• 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.

Police officer looking for respectful dialoge

hazek

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
88
Location
--
My, my.

So, our visitor equates exercising rights with crime, hmm? That is very good to know.

Quit acting like an ******* and listen to what he is saying. He isn't making statements about law, he is explaining his thought processes and wants to hear our opinion on it. Get your head out of your ass and make an effort to actually understand what you're responding to before you respond or don't respond at all.

Or are you just trolling?
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Citizen, you are being rude for no reason.

UNLESS given information otherwise, PLEASE respond to the new forum member at face value, not upon your obvious bias.


@stargateranch - Other LEOs have started as you have, attempting to share and discuss. Some of them eventually show their true colors, which is to view citizens as lessers. Other LEOs have started that way. Not all have done this, and some have definitely stayed in a reasonable demeanor and calmly discussed rational subjects with the other members here. Some outspoken members of OCDO assume all LE are the same. IMHO, most OCDO members do not have the ass part of assume as a natural part of their upper anatomy.

Welcome aboard, don't let those who assume color your view of the rest of us.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP 1. Do you mind being contacted in a casual manner? not detained. I seriously just want to talk to you, I love guns and assuming you are not carrying a gigantic piece of crap (hi-point comes to mind) I will ask you how you like it and how it shoots, and maybe if you are selling it (do not tell my wife). Unless you are super busy thats cool too.

I absolutely mind. Police can always observe from a distance and make their own determinations about whether anything suspicious is occurring.

First, in his OP, our visitor has gone to all sorts of trouble to bring criminal implications into the discussion. Yet, here he acts like he just wants to talk about guns in a totally social way with no investigative connotations at all.

Uh-huh. Anybody want to sell me a bridge?

Also, if personal experience is any guide, police can screw up even a consensual encounter. It is in the police officer's best interest to not contact me even consensually. Unless he is very good, and very careful to scrupulously observe my rights, he's likely to give me something to file a formal written complaint about, even if its not about the gun itself.

Also, since even a consensual investigative contact necessarily implies there is something suspicious about exercising an enumerated right, a suspicion I find intolerable from a government employee, even a consensual investigative contact is going to receive a written formal complaint from me. And, given the way some cops can screw up even a consensual encounter, there's a good chance the suspicion-enumerated right angle won't be the only thing in the complaint.

He loves guns, but guns made for people of very modest means--Hi-Point--are crap. (I'd hate to find out what he thinks of a used Hi-Point or the person who purchased it used.) So, only more expensive un-crap guns are good. Necessarily meaning that people of very modest means shouldn't have an affordable, functional defensive sidearm. They should eat crackers and peanut butter more often so they can buy an un-crap gun, even though the crap guns, while ugly, will accomplish the purpose.
 

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
I'll try,

1. A question back at you: If you do respond to a call, given the amount of experience on your job so far, how difficult would you say is it to determine from just a few moments of observation from afar whether or not said reported armed individual is up to no good or not, especially when they are perhaps merely enjoying a cup of coffee or a meal or walking around with their family or walking their dog or peacefully shopping?

2. Another Q: Why do guns make you nervous? Aren't guns merely tools? Shouldn't the specific people be the ones that make you nervous especially in cases when a seemingly unarmed person for which you have reasonable suspicion could still be concealing a weapon of some king and have a malicious intent to harm you? In short, shouldn't you worry about the people you approach and not the tools they visually carry?

3. Q: Define "confrontational". Is calmly but firmly refusing to ID being perceived as confrontational? Also have you considered that your approach of an individual from a psychological aspect is almost always an intrusion into their present routine and is unexpected and disturbing, for many even frightening, and may cause a certain type of a guarded response that may seem confrontational(much like a response to a marketing technique called cold calling) and you need to first establish a rapport with the person in order to have a normal conversation meaning them being actually confrontational could really be you failing to do so?

4.
Q a: Did you swear an oath to the constitution? How do you then reconcile your request for ID with the 4th amendment?
Q b: If you have reasonable suspicion, does it matter if they refuse?


Answers:
1. It depends what you mean by "in a casual manner". If it's just casually walking up to me and greeting me, I don't mind. In fact the last time I met with an officer I was guilty of a small property damage crime and yet I tried to be as friendly and as polite as possible. On the other hand if it's tactically approaching me from two or three different angels with hands at the ready to draw your guns with a threatening body posture, you're scaring me and I'd prefer not to be contacted.

