• 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.

pulled over by a policeman

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Never said all cops are good, unlike your obvious blind bias against them. The bottom line is, most people are good and reasonable, and that applies to police as well as to those of us who carry. When we know our rights and exercise them accurately, politely and respectfully, I believe that most of us will not have a problem with LEOs. Engage in immediate belligerence and the situation will deteriorate quickly.
Exercise our rights within the confines of the law. This is the only way to gain a redress of wrongs when a thug cop subjects the citizen to unlawful acts under the color of law.

A cop's authority must be challenged (in a polite and non-combative manner) at every step of a detention (and yes, I believe a cop stops you - you are detained) and he must be made to justify his acts under statute. I engage in "verbal jujitsu" only to assist the cop in not making a career impacting decision. And, only if I think the cop is open to being "educated" right then and there. Most cops are not and do not appreciate mundanes "teaching" them on the side of the road. This is where I attempt to get a judge to do my teaching for me.

In MO I am compelled to display my "permit" upon demand. It does not state that I must hand over my "permit." But, I am only so required if I am presently armed and concealing while armed. If I am OC, in a political subdivision that does not make OC unlawful, I am under no obligation to inform the cop I am armed or answer the question. The citizen must know the law regarding being armed.

<snip> My point is that being polite and non-combative while refusing to answer questions can help to avoid the ride.
The citizen's demeanor only has weight for a cop who, 1) knows the law regarding firearms in his jurisdiction, 2) understands liberty, and 3) respects rights.

Unfortunately the "trifecta" of knowledge is a rare occurrence in your average beat cop. Getting two out of three is more the case.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Keep in mind there are no statutes to be polite. As far as I know it is not illegal to be blunt, if it is please cite?
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Exercise our rights within the confines of the law. This is the only way to gain a redress of wrongs when a thug cop subjects the citizen to unlawful acts under the color of law.

A cop's authority must be challenged (in a polite and non-combative manner) at every step of a detention (and yes, I believe a cop stops you - you are detained) and he must be made to justify his acts under statute. I engage in "verbal jujitsu" only to assist the cop in not making a career impacting decision. And, only if I think the cop is open to being "educated" right then and there. Most cops are not and do not appreciate mundanes "teaching" them on the side of the road. This is where I attempt to get a judge to do my teaching for me.

In MO I am compelled to display my "permit" upon demand. It does not state that I must hand over my "permit." But, I am only so required if I am presently armed and concealing while armed. If I am OC, in a political subdivision that does not make OC unlawful, I am under no obligation to inform the cop I am armed or answer the question. The citizen must know the law regarding being armed.

The citizen's demeanor only has weight for a cop who, 1) knows the law regarding firearms in his jurisdiction, 2) understands liberty, and 3) respects rights.

Unfortunately the "trifecta" of knowledge is a rare occurrence in your average beat cop. Getting two out of three is more the case.

I have no problem with anything you have written. My whole intent in my posting is that I start from the premise that a police officer is a human being with a job to do and I will be polite and non-combative until and unless the officer attempts to abridge my rights. If they do, I will exercise the advice I have been given by my attorney -- "Am I being detained?" If so, "I will not answer any questions without the advice of my attorney, and I do not consent to any searches or seizures of my person, papers or property." "Am I now free to go?" If that gets me a ride, so be it and I'll save my arguments for the court case, letting my attorney handle it.

I think that the knee-jerk reaction of some who are instantly combative can lead to an unnecessary heightening of the confrontation.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages... May I politely point out that positive things have been achieved?
"... I'm actually coming to the conclusion its just pulled from the firearms FAQS on the state website. Obviously that isn't a chapter and section so I have no idea where they get out from...."
A copied bit of random information from someone's website can't be considered to be a representation of the actual law and that an actual reference to the law (Chapter and Verse) is?

That alone puts us far, FAR ahead of a handful of forums I can think of where debates go round and round with neither side actually publishing the law that both sides say agrees with their position.
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Keep in mind there are no statutes to be polite. As far as I know it is not illegal to be blunt, if it is please cite?

Of course there is no statute and no one can force you to be polite or to avoid being blunt. In my opinion, however, starting out as a rational and polite person can help to prevent the situation from escalating into something more than it might have become. If you start out that way and the officer turns unnecessarily hostile, then when or if it gets to court you will be seen as the more reasonable person -- especially if you are recording the encounter. You DO keep an audio or video record of all encounters, yes?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Of course there is no statute and no one can force you to be polite or to avoid being blunt. In my opinion, however, starting out as a rational and polite person can help to prevent the situation from escalating into something more than it might have become. If you start out that way and the officer turns unnecessarily hostile, then when or if it gets to court you will be seen as the more reasonable person -- especially if you are recording the encounter. You DO keep an audio or video record of all encounters, yes?

It cannot LEGALLY escalate unless a law is broken! Show me cites of cases where individuals were convicted of "contempt of cop"?
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
It cannot LEGALLY escalate unless a law is broken! Show me cites of cases where individuals were convicted of "contempt of cop"?

I surmise that your point is that an officer can "trump up" charges that may or may not be thrown out in court. In some cases those charges may have no actual foundation, but it seems that the courts often give the officer the benefit of the doubt. That's why some on this forum opine that it's useless to argue with the officer about RAS at the time of detention because RAS is based on the officer's belief -- which in many cases is thrown out of court and sometimes, if it is egregious enough, can form the basis of a lawsuit against the agency and/or the officer.

As for your request for a cite ... since so far as I know there is no "contempt of cop" statute, it would be impossible to do that specific kind of search. However, from the Wiki:

Contempt of cop is law enforcement jargon in the United States for behavior by citizens towards law enforcement officers that the officers perceive as disrespectful or insufficiently deferential to their authority.[1][2][3][4] It is a play on words, and not an actual crime. The phrase is associated with arbitrary arrest and detention and is often discussed in connection to police misconduct such as use of excessive force or even police brutality[5] as a reaction to disrespectful behavior[6] rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.[7]

Arrests for contempt of cop may stem from a type of "occupational arrogance" when a police officer thinks he or she should not be challenged or questioned.[8] From such officers' perspective, contempt of cop may involve perceived or actual challenges to their authority, including a lack of deference (such as disobeying instructions,[9] or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer).[7] Flight from the police is sometimes considered a variant of contempt of cop.[10] Contempt of cop situations may be exacerbated if other officers witness the allegedly contemptuous behavior.[11]

Charges such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer may be cited as official reasons for a contempt of cop arrest.[7] Obstructing an officer or failure to obey a lawful order is also cited in contempt of cop arrests in some jurisdictions, particularly as a stand-alone charge without any other charges brought.[12][13]​

Are there not cases where someone has been found not guilty of a crime, but convicted of resisting arrest or obstruction of justice that was incident to the base charge?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Where some cops are concerned, legally and lawfully are theoretical concepts that have little bearing on the mean streets. The law is what they think it is at that moment and telling them at that moment that they are wrong can be very dangerous to the uppity citizen. I'll let my barrister do my talking and educating for me.

As to cops being human, sure they are, just not in uniform, they are professionals and I hold, what some may think is, a excessively high expectation regarding cops and how they perform their duties.

Polite is good when the cop earns polite.....I prefer circumspect.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Where some cops are concerned, legally and lawfully are theoretical concepts that have little bearing on the mean streets. The law is what they think it is at that moment and telling them at that moment that they are wrong can be very dangerous to the uppity citizen. I'll let my barrister do my talking and educating for me.

As to cops being human, sure they are, just not in uniform, they are professionals and I hold, what some may think is, a excessively high expectation regarding cops and how they perform their duties.

Polite is good when the cop earns polite.....I prefer circumspect.

I agree completely, I just have a problem with statists who think that citizens should cower in the presence of a LEO. Whether they get away with it sometimes does not change it is illegal to arrest a person for a made up crime, just because that person did not kiss their ass.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
1200+ posts?:shocker: In just 3 months on OCDO!? Even davidmcbeth would have trouble keeping up with that!

He has that many posts because for every post he makes a cadre of posters attacks him. Responding to just a small percentage of those attacks easily gives him 1200 posts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
I agree completely, I just have a problem with statists who think that citizens should cower in the presence of a LEO. Whether they get away with it sometimes does not change it is illegal to arrest a person for a made up crime, just because that person did not kiss their ass.

I am hoping that you are not calling me a "statist" nor that are you suggesting that being polite and non-confrontational at the outset of an encounter is somehow to be regarded as "cowering." There is a lot of "broad-brushing" and binary thinking evident on this forum -- all cops are bad, all who take a moderate approach at the outset of an encounter are statists, etc.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I am hoping that you are not calling me a "statist" nor that are you suggesting that being polite and non-confrontational at the outset of an encounter is somehow to be regarded as "cowering." There is a lot of "broad-brushing" and binary thinking evident on this forum -- all cops are bad, all who take a moderate approach at the outset of an encounter are statists, etc.

