Glock Talk banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here is a post about an OCer's encounter with LE:
Today (March 12th) My Fiance, 2 yr old daughter, our lil dog and I went for a Walk. If anyone knows Beloit, We parked our car in the new section at the intersection of White ave and Riverside dr. We crossed the bridge on White, went south on 4th, East on E. Grand, then north on Riverside.

It was about a 2 mile walk, and just as I was about 15 feet from my car, I heard a car and Lisa said "Its a Cop..." Sure enough... I heard "Sir, Please put your hands where I can see them." Not even in a threating tone.

He then asked me if I was Open Carrying, I said Yes. He then asked if I had an ID and let me reach past my gun to get my wallet. I asked if he would feel comfortable if he removed my firearm, He said hes not worried about it. lol. He just ran my name to make sure I was legal to carry and we just chatted about it. He knew all the laws.

Then a few more cops arrived and we all talked about open carry. I showed him my map of school zones and let him know I am on my P's and Q's about what I do. He was more than nice throughout the entire thing. It was a educational time for both parties I think. We both got things cleared up we were interested in. But the funny thing was, they Knew me before they knew my name lol.

The first cop was like "Are you Open Carrying?". Second said "Dont we have a report on you?" as he smiled. (From my Walmart experience in October). 3rd asked "Arent you the one on Carnegie?" haha. But it was a good time.

No complaints at all toward the Beloit Police. I gave him one of our WI Pamplets I printed off, and he stood and read it. I think he liked it, lol. Im not sure who else here OC's in Beloit, but I dont think we will have a problem whatsoever. My hat goes off to the Beloit Police Dept.
Now here are some of the responses...
You are more tolerant than I would have been.

A free man approached by the government, the encounter opening with the government saying, "Please put your hands where I can see them." (emphasis added). ??? There is nothing, not one thing, civil about a cop saying that to someone. It screams the cop feels potential danger. No reasonable person would feel free to disregard that remark and walk away.

And, they knew or suspected who your were? Yet, still decided to even contact you. I don't care whether some court has said police can consensually contact anybody. The mere fact they are contacting an OCer, especially one they think they know, over the exercise of a fundamental human right is to me intolerable. It proves they consider something inherently suspicious and/or criminal about a fundamental human right.

Separately, the true test would have been how nice the officer was if you exercised your rights politely. Anybody can be friendly and professional when they are getting what they want. The real test is when you thwart their desire by politely exercising your rights.

For myself, that opening comment would be the subject of a formal complaint, with some pointed questions: "Is this how you initiate a consensual encounter?" "Are your cops so faint-hearted that they feel they have to say that at the inception of a consensual encounter?"

What are they gonna say? "Uh, it wasn't a consensual encounter"? Which gives one a new target, "What was your RAS (reasonable, articulable suspicion) for a detention?"

Everybody has to decide how to handle the cop in front of them in the exact circumstances they find themselves. But, I don't know that it helps things overall to forego some rights (silence, search and seizure) while exercising another (2A). And, I definitely disagree with later declaring that everything went smooth, while the smoothness might only have been achieved at the expense of 4A and 5A rights (search, seizure, and silence).

A genuinely professional cop would be just as respectful if you had said things like:

"Officer, no offense, but I do not consent to an encounter with you today. Why am I being detained.

"You want to see my ID? Why am I being detained?"

"You want to see my ID? Oh, officer, you and I both know you have no authority to compel me to show my ID,* and no authority to compel me to identify myself unless you have RAS of a crime.* Why am I being detained? I'm not? Oh, good. Then, no offense, but the ID stays in the wallet."

If he won't respect politely, verbally refused consent, then you really know whether you have a government agent who needs correction. Genuinely professional cops will respect it.

* If true legally in your state.
With the exception of a very few really pro-rights cops on this forum, I have yet to meet or hear of the cop who didn't demand to see ID from a detainee despite the complete absence of authority to demand an ID document, except in a few states whose S & I (stop and identify) statute allowed the demand if the person was carrying a state issued ID or drivers license.

As to this state, demanding an ID document without authority is so commonplace police seem to actually have forgotten they do not have the authority. They've been getting away with it for so long, they completely forgot they can't do it.

But, this is just one issue.

The Blue Wall of Silence is much broader in scope. All one has to do is ask himself, "What does it hide?"
Courteous would be to leave the OCers the heck alone unless there was RAS for a detention.

Running ID to see if someone is a prohibited possessor is not a courtesy. It is an indication of an investigative contact. Nothing courteous about it.

Same for demanding or requesting ID.