2. Deterrent, I'm a bit on the skinny side of body types and could be easily perceived as an easy target.

3. I'd rather not be, but if you must, I prefer to be approached so I can see you coming, casually without any threatening moves and saying a simple "Hi" and a hand shake.

4. Even if it's not what your department requires from you, please have the intellectual integrity to study on your own "the law of the land" and how it came about and why and what it really means to be free, might I suggest you start with:

[video=youtube;_nOMbfsgZ9s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s[/video]



Calm is good, calmly refusing is fine. Respectful is great, I try to be the same.

I did swear to uphold the constitution, I can ask for ID and you can tell me no. You can chose to relinquish your rights. If you say no thats fine, and I mean that!

Resonable suspicion could further the contact and make it a detention. Refuse what? a search? I can continue to investigate without knowing who you are. I have booked people into jail as Jack Frost.

Thanks for the suggestions, I really am trying to expand my knowledge base. I will try to be friendly when I approach....wait did my wife put you up to this?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP 2. Why not concealed? From a purely tactical standpoint I would rather have my weapon concealed. A concealed weapon lends to the surprise part of speed, surprise, and violence of action. I am looking for real reasons, not "cause I can". I will accept deterrence as a legitimate reason.

He will accept deterrence as a legitimate reason? But, doesn't want to hear about the reason that counts most--because I can?

Also, he will accept? What sort of requester or bridge-builder tells us what he will and won't accept? He's setting conditions?

Rights are rights are rights are rights. Because I can. Because the government cannot infringe. Because the justifications for rights were figured out literally centuries ago, after earlier centuries of blood and treasure expended to win them, and no further justification is needed. This is why they are called rights--because the justifications were figured out and their value recognized centuries ago. Because it is a right--because I can--is the first and most important reason.

But, according to our visitor, this is not a "real reason".
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
He will accept deterrence as a legitimate reason? But, doesn't want to hear about the reason that counts most--because I can?

Also, he will accept? What sort of requester or bridge-builder tells us what he will and won't accept? He's setting conditions?

Rights are rights are rights are rights. Because I can. Because the government cannot infringe. Because the justifications for rights were figured out literally centuries ago, after earlier centuries of blood and treasure expended to win them, and no further justification is needed. This is why they are called rights--because the justifications were figured out and their value recognized centuries ago. Because it is a right--because I can--is the first and most important reason.

But, according to our visitor, this is not a "real reason".

Citizen, get the damn chip off your shoulder and assume some rational respectful dialog.
 

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
791
Location
Elizabethton, TN
I know I'm not in UT, but this sounded like fun anyway.

Answers to your questions:

1. No, I don't mind being contacted in a casual manner. But please use discretion if it looks like I'm in a hurry.

2. Why not concealed? Deterrence is a good one. But how about comfort? When I got my first holster, a suede Vega IWB with a simple belt clip, I was excited. But after a while I realized how uncomfortable it can be sometimes-especially when driving. I also got to thinking about how much of a pain in the a** finding and selecting pants would be to account for the extra inch or so in waistband size. Then I got a Serpa CQC and oh man! it was like night and day. Driving was comfortable again, I didn't have to worry about wearing oversized pants, and I have a smooth piece of plastic against my hip instead of a gun bulge.

Also: draw time, easy of draw (not having to move my t-shirt out of the way is a huge bonus), and if I start up a conversation that leads to someone else carrying-even better. That conversation will never get started if you CC.

That being said, I do CC sometimes when I don't feel like talking to anybody or if I'm with my fiancee (she doesn't really like it)

3. How do I want to be approached? Not at all if you can help it. I mean, if you get a call for a MWAG and I'm shopping for groceries, standing in line at my local burger joint, or eating lunch at the park (one that's not posted, of course)-please just move on and chalk it up to a busy body. But I realize that sometimes the things we do as we're going about our daily business just happen to look strange or even remotely threatening just because of the time, place and/or body language. If that's the case, try the casual encounter from question 1.

4. Tell your coworkers to please, please, don't answer a legal question if you don't know that answer to it. Sooooo many misconceptions about carrying a handgun are perpetuated by LEOs. I can't tell you how many times I've heard or read stories that included the phrase "well I know it's illegal/legal, my friend/family member is a cop!" and they turn out to be wrong. Lots of people take the words of a cop as gold or hard fact. So if you're unsure of someone's question, either find out for them or tell them to ask a lawyer/consult state law.

