• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How to monitor police activity while OC?

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
snip...
The reason your geographic location matters is that laws are different and attitudes are different in Georgia than they are here. if you want to give advise do so for people in your area not in our state that's thousands of miles from you.

Further what I quoted is actually a federal law not state, in fact it is a supreme court decision of some magnitude that every officer should know as it directly effects how they can and cannot do their job.

snip...

schlepnier, perhaps you could pin point out to this individual, where Fall stated his information was specific to the Peach state as I know I have been accused of have poor reading comprehension, but goodness I didn't seen where he was specific?

further, as you reference above, again with my poor reading comprehension, you state you quoted a federal law?

finally to the initial poster...go find a book called 'you and the police' by boston t party...quite informative and a quick read...

ipse
 

range rat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
334
Location
Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
When I first started carrying openly, the local Sheriff's Department wasn't exactly thrilled. A big, burly cop said that 'each and every time they got a call about me that they were going to take it seriously and respond with overwhelming force.' And 'overwhelming' was definitely a bit emphasized.

I just smiled, remained polite and asked if I it was sufficient advance notice that I'd be openly carrying the next Tuesday at _______ and could I go ahead and pencil them in so that they could plan accordingly. I also said that in the interests of being as cooperative as possible should I call them and tell them where I was going to be later that day so that they could coordinate their efforts.

'Well we're going to respond every time, if you want to play that game, sir.'
'I can't stop you from playing games, Sergeant, and I really do enjoy our talks. So... pencil you in for next Tuesday then?'

It didn't take them long to be trained to leave me alone.

I love it !!
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Yeah, next thing ya know, someone'll remind Schlepnier that I was born and spent my first 21 years in sleepy little Prosser before joining the military and expanding my horizons a bit. I've only been on the east coast for the last decade or so.
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
Solus
in his first post he relate how he interacted with his local LEO, this frames the manner of interaction in hi second post where he suggests a level of passive consent to unlawful behaviour by officers.

The foundation of our republic is that we are the government. the government serves at the behest of the governed. LEOs at times forget they are public servants. since they are trained to take control of a situation this sometimes leads entreched patterns of bad behavior that if not challenged, will re-enforce this type of bad behaviour.

The reasons why the federal statutes are important to know is because they apply everywhere, in addition to relevant local and state laws. They dictate the limits of an officers ability to detain, sieze, demand ID and so forth.

Something like a "terry stop" is something every officer must know, if we as citizens also know the limitations it prevents abuse, as in the first video Iinked shows.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
dog gone it Schlepnier, blame it on my poor reading comprehension again, but you keep stating the nice law enforcement should know these federal regulations but what occurred to the nice police force down the road from you in the beautiful round the bend of the road city of Roy?

oh and you did in your last post mention 'terry stop' but can you tell me what specific federal statute this is so i can quote the statute # the next time i'm stopped by nice peace officers? there is a statute number, isn't there?

Fall, you just ran away and escaped from Sunnside's stench...luck person

ipse
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
solus-
first you need to be a bit more specific, what incident in roy?, I OC in makenna and Yelm regularly with nothing but positive encounters

Second, statutes is the improper legal term. case law or refered case law is probably more accurate. rapgood can clarify that if he drops in.

terry v ohio-is a US supreme court ruling, making it the highest law of the land after the constitution and Bill of rights. It is one of the most basic rules taught to LEOs as it governs when they can detain, search, demand identification or confiscate property. requiring a reasonable articuable suspicion of a crime afoot- if you are engaged in a lawful activity no RAS exists. the officer is free to look and start a consensual conversation, which you have the legal right to terminate and walk away from since you cannot legally be detained.

The prowse ruling is similair. since your natural state under the law is innocent, no RAS exists for LEOs to randomly stop you to demand ID. That can only occur when issuing a summons, or when you are detained for investigation of criminal acts.

Lastly DeBerry was a 4th circuit court ruling that has been referenced by most of the other circuits and is now considered hard case law.

Since you cannot be detained for lawful activity, as no crime exists, the lawful carry of a firearm where legally carried cannot be used as the basis to justify a terry stop.

Did you even watch the videos I linked? The first one was by the numbers perfect on how to respond to a LEO intent on violating your rights.

If you want to look up the cases yourself, they are easy enough to find. I'm not here to do your homework for you. it's best you know the law yourself if you intend to be a responsible OCer.

