To gain some insight to LEO / OC

[Trigger Dr]

I spent a couple hours looking at the 1911 forum.com last night, particularly the LEO Duty thread. There is a question re LEO views of OC. Some of the responders were not LEO and it shows. For the most part it gave a fair representation of the view shared by career LEO.
Yeah, Yeah, I know all leo lie (BS) put your predjudices aside for an hour and read this. You might , just maybe, learn something. This is not directed at any one person, but to the OC crowd as a whole.

 

[amlevin]

A link?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Well only if you'd get my quotes right.

 

[heresolong]

I'm not a member of the 1911 forum and not inclined to join (since I don't have any 1911s) but there was one interesting comment that I think needs to be responded to.

Post #127

If we just passed each other on the street, I probably wouldn't bother you. I was referring to incidents where "a man with a gun" was called in and I was dispatched to it. In that case, I have no choice but to speak with the guy.

If you're driving down the street, a LEO cannot pull you over just to check the status of your driver's license. However, if someone calls in and says you're weaving all over the place, the LEO will be obliged to talk with you.

I think this officer is making a few incorrect comparisons. When someone calls in a MWAG there is no indication that that individual is breaking the law. Therefore, there should be no reason that the officer has no choice but to speak with you. In the second example, the call is only responded to if the person reports illegal activity.

If someone is actually a member there, especially if they are law enforcement, I think this would be a good point to make. The police do not, in fact, respond to 911 calls unless there is a report of illegal activity. In other cases they (presumably) explain to the caller that the activity they are reporting is legal.

 

[Trigger Dr]

A link?

in the post... 1911forum.com

 

[Trigger Dr]

I'm not a member of the 1911 forum and not inclined to join (since I don't have any 1911s) but there was one interesting comment that I think needs to be responded to.

Post #127



I think this officer is making a few incorrect comparisons. When someone calls in a MWAG there is no indication that that individual is breaking the law. Therefore, there should be no reason that the officer has no choice but to speak with you. I the second example, the call is only responded to if the person reports illegal activity.

If someone is actually a member there, especially if they are law enforcement, I think this would be a good point to make. The police do not, in fact, respond to 911 calls unless there is a report of illegal activity. In other cases they (presumably) explain to the caller that the activity they are reporting is legal.

Read again...and then think what was written. Also consider he may work in a state other than Wa. with different laws.

 

[heresolong]

Read again...and then think what was written.

I'm pretty clear on what was written although I concede your point on state laws. You'd think a disclaimer that "in my state this is what we are required by law to do" would be appropriate.

1) He specifically says that he can not pull someone over just to check their license but if they are reportedly weaving he can.

2) He also states that if someone reports a MWAG then he has to check it out <b>to the extent of checking the person's ID</b>. He does not include any suspicion of illegal activity in that citizen report, unlike the previous example.

By that logic, if someone called to report a person driving, he would have to pull them over. He clearly equates MWAG with suspicious behavior. Isn't that what we have spent several years getting past here in Washington?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It's also not mandatory to carry ID in any of the States.

By Supreme court decisions he still needs RAS or PC to demand that someone identify themselves. Even in California, where they can e-check someone they are not supposed to demand ID.

So that would only leave the minority of states where it would be illegal to open carry. For this to work and then in that case the person would be breaking state law. Even though most State Constitutions along with the Federal Constitution provides him with the right to carry.

 

[heresolong]

Read again...and then think what was written.

I also decided to come back and make a comment about this statement. You aren't the only one on this board who has made statements like this so take it as a blanket suggestion rather than a personal criticism.

Telling someone to read it again with no indication of specifically what they are looking for can come across as pretty rude. The implication is that they are too stupid to have got it the first time. Instead how about making the argument that "what the quote really meant was ...". That would be far more helpful to everyone.

+1 on SVG's observation. Since they can't stop you without RAS, the implication on a MWAG call is that he has RAS by virtue of someone calling. This is not true in this state and many others. It may have been true in his state but that wasn't clear from his post.

 

[Trigger Dr]

It's also not mandatory to carry ID in any of the States.


Maybe not by Fed law, but state law can and does require in some states. My cite is the same as the one you did not post.

 

[Trigger Dr]

I also decided to come back and make a comment about this statement. You aren't the only one on this board who has made statements like this so take it as a blanket suggestion rather than a personal criticism.