Also, if said legal question is fairly important to how you conduct yourself when deciding to make or not make an arrest, you may want to look it up anyway.

And finally-and this is completely related-realize that every arrest you make has tremendous financial consequences for the person involved. When people get arrested, they get evicted, they lose their jobs, which then may cause them to miss a mortgage or car payment, or worse. And that's all before they even go to trial! I've seen and read plenty of stories of people getting acquitted after all this happens. Or even worse, the person was arrested for a law that doesn't even exist, or one that was repealed recently. So if you're going to arrest someone, do it knowing that the person will be convicted, and don't do it thinking, "well he's probably involved, but if he's innocent then it'll get proven in court." After it gets proved in court, he may have already lost his job and spent thousands of dollars on a lawyer proving you were wrong, and that's not right.

I don't want to tell you how to do your job, and I certainly don't want to tell you to stop arresting poor people just because it's a larger financial burdern for them. I mean if you have to make an arrest, you have to make it. But do it knowing the person broke the law, and not just because you think it's probably illegal or that it's no big deal because they'll be able to get out of it if you're wrong.
 

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
791
Location
Elizabethton, TN
oh and another wardrobe related response to question 2: it is impossible to CC on your hip with a tucked in shirt. The older I get, the more juvenile I feel when I'm wearing an untucked shirt.
 

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
Thanks

Citizen, you are being rude for no reason.

UNLESS given information otherwise, PLEASE respond to the new forum member at face value, not upon your obvious bias.


@stargateranch - Other LEOs have started as you have, attempting to share and discuss. Some of them eventually show their true colors, which is to view citizens as lessers. Other LEOs have started that way. Not all have done this, and some have definitely stayed in a reasonable demeanor and calmly discussed rational subjects with the other members here. Some outspoken members of OCDO assume all LE are the same. IMHO, most OCDO members do not have the ass part of assume as a natural part of their upper anatomy.

Welcome aboard, don't let those who assume color your view of the rest of us.

I appriciate it. Hopefully I never treat a citizen as a "lesser". I take it quite seriously. I am an officer but I am still a citizen. I have a great respect for those who make this country go. And when I retire, I plan on going back to the family farm and building a small compound where I can troll citizen all day long.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
i appriciate it. Hopefully i never treat a citizen as a "lesser". I take it quite seriously. I am an officer but i am still a citizen. I have a great respect for those who make this country go. And when i retire, i plan on going back to the family farm and building a small compound where i can troll citizen all day long.

rofl!!!
 

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
Very good,

oh and another wardrobe related response to question 2: it is impossible to CC on your hip with a tucked in shirt. The older I get, the more juvenile I feel when I'm wearing an untucked shirt.

Very good suggestions. I am happy to say when I take somone to jail I am convinced. I also realize that people screw up so I go easy on them where allowed. Also, I have no problem saying "I don't know", but I can find out for ya!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Man with a gun calls are not entirely uncommon, I must respond and make sure no laws are being violated, or are about to be.

Make sure no laws are being violated? False. Wrong. UnAmerican. Dangerous. An overstatement of purpose and an overreach of authority. Suspicion and probable cause proceeding from a null point of innocence underlies the legal doctrine. Without genuine RAS, he can only fish, while the investigate-ee is under no obligation to assist setting a hook in his own mouth, and can walk away. With genuine RAS the cop can detain and investigate further, with limits, and must release the fish if the cop cannot develop probable cause. With probable cause the cop can arrest.* Do you all see how all that proceeds from an assumption of innocence? If the underlying assumption is guilt, then there would be no point in limits on consensual encounters, detentions, and arrests.

The simple fact that citizens can refuse consent to a consensual encounter defeats a cop making sure no laws are being violated. The simple fact a detainee cannot be compelled to answer questions defeats a cop making sure no laws are being violated.

We have heard this nonsense about "making sure" from cops before. Guns requested or demanded during consensual encounters to run the serial number to "make sure" the gun isn't stolen. Identity documents requested and demanded during consensual encounters and detentions (both lawful and unlawful) to "make sure" the OCer is not a prohibitied possessor. Hogwash, officers. You develop genuine RAS that I am a prohibited possessor, then investigate that within the limits of your authority.

So, "make sure" is an overreach of authority.

