First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Share a survival experience with us and explain what you learned from it. You might help someone.

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

Post Reply
Whackpack7
* *
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Whackpack7 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:11 pm

[quote="Mr. E. Monkey]

I know a lot of us have felt, and I'm sure most of us have at least read others talking about, feeling nervous when CCing if we're not used to doing it, worried that the gun is 'printing,' and all that. It's natural that if someone is used to CCing and not OCing, they're going to feel nervous about it; it sounds like the OP was.

I wonder if that nervousness didn't cue a "let's go talk to that guy" reaction from the officers that might not have happened otherwise? As an officer, is that something you could comment on?


At the same time, unfortunately, it's not hard to understand why the OP might have been nervous. Regardless, I'm glad the interaction went as well as it did.[/quote]

While I wholeheartedly agree that yes that would be a reason to stop someone, I find it hard to believe they saw any nervousness since I scanned the area while approaching in my vehicle and had parked prior to the police even pulling in. As for after I was walking towards the gas station, my head is always on a swivel and I am always paying attention to my surroundings. Much as any officer or military individual would. Situational awareness is very important. Especially if you have a weapon. I carry with confidence.

User avatar
ODA 226
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 1715
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:15 pm
Location: Germany

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by ODA 226 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:26 pm

The only reason they stopped the OP is because the officers saw a firearm and didn't know that OC was legal in the city.
Bitka Sve Rešava!
NEVER SACRIFICE SECURITY FOR SPEED!
B-2-10 SFG(A)/ A-2-11 SFG(A) 1977-1994

My INCH Bag
My Ultimate Altoid Tin
My Bug-In Solar Lights
My Wilderness Ditch Kit
Image

Doctorr Fabulous
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 12210
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Evil Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days/Weeks Later

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Doctorr Fabulous » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:28 pm

ODA 226 wrote:The only reason they stopped the OP is because the officers saw a firearm and didn't know that OC was legal in the city.
With mind reading skills like that you should have come to Florida and helped us solve a rather high profile case a few months back.
Opinions subject to change in light of new information.
Image
http://i.imgur.com/wG6ZMjE.jpg

User avatar
maldon007
* * * * *
Posts: 4097
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:49 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Most of the older stuff, newer stuff just doesnt cut it fsr...
Location: Pickle Bucket Brigade
Contact:

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by maldon007 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:47 pm

That may not have been the reason he was stopped, but it certainly should have been, since that reason is the closest thing they had to a legal reason to stop him. What other legal reason would they have to stop him & usher him outside, then keep him there while they checked with dispatch?
Image

User avatar
ochunter375
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:30 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: The Walking Dead
Location: Orange County, NY

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by ochunter375 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:00 pm

Whackpack7 wrote:
Spd164 wrote:Oddly enough, the only place I regularly hear this rhetoric is on the Internet.

And I do understand what you are saying IRT the attitude making the difference. Only thing I can say is not everyone on the job is as naturally fucking awesome at it as I am.
Well this thread has gotten interesting in a short period of time... Anyway, I really do appreciate the input from everyone. And, I know where you are coming from with the you're screwed either way and I know the position society has put you in. I work professional EMS and fire (along side PD frequently) and understand that no matter what you are doing nor what your intentions are you are going to be wrong to someone. I also realize that if you want to be awesome at your job (much as I am), you probably spend decent time on your own or away from work trying to get better at it. For that I thank you.

To the point though, I did feel as though it was a 'stop' or temporary detainment because I felt as though I didn't have the freedom to leave any longer. I felt that after we made contact I needed to stay with him and his partner until he gave me the okay to go. He didn't stop to talk or chat no sir. He was straight to the point of me and if I was legal in my actions of which he wasn't even sure. If you as an officer stopped me for OC (most likely interpreted very differently in Pitt), and I tried to say no I don't wish to talk and walked off, what would you legitimately do given the circumstances?
Did you ask the officers that you know if the guy who stopped you is a dick? That could be it right there.