I never said all cops are bad, and I did not call you a statist, I did throw a stone over the fence to see which dog would yelp. A person can be less than polite and not criminal. Police are paid to enforce the law, not get their ass kissed. Any cop that arrests a individual for contempt of cop is a criminal and belongs in prison. It is time that the government fear the people, it is time to lock up criminal from the government and throw away the key. I treat cops with due regard not polite, but not threatening, until I know their intention. I never kiss their ass that is a sign of weakness if one should encounter a criminal.

I get the feeling some would bend over and drop their pants for government and then say thank you. NOT I!
 

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
Wow, what a train wreck this thread has become.

If anyone is still interested in the Indiana codes pertaining to informing or requests to produce carry license, some details below:

IC 35-47-2-1 once required that the License To Carry Handgun be in the carrier's possession when carrying, however, the code was rewritten a couple years ago and that requirement was changed to simply being licensed under that chapter to carry a handgun.

One problem which remains is that the IN legislature did not think or bother to rewrite IC 35-47-2-24, which still places the burden of proof of exemption upon the carrier.

There is no duty to inform in Indiana, even if asked, but if you do choose to inform that you are carrying (or have made it obvious), an officer may then require you to prove you are licensed (or meet another exemption) without alleging anything further. If you cannot prove it at that point, he could charge you with carrying without a license and you would have to produce it or prove it another way to get the charge dismissed and associated records destroyed.

By not informing, or declining to answer, an officer would need to allege that you are in fact carrying before requiring proof of licensed status. The mere fact that you are licensed to carry is still not enough to demand that you produce it.

As for the ISP FAQ, what an embarrassment. It is full of the incorrect opinions of whomever wrote it and is laughable in spots - certainly not to be used as a reference for citing.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch2.html
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
In regards to IC 35-47-2-24, I'd recommend anyone who could afford to take a day off from work refuse to produce his/her license and then show up in court. If enough people did it, it would prove uneconomical (both cost and manpower) for the state to continue to bring such matters for court. The likely outcome in such cases the county solicitor would immediately seek nolle prosequi for the charges.

Failing that, the officer gets to waste his time in court for an afternoon instead of having to face the hazards of meeting and arresting criminals.

It's a win-win situation either way.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
In regards to IC 35-47-2-24, I'd recommend anyone who could afford to take a day off from work refuse to produce his/her license and then show up in court. If enough people did it, it would prove uneconomical (both cost and manpower) for the state to continue to bring such matters for court. The likely outcome in such cases the county solicitor would immediately seek nolle prosequi for the charges.

Failing that, the officer gets to waste his time in court for an afternoon instead of having to face the hazards of meeting and arresting criminals.

It's a win-win situation either way.

Fines and court fees will still apply...

CCJ
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
I have no problem with anything you have written. My whole intent in my posting is that I start from the premise that a police officer is a human being with a job to do and I will be polite and non-combative until and unless the officer attempts to abridge my rights. If they do, I will exercise the advice I have been given by my attorney -- "Am I being detained?" If so, "I will not answer any questions without the advice of my attorney, and I do not consent to any searches or seizures of my person, papers or property." "Am I now free to go?" If that gets me a ride, so be it and I'll save my arguments for the court case, letting my attorney handle it.

I think that the knee-jerk reaction of some who are instantly combative can lead to an unnecessary heightening of the confrontation.

If you think about it, a LAC can no lower the level of confrontation, but the LEO can. A LEO can heighten the level of confrontation and the LAC can do nothing about it. So who's the actor? Who's in control. Not you.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
If you think about it, a LAC can no lower the level of confrontation, but the LEO can. A LEO can heighten the level of confrontation and the LAC can do nothing about it. So who's the actor? Who's in control. Not you.

I have to disagree maverick. If a lac is yelling and upset he can escalate a situation just as an Leo can. But if a man who was once yelling and screaming then calms down on his on free will he then escalate a the situation.

I agree with the premise that even if he calms down the Leo can still escalate it or react a certain way. But the lac does have the ability to quell a situation.

For example if a lac is yelling and is being warned to calm down or stop yelling if they do so they have quelled the situation. This is not an uncommon thing to see.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Top