"Make sure" is an overstatement of purpose because it was decided long ago in this great nation that some crimes undetected, some crimes unpunished was the price of keeping government agents under control. It was a deliberate decision to pay that price--that not all criminals are caught or punished. It is part of the price of freedom.

"Officer, no offense. I know you're just doing your job. But, literally over a million Americans have died defending our rights. I'm not going to spit on their graves by waiving them."


* See Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Citizen, get the damn chip off your shoulder and assume some rational respectful dialog.

NO! When I get rational dialog that is not full of anti-rights bias, falsehood, and subtle criticism then I'll respond in kind.

If our visitor wants "nicer" commentary, he can change his tune. Fast.

But, if you will notice, I am not "dialoguing" with our visitor, so he has no standing to complain about un-respectful dialogue. I am critiquing his positions for other readers who may not be familiar with the ideas or may not have had the chance yet to hear them them or develop them on their own.

I wasn't going to write this until a bit later, but I'll throw it in now:


We do not need "dialogue" or "bridges" or whatever with police. Police are already supposed to be respecting all rights. Genuinely professional police who scrupulously respect rights would have no need of dialogue or bridges. They'd already be giving us what we deserve--what anybody deserves. And, they certainly wouldn't have to ask us about it.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Keep in mind I just want to make sure that you are not going to kill or hurt anyone (that doesn't need killin'). I would have a hard time sleeping if I did not confront an armed individual who later killed someones child.

Rights are not subject to the sleep disorders of police.

This is just an individualized version of "public opinion would be calling for police officer's heads on pikes" if an armed person later killed or injured someone. Rights are not subject to the public-relations difficulties of police.

Also, police can stand up and provide some leadership. Apparently, very few police departments are able to recognize that refusing to violate a suspect's rights is a bullet-proof position in this country. It can be sold to the public with ease. Critics of such a position are handily defeated.

I will only mention in passing that our visitor just insulted us by implying there are child killers here.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP 3. How do you want to be approached? Like I said before I cannot just ignore a call I get dispatched to.

False premise. Standard negotiating tactic. Set the premise and then hope your counterpart won't notice. I don't need to be approached.

Look closely and you will notice the question and the statement offered in support are not directly in line with each other. He is not legally required to approach anybody. Observing from a distance is not the same as ignoring a call.
 

SGB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
50
Location
Tallahassee, Florida, USA
As far as ID I would probabaly just ask for a name, my full name is clearly dispalyed on my uniform. If you want to see my ID I will show it to you if you ask. I think cops are conditioned to ask for ID and it's almost second nature. I am human and life experience plays a huge role in what I do. Not saying everyone who does not give me ID is a drug dealer but when someone refuses ID I flash to all the past experiences I have had with those who refuse to ID themselves. Do I treat you differntly at this point, no. But I would be lying if I said I was not thinking differntly.

If the caller is in the area still I will probably contact them and explain you are doing nothing wrong. I will admit I am not likely to call them back, maybe I should change that though.

Do you ask for ID in all your casual conversations? In uniform and out?

If you approached me and wanted to talk guns I'd talk with you all day, if you asked to see my ID it's no longer a casual conversation and the conversation just ended.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
3. How do you want to be approached? Like I said before I cannot just ignore a call I get dispatched to. Man with a gun calls are not entirely uncommon, I must respond and make sure no laws are being violated, or are about to be. Is there anyway I can do that without stepping on your toes or making this a huge deal when it does not need to be? Keep in mind I just want to make sure that you are not going to kill or hurt anyone (that doesn't need killin'). I would have a hard time sleeping if I did not confront an armed individual who later killed someones child.

Let me ask this in return, what action would you take if you had a report that there was an individual carrying a gas can down the road?

Would you respond?
Would you question the individual as to his intent with the flammable liquid?

How would you feel, if you later found out that the individual used the gasoline to light a church on fire and killing the occupants in one of the most horrific and painful ways possible?
Would you be devastated, would you be crushed because you didn't stop a man carrying a gas can?
Would you hold yourself accountable for your dereliction of duty?
 
Last edited:

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
Do you ask for ID in all your casual conversations? In uniform and out?

If you approached me and wanted to talk guns I'd talk with you all day, if you asked to see my ID it's no longer a casual conversation and the conversation just ended.

Thats a fair question, no I don't ask for ID. I would let you walk away however.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP 4. If you could tell a group of cops anything what would you tell us? I will pass it on to my co-workers and hopefully we can avoid stupidity on both ends.

I would tell them:

Section I.