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4646
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by LowKey » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:18 am

Doctorr Fabulous wrote:
ODA 226 wrote:The only reason they stopped the OP is because the officers saw a firearm and didn't know that OC was legal in the city.
With mind reading skills like that you should have come to Florida and helped us solve a rather high profile case a few months back.
Was anything other than the weapon being carried openly brought up by the officer? Not according to the OP, so unless he's withheld some info...yes, it was the reason for the stop. If they'd stopped him for some other reason it would have come up.
The deputy told him it was about the weapon.
They did not address any other action that was related to a criminal offence which would be needed to make a stop, so unless they stopped him for jaywalking or some other offence and then failed to follow up on it...yes, the stop was made on the grounds of OC.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
ODA 226
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 1715
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:15 pm
Location: Germany

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by ODA 226 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:22 am

Doctorr Fabulous wrote:
ODA 226 wrote:The only reason they stopped the OP is because the officers saw a firearm and didn't know that OC was legal in the city.
With mind reading skills like that you should have come to Florida and helped us solve a rather high profile case a few months back.
With reading skills like yours, I think Florida needs all the help it can get! :rofl:
Bitka Sve Rešava!
NEVER SACRIFICE SECURITY FOR SPEED!
B-2-10 SFG(A)/ A-2-11 SFG(A) 1977-1994

My INCH Bag
My Ultimate Altoid Tin
My Bug-In Solar Lights
My Wilderness Ditch Kit
Image

Doctorr Fabulous
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 12210
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Evil Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days/Weeks Later

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Doctorr Fabulous » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:25 am

LowKey wrote:
Doctorr Fabulous wrote:
ODA 226 wrote:The only reason they stopped the OP is because the officers saw a firearm and didn't know that OC was legal in the city.
With mind reading skills like that you should have come to Florida and helped us solve a rather high profile case a few months back.
Was anything other than the weapon being carried openly brought up by the officer? Not according to the OP, so unless he's withheld some info...yes, it was the reason for the stop. If they'd stopped him for some other reason it would have come up.
The deputy told him it was about the weapon.
They did not address any other action that was related to a criminal offence which would be needed to make a stop, so unless they stopped him for jaywalking or some other offence and then failed to follow up on it...yes, the stop was made on the grounds of OC.
Only person who honestly knows why the officer spoke with him is the officer. Second-guessing from a typed account is the same sort of nonsense as trying to judge Zimmerman's motive based on watching the news. That was my point. Literally the only person who can say "this is why we spoke with the OP" is the officer, everyone else is making an inferential guess.
Opinions subject to change in light of new information.
Image
http://i.imgur.com/wG6ZMjE.jpg

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4646
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by LowKey » Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:07 am

Doctorr Fabulous wrote:
LowKey wrote:
Doctorr Fabulous wrote:
ODA 226 wrote:The only reason they stopped the OP is because the officers saw a firearm and didn't know that OC was legal in the city.
With mind reading skills like that you should have come to Florida and helped us solve a rather high profile case a few months back.
Was anything other than the weapon being carried openly brought up by the officer? Not according to the OP, so unless he's withheld some info...yes, it was the reason for the stop. If they'd stopped him for some other reason it would have come up.
The deputy told him it was about the weapon.
They did not address any other action that was related to a criminal offence which would be needed to make a stop, so unless they stopped him for jaywalking or some other offence and then failed to follow up on it...yes, the stop was made on the grounds of OC.
Only person who honestly knows why the officer spoke with him is the officer. Second-guessing from a typed account is the same sort of nonsense as trying to judge Zimmerman's motive based on watching the news. That was my point. Literally the only person who can say "this is why we spoke with the OP" is the officer, everyone else is making an inferential guess.
To make a lawful stop the officer needs to have grounds to belive criminal activity is/has/or will be taking place.
If the officer had such grounds they would have been addressed(citation/warning issued, ect.) That didn't happen according to the OP.
So the officer stopped him for either OC or another lawful activity, or suspicion of a criminal activity that the officer failed to follow up on (or did follow up on it, determined no criminal activity had taken place, and prolonged the stop to investigate a lawful activity).
None of these possibilities put the officer in a favorable light, aside from his being polite. Polite is good, but it wouldn't make (for an exagerated example) an unjustified and warrantless search of your home less offensive.

The default setting is supposed to be that Joe Public doesn't get stopped, interviewed, or otherwise hindered while going about his lawful affairs unless LEO has grounds to belive a crime is/has/or will be committed by that person.
It is not, "Stop people on the street absent evidence of wrongdoing to just check if something might be illegal".