One additional thing, this why geography matters, the LEO in the first video works in Maine. under WA RCW 09A.080.010 he could face criminal misconduct charges for violating civil liberties under color of authority. which further opens he and his department to a federal civil rights violation under title 42 1983.

Although my guess would be he got his butt chewed by him supervisor after the OCer left. given he knew the law.

And thats why you remain polite yet firm as well as informed, I doubt that officer will make the same mistake again. it's part of our goal here to normalize and educate.
 
Last edited:

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
solus-

The prowse ruling is similair. since your natural state under the law is innocent, no RAS exists for LEOs to randomly stop you to demand ID. That can only occur when issuing a summons, or when you are detained for investigation of criminal acts.

1) you are being trolled by solus

2) don't get into an argument with solus about Terry stops or RAS, or ID statutes. Case law doesn't work on him ;)

3) ID statutes vary from state to state. They have nothing to do with Federal law that I know of. Some states don't require RAS for ID stops. If asked you must show. Others you are not required to show, for instance my home state of Virginia, or the home state of this thread, Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
 
Last edited:

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
thanks for the heads up truth, I have no time to debate with those who willingly surrender their precious liberties for the appearance of safety and public acceptance.

I'm done here, the OP can make his own decisions based on the serious information provided.

P.S.Thanks for the link, interestingly a quick glance through the laws I noticed that almost all of the state statutes still require you to be detained for investigation of a crime. obviously II t appears the legislatures thar wrote those statutes were looking to avoid running afoul of terry and similar rulings that could land them in federal litigation.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
While a "polite" encounter is preferable to the alternative there is no such thing as a positive encounter. The goal is no encounters. When a cop approaches you because you are OCing that is not a consensual encounter. Unless of course the OCer looks forward to LEOs initiating a encounter. The term consensual is a construct of LE and the courts to permit a cop to interrupt your comings and goings without your consent without fear of running afoul of the "laws."

The first video was not a textbook example of how to, the third video is the proper way to handle a cop when you know you are in the right. The encounter in the first video posted lasted ~3 minutes too long. If the cop pushes the issue then file criminal complaints if possible and a civil action against the thug cop, his supervisor(s), the department, and the city.
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
While a "polite" encounter is preferable to the alternative there is no such thing as a positive encounter. The goal is no encounters. When a cop approaches you because you are OCing that is not a consensual encounter. Unless of course the OCer looks forward to LEOs initiating a encounter. The term consensual is a construct of LE and the courts to permit a cop to interrupt your comings and goings without your consent without fear of running afoul of the "laws."

The first video was not a textbook example of how to, the third video is the proper way to handle a cop when you know you are in the right. The encounter in the first video posted lasted ~3 minutes too long. If the cop pushes the issue then file criminal complaints if possible and a civil action against the thug cop, his supervisor(s), the department, and the city.

You misunderstand the context of "encounters" I was not referring to interactions with law enforcement but rather fellow citizens positively responding to observing OC.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
so Schlepnier, yes you believe, on the word of 'the truth, you're being trolled, but in truth i'm truly confused and trying to ascertain life skills in dealing w/LE in your neck of the woods, so since in your posts you state:

your 1st quote: "Further what I quoted is actually a federal law...."

my response quote: can you provide a cite?

your 2nd quote: "The reasons why the federal statutes are important to know is because they apply everywhere..."

my response quote: can you provide a cite?

your 3rd quote: "...statutes is the improper legal term."

ok, so...back to my original query ~ can you provide a viable cite IAW forum rules?

(sorry 'the Truth' if you feel i am trolling schlepnier, but it appears he made specific statement(s), especially after chastising another member for providing generalized information, I just would appreciate a clarifying response.)

so schlepnier, there is no debate, you stepped out with your contradictory claim(s), please provide cite(s) to federal statutes are you referring to so us good folk who roam the evergreen state are sure we are informing the good peace officer(s) the proper information which is what you claim is the Washington way?

ipse
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
solus-
<SNIP>
Second, statutes is the improper legal term. case law or refered case law is probably more accurate. rapgood can clarify that if he drops in.
Depending on the jurisdiction, both statutes and case law may be applicable.

Lastly DeBerry was a 4th circuit court ruling that has been referenced by most of the other circuits and is now considered hard case law.
Since you cannot be detained for lawful activity, as no crime exists, the lawful carry of a firearm where legally carried cannot be used as the basis to justify a terry stop.
correct. that was the holding in DeBerry.

