore OC <> RAS; ...

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by OlliesRevenge, May 4, 2012.

  1. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    RussP: I moved these posts to their own thread from the "Man files suit over (OC) arrest in Gwinnett park" thread since the OP wants a general discussion not specifically related to the Gwinnett park incident.
    *******************************************


    I suppose there is nothing wrong with participating in a debate like this w/ academic interest only. From the standpoint of the guy in jail however, it certainly is more practical to think in terms of those who support your arrest, and those who do not.

    I think the difference has to quantified further than that though, and can be expressed in 'math like' terms. My thought process is as follows:

    OC = legal
    legal <> RAS
    therefore OC <> RAS
    RAS is necessary for a Terry stop, therefore:
    OC <> Terry stop

    The primary divide, as I see it, between those who support the arrest and those who do not, rests within step 2. Can legal activity equal RAS? IMO, the answer is a firm "No". RAS is required to be more than a "hunch". It must be a combination of articulable facts. I personally don't buy the "totality of the circumstances" (TOS) argument, because if you distill that argument down, TOS essentially winds up needing to be based on articulable facts... so then we are in the loop of circular reasoning.

    I only know the basics. I don't have the experience with "Shepardizing" case law like some of more knowledge members here have, I simply operate under the philosophical notion that; "The law should serve the people, the people should not serve the law"



    "The law is a convenience created to let man live in a reasonable society. To venerate it simply because it exists is nonsense" ~ Jeff Cooper
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2012
  2. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,797
    3,461
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    I'm curious, what does that have to do with an arrest for trespassing?

    In any information that's been released, where does it say the RAS by the police for the arrest was OC?

    The open carry was noted by the security guard in the 911 call.
     


  3. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    I only read the Gwinnett Park information once, because I am more interested in the general scope of this debate rather than the specifics of this case.

    That said, In my understanding, OC'er was in the process of walking out of the park when contacted by LE. OC'er asked; "Am I being detained?"... and in the absence of RAS, the answer should have been; "No, you are free to go" - End of Story

    The arrest for CT occurred 50 + min into the Terry stop IIRC.

    This has all been fleshed out in this thread.

    For the record, I am not "anti-cop". I get along well with the cop's that work in my district. I do understand the desire to get scrappy with regard to protecting civil rights though, & if more people did this I think it would make our country a better place, and our cops better civil servants.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2012
  4. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,930
    2,411
    May 4, 2003
    You forget the call that got them there in the first place.

    "Yes, you're being detained while I sort out this 911 call about you."
     
  5. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,930
    2,411
    May 4, 2003
    Next, let me address this. Your latter statement is correct, but your view on legal activity being "off limits" in developing RAS is totally wrong. In fact, RAS is *exactly* a legal or series of legal acts that leads an officer to believe that crime is afoot. If he could articulate illegal acts, it wouldn't be RS, it would be probable cause---he's actually just witnessed a crime.

    Two examples, mine and someone else's :whistling:

    So there I am at 0-dark-hundred, patrolling an otherwise vacant street. I see some guy looking up and down the street near a jewelry store. He's wearing socks on his hands. Not a thing that I described is in any way illegal, yet I stopped and detained him for investigation. And I was right.

    The other example: officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a store for a potential robbery. The officer decided to approach the men for questioning, and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

    Again, nothing illegal about window shopping, or talking to your friends, or walking up and down the same street. Yet Mr. Terry (if you didn't recognize the story) was rightfully stopped, and the evidence collected was used to convict him---but he was never charged with attempted robbery.
     
  6. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    I appreciate your thoughts here Sam. I have learned something, and I thank you for that.

    It looks like I discovered the rules here at Glock Talk... I'm debating civil rights issues with (mostly) police officers, in a forum controlled by...police officers. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when half my debate vanishes.

    It's been 26 years since my father drew his last breath, but I can hear him chuckling about this one as clear as if he was sitting across the table from me... he didn't raise a fool.

    Good night gentlemen.
     
  7. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    You've been given your very own thread (in order not to sidetrack the original thread/topic).
     
  8. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    RussP: I added these first posts, 1-7, to this thread because:

    *******************************************


    I'm a career firefighter for a Big "West Coast 7" City up here in the NorthWest, and I work in the south "culturally diverse" side of that city... so I get to see you guys and gals in blue on alot of the same runs (I've pulled many taser darts out of your "customers"). I have seen the kind of people you have to deal with... Basically I "get it", just judging from the photo, I'm not inviting Christopher Proescher to my back yard BBQ either.

    What I don't get is why these OC confrontations always wind up in a @!$$!#& contest to get the OCer to show ID.

    I don't personally OC, but I have several friends who do (one of whom has actually had one of these "Papers Please" encounters). With minor variations, it's always the same story -


    • · Nervous Nellie citizen calls 911 to report OC'er

    • · Cop shows up, knows OC is perfectly legal but wants to see ID - "To ensure the scene is safe" (like that will prove anything).

    • · OC'er just happens to be a Ron Paul libertarian who knows his rights (go figure!). He says something like : "Given the fact that I'm not driving, and am not required to carry my Drivers License when I'm a pedestrian, what kind of ID would you like to see officer?"

    • · Situation either escalates into an arrest for some creative infraction ('cause the initial reason for contact - OC, is legal) OR either OC'er or cop capitulates.
    The basic point is that the OC'er isn't breaking the law, so I'll just ask; "Why the need to ID?...What will it prove?" I don't want to get into a big discussion about social psychology and the need to establish Alpha dominance, so I'll circumvent that issue and simply ask - Wouldn't it be pretty easy to articulate the rationale for complete inaction in this case?

    You arrive on scene to investigate an OC complaint and witness an adult male carrying an expensive firearm in a quality holster openly on his belt... he's clearly not a "banger", or a 220 nutjob. He's just "That Guy", the passionate gun enthusiast making his statement (one I know drives a minivan... sheesh). If we input the details of this scenario into the critical thinking - Street Smart section of our grey matter, the output would clearly be..... 'This Person Is Not a Threat'... and as an added bonus they weren't even breaking the law in the 1st place! They could win the prize of NOT even being contacted by Law Enforcement today!

    Feel free to stop by the station and use the restroom, just don't raid the fridge!

    My .02
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2012
  9. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    I've heard this argument, and I don't buy it. The responding officers arrive, do not observe any unlawful behavior, thus no need to demand ID. If they want to cover themselves, they can document their actions and whatever conversation takes place (that's what documentation is for - I do it all the time). I propose that ID'ing someone has little to no utility in determining if they are planning a one man 'active shooter' event, it is simply a "compliance test" - I could name off a laundry list of shooters that had no record that would have gotten them arrested prior to their event had LE had the chance to make contact before the shooting (Loughner & the Army officer are recent examples...).

    This is a great thread, alot of good legal debate, but let's not forget to try to put the pieces together of how it goes down on the street. I know how the conversation goes, cause I have witnessed stuff like this...

    Security Guard: "This guy's unreal, I approach and ask him why in the name of Tebow he's carrying a gun in the park... and he goes cow$#!* on me, telling me I'm just a rent-a -cop, etc"
    Cop: "That's rough man, well go have a chat with this jack hole and see if he wants to talk himself into going to jail... Sir can I see some ID..."

    ... and he's off to the races, doing the most he can get away with, rather than the minimum necessary to get the job done.

    For the record - I'm not arguing that no contact should be made. I'm arguing that ID should not be part of the equation in cases like this, cause it makes no sense.

    There is a big wrinkle in the law with the ID'ing of a pedestrian. There is a reason "ID" is requested of a pedestrian as opposed to "drivers license". DL makes no sense here, but that is what the cop wants to see, and that is what most people will reflexively produce. In my state (outside of a traffic stop) you must only "identify yourself" during a detainment, but during an arrest cops may use force to procure a physical ID. During the detainment you can simply state your name and you've complied with the law (unfortunately opinions and understanding vary widely from cop to cop on this - I know 'cause I have talked to alot of you guys around the beanery table). That's why the arrest in these cases is never for "failure to show ID"... it's always some tangential result of creative thinking.

    I propose that a Police Officer who does "creative thinking" to come up with a reason for arrest simply because someone takes a stand for their rights on the ID issue is just as belligerent (arguably more so) as the person being arrested.

    I don't know Georgia law, but I don't think LE is required to arrest in a case like this. The word "forced" simply isn't applicable here. And I guarantee this guy isn't motivated by money... absolutely guarantee it! Think about it! If anything this guy tunes into Alex Jones...

    From one humble civil servant to another, I think the "Papers Please" protocol is nothing but a liability and a PR bomb for the city.

    Bottom line: what is it about encountering an armed man that should seem unusual or alarming, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

    Regards,

    OR
     
  10. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    I hear you. I have no LE experience (I just get to see LEO's do their thing alot), but logic tells me that criminal's won't want the attention that OC'ing would bring. I'd be surprised if any LEO reading this could relate a story of an OC'er who also had a warrant, etc.

    It all boils down to street sense & threat recognition doesn't it? Clothing, hygiene, body language, how they articulate themselves in conversation; it all paints a picture. Every experienced LEO reading this knows what I am talking about. Through experience, observation, and intuition, you can tell the difference between a "scroat" and an activist libertarian OC'er within seconds of meeting them. The same way I can differentiate between a "sick" & "not-sick" patient on an aid call as soon as I'm through the door. And let's be honest, any LEO who cannot do this should probably find a different line of work.

    I concede it is unusual, albeit perfectly legal.

    Take care Bruce
     
  11. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    Touche' Bruce.

    My experience with OC'ers has been influenced by those I know personally; Well dressed professional people who just happen to be dedicated 2A advocates. I have no idea how well my personal impression of OC'ers reflects what is happening, on average, nationally. I hope these two examples do not represent the norm.

    I'm gonna head back to General Glocking and just break out the popcorn for this thread... thanks for the replies.
     
  12. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    Well, I tried to bow out of the discussion, in part 'cause I'm starting to notice posts go missing that I didn't think were inflammatory, and thus something is happening at the Mod level that I don't understand. But I felt compelled to come back since my honesty has been questioned.

    I'm not sure why my statement would be hard to believe. I'm a firefighter, competition shooter, CCW'er, father, and a fairly well groomed square lookin' dude. It stands to reason that I associate with similar folks...

    ... in fact, one of the OC'ers that I know is doing well in the entrance process for a major county sherriff's office up NW where I live. This young man is educated, well dressed, articulate, and is the epitome of a "good ambassador" for the OC cause.

    May I suggest that your opinion is tainted by the fact that, as someone who litigates these kinds of cases, you have been exposed mostly to the 'lowest common denominator'?


    We all have indivduals within our respective groups that we wish were not representing us. Up here in the NW, if I run across "bikers" they are more likely to be Microsoft employees playing bad boy dress up than actual "scroat's" or true 1%'ers. And let's be honest, we know plenty of Cops and FF'ers who like to play the same dress up game on their day off.

    As far as blurring the line between "scroat" and activist libertarian OC'er - I can come up with many more examples that blur (or worse) the line within any group. I know of a firefighter currently incarcerated for child pornography, and I could come up with bad LE examples all day long.

    Here's one- Ohio Cop threatens to execute concealed carrier.

    I can think of five more New Orleans PD guys currently in jail for gunning down an unarmed family on the Danziger Bridge...
     
  13. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    Uh... yeah, I'm aware of that.

    This debate just got flogged in over 300 posts to date. Knowledgeable people on both sides made some very lucid arguments... and you felt the need to add this? Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but based solely on what you wrote here I cannot even tell which side you are on.
     
  14. OlliesRevenge

    OlliesRevenge

    644
    6
    Apr 26, 2012
    WA
    ID checks and searches in the absense of RAS? It doesn't make sense in this country. I'll take freedom over safety... safety is just an illusion anyway.
     
  15. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,797
    3,461
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Actually, sir, it did not vanish. Let me explain to you and others new to GT and Carry Issues.

    The parts directly relevant to the original thread remained there.

    However, when you stated you wanted a broader discussion, a more general discussion...
    ...so as not to derail "Man files suit over (OC) arrest in Gwinnett park", as TBO advised you, you were given your own thread, your own venue to continue that discussion.

    Now, since you felt there exists some conspiracy against you because only a portion of your posts were brought into the new thread, voilà - they are all here now.

    Now, you've stated above, "I'm debating civil rights issues with (mostly) police officers, in a forum controlled by...police officers." Well, no police officers control any public forum here on GT. That is done solely by Eric and his staff.

    And civil rights discussions really belong in Civil Liberties Issues Forum. However, since your formula for the discussion is,
    about OC, it will stay here in Carry Issues.

    This will give an opportunity to both LE and non-LE members to contribute.
     
  16. stillbill

    stillbill

    67
    2
    Jan 14, 2005
    If a LEO would like the name of a person, why not introduce their self to this person.

    Officer "Hi, I am officer <name>", then wait for a reply.
    Could get a response of "Hi, I am Mr. <name>"

    The biggest thing is the approach. Be polite and professional.

    On the other side, if a LEO approaches and demands ID. How will they respond to "Give me our name, and I'll give you mine."?
     
  17. Drain You

    Drain You NRA member

    1,846
    2
    Apr 25, 2012
  18. Misty02

    Misty02

    6,311
    1,142
    Aug 25, 2008
    Florida
    I’ve enjoyed reading through this thread and your comments, OlliesRevenge. I find the topic of discussion interesting and often read through the OC threads.

    Learning a thing or two from Sam will become the norm, rather than the exception. Give it time and you’ll see. :)


    .
     
  19. Misty02

    Misty02

    6,311
    1,142
    Aug 25, 2008
    Florida
    :rofl:I read over that part quickly too, just in case.

    .
     
  20. DScottHewitt

    DScottHewitt EMT-B

    15,908
    7
    Jul 4, 2000
    Waynesboro, VA
    I got lost just trying to figure out the danged thread title.....