If LE is going to stop someone they'd better be able to state which criminal code the belive is being/has been/ or will be violated and articulate their reasons for suspecting such a violation.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

Doctorr Fabulous
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 12210
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Evil Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days/Weeks Later

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Doctorr Fabulous » Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:14 am

LowKey wrote: To make a lawful stop the officer needs to have grounds to belive criminal activity is/has/or will be taking place.
If the officer had such grounds they would have been addressed(citation/warning issued, ect.) That didn't happen according to the OP.
So the officer stopped him for either OC or another lawful activity, or suspicion of a criminal activity that the officer failed to follow up on (or did follow up on it, determined no criminal activity had taken place, and prolonged the stop to investigate a lawful activity).
None of these possibilities put the officer in a favorable light, aside from his being polite. Polite is good, but it wouldn't make (for an exagerated example) an unjustified and warrantless search of your home less offensive.

The default setting is supposed to be that Joe Public doesn't get stopped, interviewed, or otherwise hindered while going about his lawful affairs unless LEO has grounds to belive a crime is/has/or will be committed by that person.
It is not, "Stop people on the street absent evidence of wrongdoing to just check if something might be illegal".

If LE is going to stop someone they'd better be able to state which criminal code the belive is being/has been/ or will be violated and articulate their reasons for suspecting such a violation.
Right, but from what the OP has said, this wasn't a stop as he wasn't detained, they jsut started askign questions and he never attempted or asked to leave.
Opinions subject to change in light of new information.
Image
http://i.imgur.com/wG6ZMjE.jpg

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4646
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by LowKey » Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:00 am

Doctorr Fabulous wrote:
LowKey wrote: To make a lawful stop the officer needs to have grour did follow up on it, determined no criminal activity had taken place, and prolonged the stop to investigate a lawful activity).
None of these possibilities put the officer in a favorable light, aside from his being polite. Polite is good, but it wouldn't make (for an exagerated example) an unjustified and warrantless search of your home less offensive.

The default setting is supposed to be that Joe Public doesn't get stopped, interviewed, or otherwise hindered while going about his lawful affairs unless LEO has grounds to belive a crime is/has/or will be committed by that person.
It is not, "Stop people on the street absent evidence of wrongdoing to just check if something might be illegal".

If LE is going to stop someone they'd better be able to state which criminal code the belive is being/has been/ or will be violated and articulate their reasons for suspecting such a violation.
Right, but from what the OP has said, this wasn't a stop as he wasn't detained, they jsut started askign questions and he never attempted or asked to leave.
Right, and a mugging isn't a mugging if the 6 burly guys who asked you for the contents of your wallet are polite and don't make an explicit threat of force for non-compliance with their "request".

A casual conversation with LE isn't one in which the subject of discussion is a debate of the legality of what you are doing....that's a professional interview. In theory its possible that the deputies would have let him decline to have their little chat, but reality is that they would have made the detention official.
Let's look another profession, physicians.
Have a conversation with a doc about medicine in general, or about a theoretical case and the conversation can be considered casual.
Have a conversation with a doc about your medical condition and it's no longer a casual conversation but a professional consultation (absent lots of "this isn't medical advice" disclaimer).

You simply cannot have a casual conversation with LE about the legality of your actions....such a discussion is an investigation no matter how politely conducted, and you have nothing to gain.

LE bluffs a lot, implying that you can't leave and often trying to avoid answering your question "Am I free to go now?" with counter questions of "why are you so anxious to leave?" in an attempt to keep you talking in hopes you will supply him with PC. It's called fishing, and it's taught as a technique as well as a number of other ways of trying to dig up something to supply PC...including how to imply that the subject isn't free to go without actually saying so, counting on the average Joe being too intimidated to object.

I'm not anti-LEO, but I won't put up with BS fishing expeditions or intimidation techniques. Most of you are stellar guys (and gals), but there are enough dirt bags with a shield for me to take the risk of indulging you when I'm not required by law to do so. It's no more stereotyping than LE treating every traffic stop with extreme caution for the same reasons....while most of the general public are on the up and up, there are enough dirt bags amongst the general public that you have to be cautious every time...you never know if "this" stop is going to be a dirt bag.

