Granite School Police

[Nuttycomputer]

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

.........
We got there not by "pushing the limits" in our conduct, but by demonstrating that loaded guns in cars--with permits--were not a problem. Then we were able to remove the requirement for the permits.

......
We have certainly shifted the definition of what is extreme conduct by shifting the definition of what is perfectly reasonable and acceptable conduct. But we didn't do it by engaging too often in what was then viewed as extreme conduct. We did it by making sure our conduct did not cause us to lose the support of voters.

I beg of you to consider how your actions affect our ability to advance needed legislation.

We push the limits legislatively most effectively by keeping our conduct well within the lines as it were.

......

We must win and maintain the hearts and minds of a lot of our fellow citizens who do not carry guns. We do not do that by being extreme in our conduct. We do that by being very moderate in our conduct and pushing the limits in changes to the laws. This is a crucial difference.

Charles

First off I'm glad to see the officers are receiving training and that charges have been dropped.

Charles I disagree and your paragraphs seem to contradict each other. Indeed what seems to change is what you say is extreme versus my view of extreme.

For example you say we won loaded permitless car carry by carrying loaded with a permit and showing that it was safe to do so. Before the law was passed to allow permitless carry in a vehicle - Carrying with a permit WAS the extreme conduct and in a way carrying loaded at all still is to some people. So you advocate being moderate in our approach in one paragraph and then saying we won this crucial permitless option by (what I would consider extreme) methods.

I suggest we push the extremes in that our conduct should be what is minimally required by law and nothing else. You suggest this will lose us those rights. Personally if it does I'm okay with that. That means the public has taken a look at the issue and voted against an activity. However if we lose those rights pre-emptively by not actually even using themthen we haven't let anyone vote to take them away. We've done it ourself.

 

[Rottie]

imported post

Pistol Pete Utah wrote:

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

and asked me if my firearm was loaded I replied yes.

If you choose not to answer that question, what is the best line to come back with?

As for me, I would start off with saying "I have no intention of answering that question!" Remember that when an officer is asking you questions about yourself, he is conducting and investigation into whether or not you are breaking or have broken the law. If they are asking you questions they already have suspicions and are looking for you to confirm it by what you say. Suspicion can go to probable cause in a hurry if you say too much. If you don't feel comfortable telling the officer you won't answer those types of questions, then answer with questions of your own. "What is the nature of your inquiry Officer Smith of WVCPD:lol:" The Follwing are my favorites:

What is the nature of your inquiry?

Am I being detained?

Am I free to go?

I am not going to answer that question!

What is your name and badge number?

I'd like to have your supervisor come to the scene!

Why am I being detained?

What is your probable cause for stopping me?

I don't consent to any search!

Of course repeating any of these over again should let the officer know you are not an uneducated as to your rights, and that you are not going to cooperate in an investigation against yourself. Provide your name and address as required and only when required same with ID if you choose to. Other than that don't help them investigate you!


Edit to add the following link. I think this guy handled the encounter well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0En_sdsyh1M

 

[Rottie]

imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

Today I had a meeting with the Chief and the LT the charges were dropped and their will be mandatory trainings for all Granite School Police officers.

A big thanks for all the advice and I feel this situation will go further educating police officers then if nothing was said at all.

Way to go! Like I said in earlier posts, I doubt this would even make it past a prosecutor. Glad it didn't even go that far. Thanks for educating them and ensuring that others will be less likely to have this experience.

 

[Nuttycomputer]

imported post

Pistol Pete Utah wrote:

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

and asked me if my firearm was loaded I replied yes.

If you choose not to answer that question, what is the best line to come back with?

You also don't have to come back with anything. There is no requirement to answer at all. You can completely ignore the question. Human nature though betrays us and we generally want to communicate instead of staying silent. So I would recommend as well that you just answer questions with questions or say flat out:

"Officer xxxxx this is the information the law says I have to provide you. Beyond that I'm not going to answer or acknowledge any other questions. How would you like to proceed."

If they ask a question at this point instead of answering you it's simple to just say "Officers no disrespect but I've already stated I will not answer any other questions or provide any information than is required by law. Please tell me how you would like to proceed or am I free to go?"

This should make it clear you aren't going to co-operate with an investigation against yourself.

If they decide to continue to ask questions I would just smile and stay silent. You've already told them twice. If they decide they want to search you "Officer in addition to providing no more information than what is required of me I also do not consent and object to any searches or seizures."