Scrupulously respect all rights. Of everybody, not just OCers. (I'm not so selfish that I'm going to only promote rights for myself.)

Mere carry of a sidearm in no way creates suspicion.

No cheesy cop conversational games. For example, "If you have nothing to hide, why don't you want to talk to me?" Since that question only gets asked after a refusal, it immediately demonstrates the officer does not respect rights. If the officer did respect rights, he wouldn't ask the follow-up, would he? To illustrate the point, full recognition and respect of the right to refuse consent to an encounter would result in an abrupt and polite termination of the encounter. "Sorry to bother you, sir. Have a nice day."

Ditto for identity or identity document demands. In fact, without RAS, don't bother to demand identity. See Brown v Texas, Kolender v Lawson, and Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court.

This is going to require some thinking on the part of police. Some of the cheesy tactics are so ingrained as to seem reflexive. For example, identity demands. We've lost count of the number of times cops demanded identity documents without authority to do so. Unless Utah law requires a permit to OC foot or car and requires an identity document with the permit or some similar law, no RAS = no authority to demand identity or identity documents (see court cases cited just above). Yet, we've seen time and again cops demanding not just verbal identity, but identity documents, with no authority to make the demand/compel exhibiting them. In short, the inescapeable conclusion is that those cops had been doing it so regularly they completely forgot they had no authority. And, then got anywhere from annoyed to threatening when refused. So, this is going to take some foresight. Somebody is going to have to think through these points and recognize where the trouble might come up.

Oh, and I don't always OC. So, don't limit the rights respect and observance to OCers. A cop might encounter me during a traffic stop for something very minor like a burned out tail-light. Just because I'm not OCing doesn't mean I parked my knowledge of rights at home on the dresser.


Section II

Tear down the Blue Wall of Silence. And, everything it hides--put a stop to the garbage it hides. I don't believe for one second that cops who are willing to go hands-on or trade gunfire with criminals are suddenly all cowardly when the criminal or rights violator is another cop. The mere existence of the Blue Wall of Silence is the biggest stain on good police. The only way bad cops can get away with their garbage is if so-called good cops look the other way or lie to cover it up.

The ironic part is that bad cops, the ones who are correctable, will probably be grateful for the correction. Social people usually are--they recognize when they're screwing up and although its hard to swallow, don't genuinely object beyond perhaps a temorary protest against correction. Meaning, correct correction is acceptable to social people. Its the ugly ones who won't correct. And, you wouldn't want them around anyway.

So, tear down the Blue Wall of Silence. Utah made a huge contribution with the Tueller Drill. Make another one by forming a police union of good cops to battle on the behalf of good cops to get rid of bad cops and get the gray ones corrected. Or, whatever it takes. Let me see some essays from LT's and Captains in police trade journals decrying the Blue Wall of Silence. Call attention to the issue. Let me see some Letters-to-the-Editor by police officers calling attention to the problem police unions pose when they side with bad cops to keep them on the public payroll, about how bad it is for good cops to work in an environment where they have to worry about bad cops not supporting them when the guns come out on those calls that make their blood run cold. Good cops deserve a good work environment. A good work environment definitely does not include bad cops.
 
Last edited:

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
Let me ask this in return, what action would you take if you had a report that there was an individual carrying a gas can down the road?

Would you respond?
Would you question the individual as to his intent with the flammable liquid?

How would you feel, if you later found out that the individual used the gasoline to light a church on fire and killing the occupants in one of the most horrific and painful ways possible?
Would you be devastated, would you be crushed because you didn't stop a man carrying a gas can?
Would you hold yourself accountable for your dereliction of duty?

Yes I would respond, and do all the time. What would I do? I would offer him a ride to his car. Would I question him? probably not unless he asked to be dropped off in front of a church and asked to use my lighter. Funny story, unrelated, I actually bought a woman gas and a gas can. She was broke and it was snowing bad I drove her back to her car and got her home. A year later I arrested her for DUI. She treated me so poorly, screaming scratching then took me to court. She lost.

I guess where I am going is questions don't really hurt, if you do not want to awnser them that is fine. I like to talk with folks who I encounter in any scenario. I need allies not enemies, I might be getting the crapped kicked out of me one day at work and one of ya'll will save my life.

What can I as an officer do to gain trust of an individual? Or as an officer do I have to alawys be under suspision and that is something I have to live with? Are there officers you trust?
 
Top