IIRC, Robert Frost once wrote that good fences make good neighbors.
That's about setting boundaries and maintaining them.
There are boundaries constraining what LEOs are permitted to do.
To use the fence analogy, when you catch them reaching through the fence to pick an apple off your tree, you smack their hand (file a complaint) and warn them off. If you catch them climbing over the fence you have them arrested for tresspassing (pursue charges and civil suits).
Wanna avoid that? Respect the fence and stay on your side of it, don't try to come up with new and clever ways of getting around it.
Last edited by LowKey on Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
maldon007
* * * * *
Posts: 4097
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:49 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Most of the older stuff, newer stuff just doesnt cut it fsr...
Location: Pickle Bucket Brigade
Contact:

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by maldon007 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:34 am

Doctorr Fabulous wrote: Right, but from what the OP has said, this wasn't a stop as he wasn't detained, they jsut started askign questions and he never attempted or asked to leave.

Right there is the whole bone of contention, was he "stopped" or not? The standard is generally whether an average person would THINK he/she was stopped, not so much the specific actions of the officers. So since many here disagree and think it was a stop, it's reasonable to assume that there might be a jury that would agree... Just as there might be a jury that would disagree... In other words, reasonable people might disagree on whether it was a stop or not but there is no concrete answer.
Image

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4646
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by LowKey » Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:36 am

No concrete answer, but it does leave a question dangling in the air
If the deputies didn't know if what they were observing was illegal, what possessed them to think they should interfere with the OP before getting clarification from higher up? There was apparently no threatening behavior on the part of the OP so no immediate threat to public safety was apparent, so instant intercession probably wasn't needed. They have radios for a reason, this is one of them.







Deputy 1: Hey, that guy over there is open carrying...is that legal in this town?
Deputy 2: I don't know. It's legal in the county. Let's call it in and ask.
<pause>
Deputy 2: Yup, it's legal in town here. I'll let dispatch know we're available.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Spd164
* * *
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Spd164 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:51 am

Oh sweet baby bleeding heart jeezus did you even read the thread LowKey? This will be the third time (at least) where we are covering the exact same ground.

Some of us believe that it was a investigatory detention, others believe it was a mere encounter and the OP was free to leave.

I'm still in the mere encounter camp, and I'm pretty sure I articulated fairly well why that is. I'm not re-hashing this again. The FACT is that we will never hear what a jury has to say about this specific instance because like I have said at least three times throughout the thread already, none of the involved parties did anything wrong.
Image

User avatar
ODA 226
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 1715
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:15 pm
Location: Germany

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by ODA 226 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:16 am

Spd164 wrote:
Some of us believe that it was a investigatory detention, others believe it was a mere encounter and the OP was free to leave.

I'm still in the mere encounter camp, and I'm pretty sure I articulated fairly well why that is. I'm not re-hashing this again. The FACT is that we will never hear what a jury has to say about this specific instance because like I have said at least three times throughout the thread already, none of the involved parties did anything wrong.
:idea: Actually, we can have a jury right here if the OP or a mod can add a limited-time vote to this thread. I think that would put this argument to rest forever, don't you? :idea:
Bitka Sve Rešava!
NEVER SACRIFICE SECURITY FOR SPEED!
B-2-10 SFG(A)/ A-2-11 SFG(A) 1977-1994

My INCH Bag
My Ultimate Altoid Tin
My Bug-In Solar Lights
My Wilderness Ditch Kit
Image

User avatar
ZombieGranny
* * * * *
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:53 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: eh - heck with it, I'm not leaving - I like it here, and the regular folks like me being here.
Location: PNW

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by ZombieGranny » Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:20 am

Been reading this thread with interest.
-
This is rather like the old question "What constitutes a living wage?"
Depends on whether you're getting it,
or whether you're giving it.
In my day, we didn't have virtual reality.
If a one-eyed razorback barbarian warrior was chasing you with an ax, you just had to hope you could outrun him.
-
Preps buy us time. Time to learn how and time to remember how. Time to figure out what is a want, what is a need.

User avatar
Spd164
* * *
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Spd164 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:21 am

ODA 226 wrote:
Spd164 wrote:
Some of us believe that it was a investigatory detention, others believe it was a mere encounter and the OP was free to leave.