They may decide to search you anyway which is why it's good to get all this on a recorder.

 

[Nuttycomputer]

imported post

As a side note:

Should you be walking down the street and an Officer requests to speak to you please remember they need no reasonable suspicion to make such a request. They require reasonable suspicion to detain you which is quite different.

In the former they are relying on societies willingness to comply with authority to make a stop without RAS because you consented to it. In the latter they have to actually meet the requirement of RAS.

Easiest way to make this subtly clear is if your going about your buisness and a officer says:

"Sir, may I speak with you a moment?" - The Request

You should answer. "No thanks" or something similar to politely deny the request as you would with anyone who asks to talk to you on the street.

They may and will follow it up with "No Sir, I need you to speak with me a moment"

At that point they have made it a non-consented detainment and must have met the requirement for reasonable suspicion. The difference between the two phrases are functionally the same and an Officer who is used to society just coming right over may see no difference between the two. The legal difference however is extreme.

 

[Phssthpok]

imported post

"Sir, may I speak with you a moment?"

"Regarding?"

"Your gun."

"No, thank you."

"No Sir, I need you a moment."

"Need? Or WANT? Words mean things. Why do you 'need' to speak with me?"

"I'd like to check things out...Can I see some identification?"

"I don't know... do your eyes work?"

"...???..."

"Am I under arrest?"

"Uh...not at this time..."

"Am I being detained?***"

"No."

"Thank you. Having established through your own statements that I am NOT under arrest NOR being detained I am terminating this encounter and departing forthwith...I leave you in peace and bid you good day!"

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

*** Alternate ending

"Am I being detained?"

"For the moment, yes. I need to see some ID please"

"Very well...per Terry v. Ohio I recognize that you have detained me. This cannot be undone. Please articulate what reasonable suspicion you have that I have just come from, am currently engaged in, or am about to commit a crime."

"Are you going to show me some ID?"

"Be advised, absent RAS of a crime you, sir, have yourself just committed a criminal violation of federal law...Title 18 section 242 United States Code to be exact...by detaining me in violation of the 4th amendment. I ask you again...what is your RAS of criminal activity for detaining me?"

"What are you.. a lawyer?"

"Stop changing the subject...For the third time...what is your RAS?"

Etc, etc...:lol:

 

[leeland]

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

"Sir, may I speak with you a moment?"

...snip...
"What are you.. a lawyer?"

"Stop changing the subject...For the third time...what is your RAS?"

Etc, etc...:lol:

I would pay good money to watch that encounter.
Queue announcer voice: "Tonight on pay-per-view. OEO vs. OC!"

 

[Pistol Pete Utah]

imported post

Well done!

 

[utbagpiper]

imported post

Nuttycomputer wrote:

Charles I disagree and your paragraphs seem to contradict each other. Indeed what seems to change is what you say is extreme versus my view of extreme.

For example you say we won loaded permitless car carry by carrying loaded with a permit and showing that it was safe to do so. Before the law was passed to allow permitless carry in a vehicle - Carrying with a permit WAS the extreme conduct and in a way carrying loaded at all still is to some people. So you advocate being moderate in our approach in one paragraph and then saying we won this crucial permitless option by (what I would consider extreme) methods.

I suggest we push the extremes in that our conduct should be what is minimally required by law and nothing else. You suggest this will lose us those rights. Personally if it does I'm okay with that. That means the public has taken a look at the issue and voted against an activity. However if we lose those rights pre-emptively by not actually even using themthen we haven't let anyone vote to take them away. We've done it ourself.

No, when a permit was required to carry a loaded gun in the car, carrying a loaded gun in the car was not extreme. Carrying a loaded gun strapped to the dashboard where the whole world could see it might have been extreme. Perfectly legal, but extreme, and needless.

Today, even the owners of this site recognize that OCing a long gun in urban settings (as opposed to while hunting or otherwise out in the back country) is the extreme conduct. It is generally legal on the same basis as OCing a handgun. But like it or not, it is likely to be viewed very differently by the public (voters) and lawmakers. Discussions advocating OCing long guns are specifically off topic and against the rules of this site.

I'm not suggesting that carrying without ID, or fully exercising rights not to provide ID should be off limits. But, extreme conduct (from any side) almost always loses public support and sympathy.

Look at every political movement in history. The successful one's were NOT extreme from the get go. They garnered public support first.