Telling someone to read it again with no indication of specifically what they are looking for can come across as pretty rude. The implication is that they are too stupid to have got it the first time. Instead how about making the argument that "what the quote really meant was ...". That would be far more helpful to everyone.

+1 on SVG's observation. Since they can't stop you without RAS, the implication on a MWAG call is that he has RAS by virtue of someone calling. This is not true in this state and many others. It may have been true in his state but that wasn't clear from his post.

Often times I, as well as others, are perfectly clear in our own mind as to what the intent was, when to others it may be as clear as mud. Point taken.

 

[Tawnos]

It's also not mandatory to carry ID in any of the States.


Maybe not by Fed law, but state law can and does require in some states. My cite is the same as the one you did not post.

Could you give me that cite? I only know of Kolender v. Lawson and Brown v. Texas related to ID, both which state:
Kolender:
The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest.

Brown:
The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.

...
Fundamental to a democratic society is the ability to wander freely and anonymously, if we so choose, without being compelled to divulge information to the government about who we are or what we are doing.

And while I disagree with the decision (as it is poorly written for want of definitions, and it uses contradicting logic) in Hiibel v. Nevada, you see:
This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.

 

[Trigger Dr]

Tawnos
Myreferencs to a cite that was not posted was sarcastic as a cite was not posted so mine was from the same source. ie did not exist.

 

[Tawnos]

Tawnos
Myreferencs to a cite that was not posted was sarcastic as a cite was not posted so mine was from the same source. ie did not exist.

Well, you can be happy knowing I did post a cite

I was thinking you knew of some reference and knew that he also was aware of it. Missed the sarcasm.

 

[heresolong]

Often times I, as well as others, are perfectly clear in our own mind as to what the intent was, when to others it may be as clear as mud.

LOL. Me too. +1

 

[Twiztid Angel]

Ive been looking into what LEO thinks about NC OCers and found some interesting thoughts from verified LEO in this site http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/ its the ask a cop section and there are several OC questions to which they are told anywhere from OC is fine to OC should be illegal...very eye opening.


Here is one.................

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/89377-open-carry.html

Verified LEO


Quote Originally Posted by grumpyirishman View Post
If it's legal, it's legal...we do not harrass folks for doing legal things..




Disagree,

The response would be like this.

Call: Subject walking down the street with a firearm.

Response: Units arive, subject taken at gunpoint and handcuffed for questioning. Sorry, I don't know if your a nutcase out for harming others or a normal citizen legally excercising his rights. As an Officer, I'm not going to give anyone the upperhand because I don't know what the situation is. Therfore you will be taken into custody at gunpoint. Now just because your handcuffed and questioned doesn't mean you will be charged with any crime. But if you think it is worth the hassel then go for it.
The best thing you can do though is meet the requirements and get your concealed carry permit. It saves everyone the trouble and problems. I know this doesn't seem right, but unfortunately as an officer I have to play it the safe way to go home at night.

I can do it like Ispbear too - with no worries about federal court. YMMV.

Scary what some thing they can and can't do....read the whole thread if you have time interesting to say the least....there are some LEO that say that they think its fine and dandy and that everyone who can should carry anyway they wish....but people like the one that responded are scary.

 

[.45ACPaddy]

Someday that mindset is gonna cost that officer's department some money.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It's also not mandatory to carry ID in any of the States.


Maybe not by Fed law, but state law can and does require in some states. My cite is the same as the one you did not post.

So I was suppose to cite a non existent law to show it doesn't exist?

 

[fire suppressor]

I'm with you Trigger Dr LEOs are not the enemy

 

[heresolong]

I'm with you Trigger Dr LEOs are not the enemy

But from the quote above some of them do seem to act that way. "You are going to be cuffed at gunpoint" when there is no reasonable suspicion that you are breaking any laws? This is a Terry violation and therefore legally not allowed. Hate to have someone get shot because of that particular officer's attitude towards the general public.

Going back to Trigger Dr's earlier point, it may also be that carrying a firearm is, in fact, RAS in his home state. That is the problem with these discussions on a forum. There is no legal background, whereas when we have these discussions are the OCDO forum we are starting from the basis of well established Washington state law.