I'm still in the mere encounter camp, and I'm pretty sure I articulated fairly well why that is. I'm not re-hashing this again. The FACT is that we will never hear what a jury has to say about this specific instance because like I have said at least three times throughout the thread already, none of the involved parties did anything wrong.
:idea: Actually, we can have a jury right here if the OP or a mod can add a limited-time vote to this thread. I think that would put this argument to rest forever, don't you? :idea:
Meh, not really, because the officers involved are unable to provide testimony. Besides, I spent all morning on the witness stand and I'm all testified out lol.
Image

hawk55732
* *
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:24 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dawn of the Dead and City of the Dead

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by hawk55732 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:10 pm

Spd164 wrote:
ODA 226 wrote:
Spd164 wrote:
Some of us believe that it was a investigatory detention, others believe it was a mere encounter and the OP was free to leave.

I'm still in the mere encounter camp, and I'm pretty sure I articulated fairly well why that is. I'm not re-hashing this again. The FACT is that we will never hear what a jury has to say about this specific instance because like I have said at least three times throughout the thread already, none of the involved parties did anything wrong.
:idea: Actually, we can have a jury right here if the OP or a mod can add a limited-time vote to this thread. I think that would put this argument to rest forever, don't you? :idea:
Meh, not really, because the officers involved are unable to provide testimony. Besides, I spent all morning on the witness stand and I'm all testified out lol.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what the police officers thought. What matters is whether the average citizen would have felt it was a stop or not.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

User avatar
desert fox
* *
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:32 pm
Location: Central UT

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by desert fox » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:22 pm

hawk55732 wrote:
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what the police officers thought. What matters is whether the average citizen would have felt it was a stop or not.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2



Right there! ^^^^^^ Now lock this b*&^% up and lets move on
One mans trash, is another mans come up.

http://www.zazzle.com/gunowner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.facebook.com/AndIAmAGunOwner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.mormon.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doctorr Fabulous
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 12210
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Evil Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days/Weeks Later

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Doctorr Fabulous » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:30 pm

hawk55732 wrote: When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what the police officers thought. What matters is whether the average citizen would have felt it was a stop or not.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2
Not at all. Just like saying "I feel like I am in fear for my life" doesn't justify lethal force if you can't actually articulate a threat against your life, "feeling" like you were being stopped doesn't mean you were stopped. If you feel like excessive force was used against you, you have to be able to articulate why and how, you cant just say "well I feel it was excessive."
Opinions subject to change in light of new information.
Image
http://i.imgur.com/wG6ZMjE.jpg

User avatar
Spd164
* * *
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Spd164 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:38 pm

hawk55732 wrote:
Spd164 wrote:
ODA 226 wrote:
Spd164 wrote:
Some of us believe that it was a investigatory detention, others believe it was a mere encounter and the OP was free to leave.

I'm still in the mere encounter camp, and I'm pretty sure I articulated fairly well why that is. I'm not re-hashing this again. The FACT is that we will never hear what a jury has to say about this specific instance because like I have said at least three times throughout the thread already, none of the involved parties did anything wrong.
:idea: Actually, we can have a jury right here if the OP or a mod can add a limited-time vote to this thread. I think that would put this argument to rest forever, don't you? :idea:
Meh, not really, because the officers involved are unable to provide testimony. Besides, I spent all morning on the witness stand and I'm all testified out lol.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what the police officers thought. What matters is whether the average citizen would have felt it was a stop or not.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2
Ok. If you say so. Unless of course the officers had specific articulable facts with which to raise the encounter to an investigatory detention...or, if the OP felt scared just by their presence and decided not to walk away on his own...or, if the story told by the officers differs vastly from that told by the OP...

Looking at it objectively I can see that the OP obviously did not feel free to leave. I also see nothing to indicate that the officers intended for that feeling to be conveyed. According to the story we have, they were polite, cordial, there were no flashy lights, demands to disarm, no calls of "stop right there", or asking to produce identification.

If a cop is stopping someone to detain them or an investigation, usually one of the first questions asked is "can I see your ID" or "what's your name/DOB". Talking to someone, in uniform, does not necessarily constitute an investigatory detention. Nor do the police need to volunteer that the subject is free to leave.