We do NOT lose our rights simply be choosing not to exercise them in the most extreme fashion possible. My right to free speech or to practice my religion is NOT impaired by declining to engage in profanity, vulgarity, or pornography. I don't have to handle snakes or hold late night, loud meetings every night in a residential area in order to protect my rights. When the time comes to say "f*** the government" I will do so. But I don't have to routinely drop the "f-bomb" in order to secure my rights.

If I find myself without ID and in possession of my gun, I can certainly make the case that there is no requirement for me to have ID on my person. I don't have to conflate ID and RKBA issues day in and day out.

Indeed, talk to a lawyer about the perfect test case on any given subject. The ideal test case is a case that is perfectly "clean"; a case in which the ONLY issue at question is the issue you are most concerned about.

Heller was a nice clean case, a very sympathetic person. We were not having to overcome questions of felons or wife beaters, some gang banger, or anything else.

Extreme conduct should be the exception, not the norm in winning political battles. In Utah for the last 15 to 20 years we've made great progress with this model. I don't know how many examples I have to show you in order to convince you that we do best in advancing laws and in shifting what is considered normal, acceptable conduct by avoiding too often engaging in extreme conduct.

Charles

 

[althor]

imported post

Charles, I for one appreciate your efforts, both to forward RKBA and also to help the rest of us understand the realities of politics and how things really get done.

I have always felt that extreme actions would ultimately work against us rather than for us, but have not really been able to put it down on paper so to speak, and I think that you've done that very well in this thread and several others over time.

I'm sure some people are driven crazy at the slow pace of government and legislative change, but I would guess that looking back on the progress that has been made in this state that things have actually moved relatively fast as far as legislation goes.

Your efforts make me feel like a slacker, keep up the good work.

 

[utbagpiper]

imported post

althor wrote:

Charles, I for one appreciate your efforts, both to forward RKBA and also to help the rest of us understand the realities of politics and how things really get done.

I have always felt that extreme actions would ultimately work against us rather than for us, but have not really been able to put it down on paper so to speak, and I think that you've done that very well in this thread and several others over time.

I'm sure some people are driven crazy at the slow pace of government and legislative change, but I would guess that looking back on the progress that has been made in this state that things have actually moved relatively fast as far as legislation goes.

...

Althor,

Thank you. I too understand a certain degree of impatience. I remember when 20 years seemed like an eternity. And I understand how it can be easy to lose sight of the big picture. These days I look back over the past 2 decades with awe. 20 years ago I was trying to figure out how to get a permit to carry under our old discriminatory system. 15 years ago I was upset at what I thought was the slow pace of the old-timers who were involved in the political process.

These days I am amazed at what has been accomplished so quickly.

We have shall issue permits that are fairly modestly priced with modest training requirements. We have very few off limits locations. We have no statutory requirement to conceal, nor penalty for failing to do so. Teachers and other government employees can carry on the job in most cases. We recognize permits from across the nation and our permit is widely recognized. We have parking lot preemption protecting private employees. We no longer require a permit to carry a concealed gun in our cars, nor loaded handgun in our cars. We have some of the best defense of habitation and stand-your-ground laws in the nation. We have civil liability protection in many cases. We have no limits on how many guns we can buy, no waiting periods, no gun registration. We have a law on the books challenging federal authority to regulate guns manufactured and sold within our borders.

We have kept State colleges from banning guns and are now just fighting over OC with the black letter of the law on our side.

We have a real shot at legalizing permit-free loaded/concealed carry in the near future.

We've proven time and again that voting against RKBA is a political career ender in almost all areas of Utah.

And we've done it, over the past 20 years one seemingly small step at a time, sometimes having to ask for the same thing 2 or 3 years in a row before winning it. We've done it by pushing the legislative limits a little bit, but while staying well within the lines in our conduct.

We don't (haven't at least) engage in civil disobedience. We don't stage huge protests at the capital or impose on others the way some other groups have done over time.

Simply put, I've come to greatly appreciate the wisdom contained in the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."

We are generally better served by gradual change than by quick, radical changes.

We've done that for the past 2 decades with great success.

I see no evidence to suggest we should change course now as we close in on what we might consider ultimate success in this area.

Charles

 

[Deepdiver36]

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

Nuttycomputer wrote:

Charles I disagree and your paragraphs seem to contradict each other. Indeed what seems to change is what you say is extreme versus my view of extreme.

For example you say we won loaded permitless car carry by carrying loaded with a permit and showing that it was safe to do so. Before the law was passed to allow permitless carry in a vehicle - Carrying with a permit WAS the extreme conduct and in a way carrying loaded at all still is to some people. So you advocate being moderate in our approach in one paragraph and then saying we won this crucial permitless option by (what I would consider extreme) methods.