One additional thing, this why geography matters, the LEO in the first video works in Maine. under WA RCW 09A.080.010 he could face criminal misconduct charges for violating civil liberties under color of authority. which further opens he and his department to a federal civil rights violation under title 42 1983.

don't hold your breath. prosecutors very rarely prosecute cops. as Ian Goodhew (senior deputy prosecutor for King County) whined to me, "It might hurt their careers."
Gosh, Ian, that's the remedy that is applicable when they act illegally under color of the law!
Sheesh!
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
Solus
I think you are both dishonest and dishonorable.

By you behavior here you have shown me that you are no friend to liberty.

All points have been addressed and clarified, relevant information has been provided.

So I say to you what Samuel Adams so finely iterated

-go from us in peace, we ask not your council or arms. crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. may your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen-
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
don't hold your breath. prosecutors very rarely prosecute cops. as Ian Goodhew (senior deputy prosecutor for King County) whined to me, "It might hurt their careers."
Gosh, Ian, that's the remedy that is applicable when they act illegally under color of the law!
Sheesh!


They have developed a symbiotic parasitical relationship and we are the hosts.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Schlepnier, i am truly afraid you are looking into the looking glass and only hearing, you are the fairest of them all...

your deflection by trying to impugn my character to elevate your own status is difficult to understand and a disappointment.

always remember, a statement attributed to George Bernard Shaw:

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who don't have it"

and when you discern the individual OC'g standing nearby smiling and watching as you wander by, wonder if it was I whose character you have assailed ~ you will not be the wiser for the knowledge.

ipse
 
Last edited:

jsanchez

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
499
Location
seattle
In seattle you can't here the cops coming because they use computer assisted dispatching, CAD, encrypted digital signal, only one guy broke it and is in federal prison for it.

What about the cops giving you a ticket like the guy in Vancouver got, is that going to be upheld by the courts in WA, interesting tool, if they can use it that way. I've been conceal carrying for the last week over that one. I don't want to loose my right to carry until that's straightened out.
 

Hemry

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
7
Location
Washington
Then there is the complete silent treatment-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n1BHJs5V5c

Is this ideal? I've been doing some reading recently, and came across the statement in a number of places that a person needs to actively say something along the lines of "I am going to remain silent", "I choose to exercise the 5th Amendment", etc. Otherwise the person's silence itself can be used as evidence against them in court.

Still researching this but, according to Wikipedia:

On June 17, 2013, SCOTUS ruled in "Salina vs Texas" (PDF) that: "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question,". In other words, you must now specifically invoke your 5th amendment right to "remain silent" or your silence can and will be used against you in court.​

Now certainly from another perspective he is under no obligation to actually speak, but in terms of maximally protecting yourself, the best strategy seems to be leading with a single statement like "I'm going to exercise my right to remain silent".

It does seem rather counter-intuitive that a right of silence requires speaking to invoke. Sigh.
 
Last edited:

Hemry

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
7
Location
Washington
If I'm stopped again, then I plan to either remain silent, or follow a script like:

  • I need to be on my way. Am I being detained?
  • Am I free to go?
  • Are you refusing to allow me to go on my way?
  • What crime do you suspect me of committing?
  • Is that a crime?
  • If you wish to continue questioning me, I would like to have a lawyer present.
  • I am going to exercise my fifth amendment right to remain silent.
  • May I have your name and badge number?

What other tips would you include in the script? Are these all good to include?
 
Last edited:

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
Is this ideal? I've been doing some reading recently, and came across the statement in a number of places that a person needs to actively say something along the lines of "I am going to remain silent", "I choose to exercise the 5th Amendment", etc. Otherwise the person's silence itself can be used as evidence against them in court.

Still researching this but, according to Wikipedia:

On June 17, 2013, SCOTUS ruled in "Salina vs Texas" (PDF) that: "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question,". In other words, you must now specifically invoke your 5th amendment right to "remain silent" or your silence can and will be used against you in court.​

Now certainly from another perspective he is under no obligation to actually speak, but in terms of maximally protecting yourself, the best strategy seems to be leading with a single statement like "I'm going to exercise my right to remain silent".

It does seem rather counter-intuitive that a right of silence requires speaking to invoke. Sigh.

Yes that very discussion came up, i to would ask if i am free to leave if i am not being detained. then at this time i am going to refuse to answer any more questions, invoking the 5th.
 
Last edited:
Top