Part of the problem here is that it really only becomes a question of "was it a stop or a mere encounter" if they took some sort of enforcement action. They didn't. They freaking talked to the guy and then checked to make sure that they were all on the same page regarding the law. OP even goes so far as to say that he "talked casually" with one officer while the other spoke with dispatch. Engaging in chit chat doesn't sound like he felt he was being violated unlawfully to me.

At any point he could've decided to end the encounter. He didn't. That doesn't change the fact that this was a mere encounter and not an investigatory detention. Nobody's rights were violated here. Sounds like they cops may have been fishing a little, but they definitely knew where to draw the line and stayed on the legal side of it. Nothing wrong with that at all. Mere officer presence alone does not constitute a detention.
Image

User avatar
Rugger
* * *
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Texas

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Rugger » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:45 pm

Doctorr Fabulous wrote:
hawk55732 wrote: When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what the police officers thought. What matters is whether the average citizen would have felt it was a stop or not.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2
Not at all. Just like saying "I feel like I am in fear for my life" doesn't justify lethal force if you can't actually articulate a threat against your life, "feeling" like you were being stopped doesn't mean you were stopped. If you feel like excessive force was used against you, you have to be able to articulate why and how, you cant just say "well I feel it was excessive."
Actually, in legal standards, that is exactly it. It's called the "Reasonable Man", and is a legal term/concept. Hawk##### said average citizen, but it's the same thing as the Reasonable Man. It is for a jury to decide if whatever happened, is something the Reasonable Man would have done, thought, or said. So yes, what matters is whether the Reasonable Man would have felt it was a stop or not (ETA), and if he was free to go or not. He should have asked, but knowing is half the battle.
*WARNING: The above post may contain sarcasm and/or sophisticated satire. Any psychological or emotional damage sustained by the reader is NOT the responsibility of the contributor.
Image Red Wire Rules!!

User avatar
Spd164
* * *
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by Spd164 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:01 pm

Rugger wrote:
Doctorr Fabulous wrote:
hawk55732 wrote: When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what the police officers thought. What matters is whether the average citizen would have felt it was a stop or not.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2
Not at all. Just like saying "I feel like I am in fear for my life" doesn't justify lethal force if you can't actually articulate a threat against your life, "feeling" like you were being stopped doesn't mean you were stopped. If you feel like excessive force was used against you, you have to be able to articulate why and how, you cant just say "well I feel it was excessive."
Actually, in legal standards, that is exactly it. It's called the "Reasonable Man", and is a legal term/concept. Hawk##### said average citizen, but it's the same thing as the Reasonable Man. It is for a jury to decide if whatever happened, is something the Reasonable Man would have done, thought, or said. So yes, what matters is whether the Reasonable Man would have felt it was a stop or not (ETA), and if he was free to go or not. He should have asked, but knowing is half the battle.
If that is the case then every interaction with law enforcement could be construed as a civil rights violation. I know the "reasonable person under similar circumstances" verbiage, and the key there is "reasonable". It has to be "reasonably" assumed by the person that they are not free to leave. In other words, there needs to be a reason that they felt that way.
Image

User avatar
ZombieGranny
* * * * *
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:53 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: eh - heck with it, I'm not leaving - I like it here, and the regular folks like me being here.
Location: PNW

Re: First Confrontation While Open Carrying

Post by ZombieGranny » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:21 pm

Spd164, you seem to feel that the people in the scenario are all equals.
That is like assuming a teacher and a parent are equals.
Yes, supposedly they are, but if you piss-off a teacher your child can catch hell for it all year and sometimes for the rest of their time in that school.
Same thing with the police.

Why do you think ZombieGramps is not fighting his ticket?
The policeman said at the time he couldn't tell who was at fault, but now in the mail we find a $174 ticket signed by that policeman.
Lot of good it would do to complain.
What do you say "He said no one was at fault and now he gave us a ticket?"
Yep, that would go over well.
So people just 'shut up and pay the lady.'
Same thing, differing degrees.
In my day, we didn't have virtual reality.
If a one-eyed razorback barbarian warrior was chasing you with an ax, you just had to hope you could outrun him.
-
Preps buy us time. Time to learn how and time to remember how. Time to figure out what is a want, what is a need.

Post Reply

Return to “Survival Experiences”