I suggest we push the extremes in that our conduct should be what is minimally required by law and nothing else. You suggest this will lose us those rights. Personally if it does I'm okay with that. That means the public has taken a look at the issue and voted against an activity. However if we lose those rights pre-emptively by not actually even using them then we haven't let anyone vote to take them away. We've done it ourself.

No, when a permit was required to carry a loaded gun in the car, carrying a loaded gun in the car was not extreme.  Carrying a loaded gun strapped to the dashboard where the whole world could see it might have been extreme.  Perfectly legal, but extreme, and needless.

Today, even the owners of this site recognize that OCing a long gun in urban settings (as opposed to while hunting or otherwise out in the back country) is the extreme conduct.  It is generally legal on the same basis as OCing a handgun.  But like it or not, it is likely to be viewed very differently by the public (voters) and lawmakers.  Discussions advocating OCing long guns are specifically off topic and against the rules of this site.

I'm not suggesting that carrying without ID, or fully exercising rights not to provide ID should be off limits.  But, extreme conduct (from any side) almost always loses public support and sympathy.

Look at every political movement in history.  The successful one's were NOT extreme from the get go.  They garnered public support first.

We do NOT lose our rights simply be choosing not to exercise them in the most extreme fashion possible.  My right to free speech or to practice my religion is NOT impaired by declining to engage in profanity, vulgarity, or pornography.  I don't have to handle snakes or hold late night, loud meetings every night in a residential area in order to protect my rights.  When the time comes to say "f*** the government" I will do so.  But I don't have to routinely drop the "f-bomb" in order to secure my rights. 

If I find myself without ID and in possession of my gun, I can certainly make the case that there is no requirement for me to have ID on my person.  I don't have to conflate ID and RKBA issues day in and day out.

Indeed, talk to a lawyer about the perfect test case on any given subject.  The ideal test case is a case that is perfectly "clean"; a case in which the ONLY issue at question is the issue you are most concerned about.

Heller was a nice clean case, a very sympathetic person.  We were not having to overcome questions of felons or wife beaters, some gang banger, or anything else.

Extreme conduct should be the exception, not the norm in winning political battles.  In Utah for the last 15 to 20 years we've made great progress with this model.  I don't know how many examples I have to show you in order to convince you that we do best in advancing laws and in shifting what is considered normal, acceptable conduct by avoiding too often engaging in extreme conduct.

Charles

Charles,

I also want to say thank you for your service to the citizens and wisdom of the legislative system. I hold no opinion about this incident as I feel we all hold our rights to a different light. What might be important to you might not be important to me.

Generally speaking, I concur with your assessment that extreme actions do not necessarily help. I have it from a good source that LEO is using video/audio recordings of OC encounters as a way to try to make changes during the next legislative session. This might explain why we keep getting approached by the same officers over and over again.

I was just thinking back to when MajorNickmo had his encounter at UVU. Could you imagine the fallout if Nick had chosen to play hardball rather then be cooperative and take the opportunity to try to educate. That single incident did a great deal to inform the citizens of Utah about campus carry. However, if it had been a negative experience, we could have those same citizens calling for change.

Anything extreme is usually viewed in a negative light by outsiders.

Carry on!

 

[utbagpiper]

imported post

Deepdiver36 wrote:

Charles,

I also want to say thank you for your service to the citizens and wisdom of the legislative system. I hold no opinion about this incident as I feel we all hold our rights to a different light. What might be important to you might not be important to me.

Generally speaking, I concur with your assessment that extreme actions do not necessarily help. I have it from a good source that LEO is using video/audio recordings of OC encounters as a way to try to make changes during the next legislative session. This might explain why we keep getting approached by the same officers over and over again.

I was just thinking back to when MajorNickmo had his encounter at UVU. Could you imagine the fallout if Nick had chosen to play hardball rather then be cooperative and take the opportunity to try to educate. That single incident did a great deal to inform the citizens of Utah about campus carry. However, if it had been a negative experience, we could have those same citizens calling for change.

Anything extreme is usually viewed in a negative light by outsiders.

Carry on!