Alternatively, courteous would be a smile in a 7-Eleven, or a hello across the coffee counter. Or, just walking up to a randomly met OCer and asking for a couple minutes to find out more about OC in a totally social context. Driving the patrol car directly to someone who is out walking is indicative of an investigative contact, not a courtesy.

A real courtesy would be to ask the 911 caller what the man was doing with the gun, whether it was holstered, etc. And telling the caller that it was perfectly legal, and no we can't go bothering someone exercising a constitutionally protected right. Now, that would be a real courtesy.
And I don't want officers think of us as men and women without constitutionally protected rights. Including, 4A (search and seizure) and 5A (right to not accuse oneself).

Most sour police encounters are not about violations of the 2nd Amendment. They are about violations and attempted violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

If a cop hates any citizen who knows his rights in-depth and exercises them, it is first his problem. Not ours.

Cops are Americans, too. Rights belong to them, too.

Something over a million Americans have died in combat defending the freedom protected by the Bill of Rights. Cops who would throw away those sacrifices by being contemptuous of rights need to become unemployed.
So, ultimately, Doug Huffman is right. No reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) means illegal detention. Meaning, unless there is more than just OC, the cop may not detain you investigatively under current 4th Amendment case law. The AG touches on this when he mentions "totality of circumstances." The cop needs more. For example, OCing while wearing a ski-mask in front of a bank or liquor store, would probably be considered legitimate grounds by a court for a police investigative detention.

Whether you have any way to know the cop does or does not have genuine RAS during the detention is a whole different matter. For example, you might think he does not have RAS, when maybe he actually does. If he does have genuine RAS, and you mistakenly think he does not, and you resist physically, the least you can expect is lumps or bruises. Depending on how you physically resist, you might also get an obstruction charge, or a charge of assaulting a police officer.

After long consideration, reading an awful lot of posts, strategizing with other OCers, and reading plenty of court opinions, I have decided to comply with all orders while politely, verbally, refusing consent. By verbally withholding your consent, you throw the burden onto the cop to have all his legal points in perfect apple-pie order.
I have not advocated being impolite. My suggestions carry the preface: "Officer, no offense. I know you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to..."

Separately, how are you going to determine you have a good cop or bad cop until it is possibly too late? We have heard the police car audio recording (obtained by FOIA) of the female cop who was polite and friendly to the OCer, but upon return to the car conspired with another cop for ways they could arrest the OCer.

Read that last sentence again. Even the seemingly good cop can screw you. In fact, the really competent cops are going to be the smoothest and friendliest because they know they need you to talk in order to convert from a consensual encounter to a detention, or to convert RAS into probable cause for an arrest. They know they need your voluntary and consensual participation and answers to questions. From another angle, if the cop only has RAS at the beginning of the encounter, and you supply no other information, it is almost impossible for him to develop probable cause for an arrest. If a cop contacts you consensually to investigate you, and you supply him no information, it is almost impossible for him to develop RAS to detain you.

Every single time you are contacted by a police officer, you are in legal jeopardy. It may be slight; it may be huge. Odds are good that you will not know the degree of jeopardy fully. As to "unnecessarily flexing rights", you are advocating that OCers risk citation and arrest by being unnecessarily conversational with police. Police who they may not judge dangerous until too late to escape the trap. Police who may be hiding their hostility by putting up a friendly front. These are the better officers--better from the standpoint of competence in giving a friendly facade to disarm the suspects wariness--these are the better officers who go on to be detectives who succeed at getting confessions from crooks.
A generalized fear is just a propensity or state of mind. Quite comparable to a propensity to suspect wrongdoing or bad motives like a cynical person might.

The courts have foreclosed the power of police to act on incomplete suspicions or hunches by requiring articulable facts for a reason. Objective criteria, not subjective "feelings."

The same concept applies to having a fear of being shot without also using objective criteria. The courts may not require it, but that in no way makes it less an imposition of the officer's subjective "feelings". Also, police are trained to recognize danger signals. "Pre-assault behavior cues" they are called. So, it is not like police have not had the benefit of rational thought on the subject.

If the cop had to ask if the OPer was open carrying, he can't possibly have even seen the gun yet. This amounts to mighty slim objective indications of dangerousness. "Please put your hands where I can see them" was an imposition of almost wholly subjective fear unjustified by observed circumstances.

Think about it for a minute. Even if the cop saw the gun on the OPer, on any peaceable OCer, is there really a justification for being nervous in the absence of even one other indicator of dangerousness?

Excusing the LEO's nervousness is no, or perhaps barely, less than excusing anti-gunners' irrational fear of peaceable armed citizens. A fear based on no visible indications of dangerousness save the presence of the gun itself is irrational, whether by cop or anti-gunner.

We'll all get a lot further if we weigh police actions in light of rights and freedom, instead of finding ways to excuse or justify mistakes. The courts do plenty of that already.

And, best of all, if you really support police, you will be helping them be better cops and better Americans if you demand they rise to the occasion and observe rights carefully.
I am agreeing with citizen on this one, the OP's rights were not forcibly violated in this encounter, because those rights got voluntarily waived by the OP.

You were with the family exercising your rights, you were not committing or about to commit a crime,

And I think carrying a map of the school zones is just asking for trouble, if you were to accidentally enter a GFSZ, you would have no viable defense, just because you had that map with you.

Sorry for the harshness, but if people just keep rolling over and voluntarily waive their rights at the whim of law enforcement, all we are doing is reinforcing that we will allow them to continue. It is like training a dog, do not tolerate bad behavior, because if you do, you are actually encouraging it.

Cops around here do not like me too much, I have never been arrested or in trouble with them, it is just that I do ot waive my rights at their request and it pisses them off to no end.
ok, from now one when I OC, I will leave my ID either at home or locked up in the Van.

" Sir, can I see your ID ?! Ummmm. No actually you can't as I don't have one on me Officer "
Now, honestly, all other posts were supportive of how the original poster handled himself, and more than a few opposed the three posters responsible for the above posts.

What did I miss? When did some citizens carrying firearms decide their reason for living is to jack up every citizen not carrying as well as every member of law enforcement, especially every member of law enforcement?

I wish no evil on anyone, but some people should know the need for law enforcement's intervention in their lives. They need to need the results of thorough investigative skills to capture the normal looking, normal acting, unremarkable individual who caused their need.

They will appreciate the inconvenience suffered by those questioned when the real bad guy is stopped, questioned, makes a little mistake in responding which leads to more questions, another little itty-bitty mistake, which leads to more questions, detention, arrest, charges trial and conviction, all because some dumbassed, civil rights violating, JBT stopped an average citizen and asked a couple of questions.

They need to learn it is not all about them and their little, tiny, microscopic piece of Life. It is about the big picture. It is about facts not known to them. It is about making the world safe for them without them knowing it wasn't safe.

Instead of creating environments that provoke, incite confrontations with police, they should be expending their energy working with residents in communities developing cooperation with law enforcement, getting the bad guys off the streets. Problem with that, those you damn JBTs would get praise for doing a good job.
 

· Why so serious?
45mm 9ACP
Joined
·
69,083 Posts
These are the same people who whine about "US vs THEM"...
 

· Crazy CO
Joined
·
18,146 Posts
TheeBadOne;14945108 said:
These are the same people who whine about "US vs THEM"...
Indeed. Always there will be confrontational people for the wrong reasons, ego centric to a fault and what have you.

I would not open carry, but for those who do within the law, more power to them.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,073 Posts
People so desperate for attention are likely to get more than they want.
These fools are going to f-up RKBA for everyone, and one of them is going to over-react to a perfectly reasonable ped stop and somebody is going to get shot.

Reading some of the comments around these boards, YouTube, GNG, and Carry Issues this intense hatred for law enforcement is becoming a cause for concern.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I just shut down that thread in CI. WCrawford is bringing his OCDO persona into GT. I believe some of his comments are deliberately meant to incite others to act out what he wants to happen but cannot do himself.

That is what is dangerous about this whole "kwikrnu syndrome" as it develops. Copycats, martyr wannabes, get-rich-quickers, all seeing the world in black-and-white.

"What I'm doing is legal."

To those folks I say, "The real world ain't black-and-white. It is gray, many sometimes indistinguishable shades of gray. Enter the real world with caution, especially when you drift into the darker shades of gray."

Anyone disagree?
 

· Crazy CO
Joined
·
18,146 Posts
RussP;14963366 said:
I just shut down that thread in CI. WCrawford is bringing his OCDO persona into GT. I believe some of his comments are deliberately meant to incite others to act out what he wants to happen but cannot do himself.

That is what is dangerous about this whole "kwikrnu syndrome" as it develops. Copycats, martyr wannabes, get-rich-quickers, all seeing the world in black-and-white.

"What I'm doing is legal."

To those folks I say, "The real world ain't black-and-white. It is gray, many sometimes indistinguishable shades of gray. Enter the real world with caution, especially when you drift into the darker shades of gray."

Anyone disagree?
I agree. Man sort of keeps it that way. Even the Bible points that out IIRC.
 

· Why so serious?
45mm 9ACP
Joined
·
69,083 Posts
Hopefully when one of the children gets sent to their room for an extended period (jail/prison) it will suck the wind out of the sails of the others.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top