DeepDiver,

Thank you. I think you've hit upon a very direct reason to be sure that whatever we do, we are sure to be doing it in such a way that on any video or audio recording we are going to look sympathetic while those infringing our rights are going to look extreme. We've certainly had a trollish officer or two on this site in the last year or so making very clear their personal opinions. (Disclaimer: I think most peace officers in Utah are professional and respectful about our RKBA even if they are sometimes not fully aware of the technical details of the law.)

What we do, and how we do it may very well affect how the law reads tomorrow.

And let us make no mistake, the media will do their very best to ignore or minimize dozens of cases where law abiding OCers are clearly sympathetic even as they take one bad OC case and beat us over the head with it endlessly. It isn't right, it isn't fair, but it is the way it is.

But it has long been this way and EVERY advancement we have made on RKBA over the last 20 years has been made in this environment of a hostile media and some number of police officers and/or police organizations or police administrators being less than fully supportive. We can win this fight if we don't get impatient and foolish in what we do as individuals.

All the best.

Charles

 

[Utah_Patriot]

imported post

I want to take a minute and thank the Granite School Police Chief for taking the time to research this part of the law and take corrective action and educate his police officer's.

Now we have more LEO's educated out in the field enforcing Utah's laws this would have never happened if I chose to carry my permit with me. A very positive outcome for all parties.

My actions may have seemed extreme but in the end a lot of people on the forum were educated as long as local law enforcement. And were viewed by the command staff as a positive outcome.

 

[NewZealandAmerican]

imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

I told the officer indeed I had a valid permit just did not have the permit with me. They were never misled as to if I had a permit or not.

If fact I gave them my DL number and told them I had a valid permit but not currently on my person. So please understand the police were not misled but were ignorant of Utah law which does not require me to carry my permit with me.

The Granite officers were rude and ignorant of Utah law. All I wanted was to get my refill and leave they were the aggressors since their was no PC to make the stop.

They were told several times indeed had a permit to carry my firearm and was in compliance with Utah law.

They were misunderstood and misguided when told I could have a county officer familiar with Utah law respond they were offended and called Dispatch from the county to insure they would not respond.

The Officer T Arnold refused to give me his badge number and the other officer stated he did not have to give me his badge number.

I asked him several times if I was under arrest he stated "No" I asked if I was free to go he stated "No"

These officer clearly violated my Civil Rights and were ignorant of Utah law. This is the misconceptions I wish to clear up so in the future the officers will better understand Utah law.

I think it might be time for you to educate then own these "REO's" (Revenue Enforcement Officers) here is what I suggested to Kevin a couple of mths ago when he was accosted by theWest Valley City Corporation's Policy Enforcement Officers AKA Revenue Enforcement Officers: from page 2 of the followingthread http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum52/42493-2.htmlHey Kevin,

I hope you do everything in your power to stick it to the police dept and the officers involved. Find out everything you need to do to sue those officers and also file criminal complaints against them not just in their official capacity but also in their personal capacity. However I think there will be very few lawyers who will help show you how to file a criminal complaint against a officer of govt, public official stating that citzens can't do that when in actuality a citizen does have the power and the right to file criminal complaints against any official.

You could probably sue them for aggravated assault for threatining you since they were armed at the time. Look also into research on Title 18 Sec 241 and 242 USC I think it is and there is Title 42 but i don't remember the section number but basically this is where you can file against the officers for attempting to violate your right to due process, deprivation of rights etc. I have see others on the forum reference Title 42 USC but I can't remember the Section # Anyone else here that can tell us?

If the officers would have takenyou tojail youcould havenailed them also for aggravated kidnapping they being armed, that's a big time felony you could have been able to put them away, they didn't but even so i think you still got them for a felony right now with what they have done PLEASE don't back down or be talked out of it!



18 USC 241 "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; . . . they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

18 USC 242 "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Sue them and file criminal complaints! Don't just get them fired from off the force get them to do time in prison too, don't back off brother!!!! who ever else is involved in the chain of command get them too like the watch commander. The 2 officers can say they just following the orders of their superiors, so if the officers pass the blame it goes up to the next guy, he he passes it up then you nail him to and anyone else in the process who prevents you from filing against all who were involved also get caught I like to think of it as the "Tar baby" syndrome. I have heard a guy in texas who files criminal complaints often against officials in Texas, maybe hecan show you how to do that in Utah, his name is Randy Kelton http://www.RuleofLawRadio.com when i have listened to his talk show I have heard how many judges and police officers are afraid of him in several counties in Texas. Randy even teaches how to use the 4th branch of govt the courts like to hide access from to the public, the "Grand Jury" check it out.

Dion Wood http://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH