Fighting over the magazines


PDA






english kanigit
October 16, 2006, 01:09 PM
And I don't mean periodicals either.


A couple of days ago I was at the movie theatre with some friends. We were all out in the atrium talking and waiting for the rest of our group.

As I was talking I felt something poke into my kidney area. Not all that hard really, but definately enough to know it was there. As I turned, I found myself eyeball to eyeball with a Wichita police officer. Before I could do much of anything he said, "You had better have a badge."

I work at a shooting range. I'm required to be armed on the premises for obvious reasons. At the end of the day, the gun and holster came off my person and were put in their appropriate areas in the vehicle for storage.

As I was in a hurry, I didn't bother to take off my magpouch. It is not illegal in the city of Wichita to carry magazines. (I did however find out that one of our suburbs considers a loaded mag or speedloader a loaded weapon. Interesting... :scrutiny: )

Back to the theatre...

After the officer stated his hope that I had a badge I had to tell him no, I did not. I proceeded to tell him where I worked, that I was unarmed and that it was, to the best of my knowledge, legal to carry magazines.

Everything up to this point wasn't a huge problem for me... he's trying to do his job and I really can't blame him.

But when he offers to cuff and search me if I don't remove the mags that's when I start to get aggitated. Long story short, it wasn't worth the fight. I had a feeling it would go in a bad direction if I stood my ground.

Any ideas from the board?

ek

If you enjoyed reading about "Fighting over the magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
0007
October 16, 2006, 01:11 PM
Must have "printing" bad for him to see them...

SnakeEater
October 16, 2006, 01:17 PM
Yep, all he needs to say is "officer safety" and he can cram the bill of rights up your heinie.:cuss:

Lonestar
October 16, 2006, 01:29 PM
I think the way he "nudged you" says it all. He was not looking to make a scene. He probably thought you were an off duty or plainclothes LEO, and doing a bad job of hiding your stuff. Did he have you remove the magazines from the theather, or did he just wanted you to get them out of sight?

Either way while I don't know KS law, you probably did nothing illegal, but movie theaters are funny places in terms of what you can or cannot bring in. If you would have resisted and spouted off your 2nd admendedment rights, you probably would have gotten kicked out, and or charged with disturbing the peace. Not a fun way to spend a Saturday night.

ksnecktieman
October 16, 2006, 01:32 PM
Did you place the magazines in your car? Or did he confiscate them?
If the first one, you did good. That sounds like the wrong time and place for a challenge. If the second, I think you should find out if they were turned in, or went into his personal collection.

Art Eatman
October 16, 2006, 01:43 PM
I've always likened this kind of deal to a traffic situation: I have the green light and the right of way. The law says so. Now, is that gonna keep some doofus in a dumptruck from running the red light and smearing my precious body?

Nope. So, I tend to look as I approach a green light; I'll happily yield the right of way to the dump truck.

To me, it's just common sense to opt for peace and quiet, regardless of "rights". If I'm really bothered about some minor foolishness, I'll either personally contact the Cop In Charge, later on, or write a polite letter--with a carbon to the mayor or the county judge. At the time of some confrontation, however, I'm not gonna agitate somebody's ego. I didn't get this old by starting stuff I knew I couldn't win. :)

Art

Manedwolf
October 16, 2006, 01:56 PM
This sort of thing makes me glad to live in a state where you can walk around with a gun on your hip and a high-cap mag ductaped to your forehead if you so desire.

english kanigit
October 16, 2006, 02:51 PM
Must have "printing" bad for him to see them...

Uh, yeah. They were on a Fobus belt clip.

I brought 'em out to the car for safe storage and didn't have any more problems after that

I guess I'm just a little miffed about being threatened with arrest and being searched for something that isn't illegal.

ek

Kentak
October 16, 2006, 02:59 PM
I'm giving the cop the benefit of the doubt on this one. He seemed relatively polite and discrete. If *I* saw someone printing a mag pouch, I might logically assume he has a gun somewhere on his person. The cop, it seems, was doing his job to test that assumption. Perhaps the cuffing is SOP.

K

Alex45ACP
October 16, 2006, 03:34 PM
Everything up to this point wasn't a huge problem for me... he's trying to do his job and I really can't blame him.

Yeah, never mind little things like the 2nd Amendment and human rights. He was just doing his job.

El Tejon
October 16, 2006, 03:39 PM
Just which statute are you violating?:confused:

yy
October 16, 2006, 04:02 PM
cop was following up on a possible armed person. You seem okay with that.

Your mags suggests you may be armed. You gave that point away.

Now the cop wants to save face. Why get upset?



I'd tell myself to cool down, LET the guy save face, maybe even praise him for being alert (and polite?).

After all, you have the right to complain about him afterwards and maybe even bust his balls. Just don't try it at the then and there. It says more about you that you permit the cop to save his face. He may even think he's giving a compromise by focusing his attention on your mag. He's just habitually using cuffing as a leverage to get what he wants (something about maintaining control, kinda silly if you're both mature).

So carry on. You've chosen peace and harmony up to this point, why not carry it through? He's actually on your side. Both trying to keep the peace. He just has chafing way to go about it. Comes from dealing with immature low lives too often. Not a pleasant job.


And yes, I know, I'd feel the threat chafe. Maybe one day I'll grow so mature that it won't chafe at all. But in the mean time, I'd choose to be the bigger man and permit the cop to send my mags off.

Old Fuff
October 16, 2006, 04:03 PM
I believe that Kansas recently passed a "shall issue" concealed weapons permit law. If I lived in that state I would apply for one. Thereafter - unless the theater (or wherever) was posted - I would hand it to the officer when he started asking questions. A lot of good people worked long and hard to get that law passed, and those who live in Kansas should take advantage of it.;)

El Tejon
October 16, 2006, 04:09 PM
I'm all for peace, harmony, chicks in sandals and drum circles to commune with Mother Earf, but what law was english violating allegedly?:confused:

Does carrying magazines violate Jayhawk law? Is a magazine a weapon out there?

Or, OTOH, was the copper out of line???:confused:

vynx
October 16, 2006, 04:12 PM
Since the LEO said he would cuff and search you I get the feeling he did not believe you were unarmed...why carry mag's for no firearm?

And, if you are searching for a gun, which having mag's might give him probable cause to do it makes since to handcuff first so you don't "try" anything when he "finds" the gun. I know you were unarmed but he probaly didn't think so.

By letting you remove the mag's he gave you a chance to stash your gun back in the car.

If you look at it this way he was doing you a favor.

Just another way to see things.

cropcirclewalker
October 16, 2006, 04:20 PM
I'm thinking that I sense some elitism on the part of the cop.

If not, then a case of sour grapes over KS passing their concealed carry law.

The "subjects" can apply on Jan. 1, 2007, but it went into effect July 1 2006. Further, carrying concealed even now, without the permission slip is only a misdemeanor.

Yes, we had the same type of growing pains here in MO. It takes a while for the leos to figger out that just cause a guy is armed it don't mean he's a criminal.

After a few faux passes on their part, they will chill out. Even if a leo is a slow learner, he will be unwilling to make himself look like a fool forever.

Yes, Mr. ek, look at this episode as providing a learning experience for Officer Friendly.

jerkface11
October 16, 2006, 04:46 PM
The cop was just doing his job. Harassing someone for not breaking a law. Oh wait that isn't his job is it?

cropcirclewalker
October 16, 2006, 04:56 PM
Mr. Medula,

The law took effect 7-1-06. Concealed carry is the law in KS NOW. Only trouble is.........the "subjects" can't apply yet.

I don't know what are the reciprocities yet (maybe none, who knows?), but the thrust of the cop's initial rib poke with comment "You better have a Badge", rings through to me as elitism.

So at 11:55 pm on News Years Eve you will attempt to justify the cop's action, since it isn't the law yet.

Then by the time the "Subject" gets his ride down town it will no longer be a crime. Sounds like sour grapes.

Yes, Andy Taylor is dead.

cropcirclewalker
October 16, 2006, 05:33 PM
I am sorry if you perceived that I was at your throat.

This is an alleged pro-gun group. Dedicated to restoration of 2a.

I was trying to point out the fallacy of repealing laws on dates certain.

That is to say, if an activity is unlawful today but will be lawful tomorrow then the "letter-of-the-law" enforcement of an arguably unconstitutional law just makes leos appear foolish. No common sense.

If it is not a crime tomorrow, then it is not a crime today.

Crime is best defined as the wrongful taking of the life, liberty or property of another. Anything beyond that is just a law against the state and when our rulers recognize the errors of their convoluted law making and attempt to right that wrong, they should do it immediately.

If, as in this case, they do not, a little discretion on the part of le would go a long way toward amelierating the "Us vs Them" perception.

english kanigit
October 16, 2006, 05:48 PM
By letting you remove the mag's he gave you a chance to stash your gun back in the car.

If you look at it this way he was doing you a favor.

As the initial :cuss: factor wore off and I started thinking about what the cop said and that's the same impression that I got.

*shrugs*
I'm over it. I am wondering how long it'll take WPD to adjust to Kansas CCW law this coming year.

God help people in Topeka and KC... :(


ek

Standing Wolf
October 16, 2006, 10:51 PM
Makes me glad I live in Colorado, an open carry state.

orionengnr
October 16, 2006, 11:04 PM
...So I'm walking down the street one day.
Cop walks up and says, "Sure hope you have a driver's license, boy."

:rolleyes:

TexasRifleman
October 16, 2006, 11:11 PM
Bit of a sidebar here.

Since KS law is already in effect, but residents cannot apply until Jan 1, was there any non-resident/ reciprocity in the law from day 1?

ProguninTN
October 16, 2006, 11:15 PM
...So I'm walking down the street one day.
Cop walks up and says, "Sure hope you have a driver's license, boy."


If your state has a stop and ID statute, then you would have to answer. If not, you refuse to answer citing Kollender v. Lawson.

DirtyBrad
October 16, 2006, 11:23 PM
What are the procedures for a cop searching anyone for a gun? Is there a probable cause requirement, something like if you're printing or if someone else says they thought they saw a gun? Assuming a legal search, is it SOP to cuff you while they do it?

As far as your reaction, I'd say it could go either way. The same way cops treat us different based on how we treat them, I think it goes both ways.

I generally think very highly of cops and agree with not causing undue trouble because I think their intentions are good. But if they're being unprofessional or unpleasant when it's not called for, I don't have any problem being a stickler about the rules on the scene and/or talking to the higher ups later on.

My philosophy is to go with the flow and give the officer the benefit of the doubt, but don't be afraid of an argument or scene if you're being bullied.

DoubleTapDrew
October 16, 2006, 11:24 PM
If he wasn't arrogant about it I don't think I'd have too much of a problem, although it depends on what his motives were, and we'll never know those unless he comes into this thread.
I do question why you'd open carry mags without your firearm though! A fobus mag holder is as easy to take off as a fobus paddle holster (which I assume you were carrying the firearm in). Maybe I'm paranoid but that seems like one of those "shoot me first" items, only you are unarmed to boot.
Maybe it was one of those friendly "hey man, you're printing big time" gestures or a cop on a power trip, who knows.

Sean Dempsey
October 16, 2006, 11:25 PM
I think most of your are over-reacting.

He wasn't arrested, charged, or abused. It's no big deal.

There was no harm done, and if the original poster had been up to no good, perhaps a tragedy could have been prevented.

How many criminals are caught because they "print" or show their weapon accidently at the wrong time.

Or do criminals not carry firearms and ammo? I think often we are blinded by the glare off of our law-abiding steel, and we forget for each one of us (law abiding CCW citizens), there's what, 1000 gun-toting badguys?

Face it - the MAJORITY of people on the streets with guns are badguys. I'd *love* to see this boards reaction to a black youth from the inner city, oversized football jersey and low-rider jeans, caught with a pair of 9mm magazies hanging off his belt at a movie theater. Or better yet! What about a guy in a turban? What if he had a pair of loaded magazines on him?

Sindawe
October 16, 2006, 11:34 PM
I'd *love* to see this boards reaction to a black youth from the inner city, oversized football jersey and low-rider jeans, caught with a pair of 9mm magazies hanging off his belt at a movie theater. Or better yet! What about a guy in a turban? What if he had a pair of loaded magazines on him?Hmmmm... I think I may resemble those remarks.:scrutiny:

Or not as the case actually happens to be (not black, not Sikh), but I do think your phrasing such is in itself illuminating,

The original post reads like the cop had an attitude from the get-go, and such continued with the offer of being cuffed and searched. Someday "Officer Friendly" may run into someone who will not accept such insolence from the hired help.

beerslurpy
October 17, 2006, 12:00 AM
Some members of this board have had great luck getting department policies changed to be more in line with the law by objecting to them in a polite manner to the appropriate authorities. Many departments simply arent aware of the laws they are supposed to be enforcing and simply need a polite reminder.

xd9fan
October 17, 2006, 12:08 AM
I would not give the cop the benfit of the doubt. His initial response to you is BS. Is this respectful treatment of a citizen? It was provoking in nature. period. And thats what I dont like about it. And they wonder why they get half the crap they get in life.

Nothing he or you did was illegal but communication (verbal and nonverbal) is huge with law enforcement. He was provoking in nature. There is a million nonthreatening ways to handle your situation. His was just dumb.....powerdork dumb.

BullfrogKen
October 17, 2006, 02:10 AM
Medula Oblongata said: Having approached many people who were carrying illegally I can say its a tense situation, and since no body went to jail it was a good outcome.

If you don't mind my asking, can you tell me about that circumstance. I'm curious what it was that persuaded you to let someone who was armed without proper documentation go.


Or did I read it worng, and you were commenting on english kanigit's event.

cropcirclewalker
October 17, 2006, 12:24 PM
The behaviour and attitude of the cop is the same as I witnessed last week at the Airport at the Loo.

Big, fat, slow moving and utterly relaxed women waddling around in white shirts with TSA on their backs.

They know that they are not searching terrorists for weapons. They know that they are just putting the citizens through some paces.

Some of the looks I saw on these .gov employees bordered on what I would call insolence.

Back to the theatre.........This cop poking a citizen in the kidneys knew that he (the citizen) wasn't a bad guy. He thought he was a citizen. Or if he (the cop) was mistaken, a leo.

Even if he thought the "subject" was a leo he would not have approached him with a poke in the kidneys.

If cop thought it was a real bad guy he would have called for back up and thowed down on him and proned him out.

No, he was just putting a citizen through his paces. He only has a few months left available to him so he was getting in "One for the road".

jerkface11
October 17, 2006, 08:13 PM
I wonder exactly how far the cops have to go before some members of THR will admit they were wrong. I've seen take the cops side in wrongful shootings too.

chas_martel
October 17, 2006, 09:01 PM
Cropcircle,

Sorry dude, but give it up, your arguing truth, libery and rightousness on the wrong board.

Only thing that matters is to join the collective and bow down to the state.
It can do no wrong dont'cha know.

ProguninTN
October 17, 2006, 10:47 PM
Is there a probable cause requirement, something like if you're printing or if someone else says they thought they saw a gun?

It is unconstitutional for one to be searched based on hearsay that someone as a gun. See Florida v. J.L.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 17, 2006, 11:07 PM
Report that to "Internal Affairs", file an official complaint, then secure a good lawyer and sue. The officer was out of line. ANYONE who starts a conversation with a stranger by poking them in the kidney is looking for trouble. My reflexes would have gotten me in a heap-o-trouble at the scene, and the officer into a heap-o-trouble in court!

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

DirtyBrad
October 17, 2006, 11:41 PM
That seems hard to believe.

"Officer, that man just pulled up his shirt and showed me the gun in his waistband."

"Sir, can I see your waistband?"

"No."

"Sorry, folks, nothing more I can do."

That's a viable scenario?

Art Eatman
October 18, 2006, 12:15 AM
My take on threads like this is that people sit around and work at dreaming up unrealistic responses to casual events. That's why so many threads get closed; they reflect poorly on the mission statement of THR.

The cop saw magazines, right? Anybody gonna try to make me believe that's not probable cause to believe a guy has a pistol? I'd believe it in a heartbeat! How does the cop know somebody is lying or not lying about being legally armed or not armed at all, unless he at least checks for a holstered pistol? (Me believing that visible magazines basically imply a holstered pistol.) Pat, pat, pat, g'bye.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the problem. If you give probable cause that you're in the wrong, and you can readily show that you're not in the wrong and thereby go on about your business, why get in an uproar? It just doesn't make sense.

I always figured wisdom lay in treating all bureaucrats of whatever sort, whether LEO, county clerk or Sears employee as though his old lady burned his eggs and bacon, that morning. Saves an awful lot of trouble.

Art

DoubleTapDrew
October 18, 2006, 01:15 AM
The cop saw magazines, right? Anybody gonna try to make me believe that's not probable cause to believe a guy has a pistol? I'd believe it in a heartbeat! How does the cop know somebody is lying or not lying about being legally armed or not armed at all, unless he at least checks for a holstered pistol? (Me believing that visible magazines basically imply a holstered pistol.) Pat, pat, pat, g'bye.
I agree but I think most are arguing about the cop's method of going about it. There are some stupid criminals but I've yet to see one open carrying (mags or otherwise). I would think seeing mags carried openly that you'd assume LEO or CCW holder (or possibly a punk kid that wants to LOOK armed and knows it's not against the law) and ask them to step aside and have a word with you instead of jabbing you in the back with his finger (which in itself sounds like a stupid move tactically if you think the person might be a threat). Was he hoping to hit steel with that prod? I'm not trying to take sides, that's just my view of the situation.

glummer
October 18, 2006, 09:00 AM
My take on this is that the cop was totally in the wrong.
The "poke in the kidney" says, ABSOLUTELY, he didn't think you were a BG. So does the fact he let you take the mags off, and put them away.
If you were a BG, that was incredibly stupid.
If you are just a legal citizen, that is totally unnecessary.
He was just harassing you.
Not "officer safety", but officer_fun_and_games.
When the nice LEO says "frog", how high will the citizen jump?

cropcirclewalker
October 18, 2006, 09:39 AM
It's the poke.

How many lawful, respectful, citizens with an arguable legitimate reasonable question would approach the leo and get his attention by...

a poke in the kidney.

Utterly reeks of disrespect.

Poke. "Duh, Hi, officer is that the new six pack magazine carrier for the Glock 66?" Can I see it? Yeah, sure.

Leo needs some training on dealing with the public.

roo_ster
October 18, 2006, 10:10 AM
To poke or not to poke?

Well, I think a fellow LEO might not take it poorly if a colleague does the LEO equivalent of "examine your zipper" or "better close the barn door before your horse gets out." A buddy of mine who is a detective is hyper-sensitive to any printing of his gun or gear, due to the nature of his assignments. He would likely appreciate the heads-up & get his gear in order.

To a non-LEO, the poke is a different thing altogether. If KS has reciprocity, it is a faux pas on the part of the LEO & he would be advised to get his understanding to comport with reality. Also, if it is not illegal to carry magazines, I can see problems, especially if the LEO cuffs & gropes the citizen for complying with the law.

As to probable cause for a "safety" frisk, would a bulge under a cover garment be enough? If your cell phone or mp3 play prints, can you expect a groping?

Last, my response to "pokes" is usually a sweep of the arm/hand to get the poker's hand/whatever off of me. Nothing too violent, just a quick reflexive sweep along with a quick evaluation. I see this as a natural response to prevent unwanted groping, pickpocketing, assaults, etc. I wonder hoe the LEO in this instance would have reacted?

cropcirclewalker
October 18, 2006, 11:22 AM
if you were carrying and someone were able to get that close and poke you in the kidneys, he's definately close enough to shank you and take your gun.

So much for being "situationally aware."
Please do not construe this post to mean that I am ragging on you or your fellow leo.

Please think about what you posted above. Try to visualize.

You, a uniformed officer of the law, espy a citizen with a bulge. He seems totally unaware of his surroundings and is chatting with his friends in the theatre lobby.

There could be at least 2 reasons for the bulge.

1) Is he a likely bg? Is he watching you carefully out of the corner of his eye? Could it be that he suspects that you are going to shank him? When you approach him does he (being situationally aware and you are a leo)turn to face you and act defensive?

2) Is he a likely innocent citizen? Does your presence give him a heightened sense of security? Is he apparently oblivious to his surroundings? When you approach him does he (being in a secure location with armed police within hailing distance) let down his guard and go to condition white?

Does he really have to fear that you may shank him?

Yes, the guy that is packing should be situationally aware. The bg packing would be extremely situationally aware. Mr. EK was neither.

Conclusion? Mr. EK was not packing.

For that he should get a poke?

ProguninTN
October 18, 2006, 04:45 PM
It may or may not go like that. Informant tips do carry some weight. See Alabama v. White or Illinois v. Gates

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/496/325.html#Scene_1

In Florida v. J.L. SCOTUS stated that seizures of firearms on searches pursuant to informant tips are a 4th A violation.

Some of this information comes from here in case you're wondering.

http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=757&issue_id=122005

(Thanks to jpierce at opencarry.org for that link. :) ).


Other information comes from my course work. :)

Wastemore
October 18, 2006, 07:14 PM
The whole thing sounds a bit out of whack to me. He had an exposed mag which would suggest he also had a firearm..
So what? He probably has a gun. Carrying a firearm isn't necessarily illegal, it also doesn't suggest he's planning anything illegal.
Unless he was displaying questionable behavior I think the LEO was out of line.
If he needed to say anything, a quick "hey, bud.. you're about to lose your cell phone" would have been fine.

It's strange to me that society equates firearms with criminals and/or criminal behavior and nothing else. Those who side with the LEO are only reinforcing that since he has a firearm, he must be a criminal and needs to be investigated.

Criminals also carry wallets, prove to me the wallet in your back pocket wasn't stolen from someone else.

inch-by-inch.

gezzer
October 18, 2006, 11:05 PM
In NH tell him no badge who cares. Another scardy cat cop state thread. Too bad your cops are such.

buck00
October 19, 2006, 12:34 AM
Was it right for the LEO to threaten to cuff him and arrest him if he refused to go put the (legal) magazines in the car? Absolutely not.

So why then, did he make the threat and obviously get an attitude? Well, someone already answered this:

Now the cop wants to save face


Bottom line, in general, if a cop is wrong, rude, has Napoleon complex, whatever, it's NOT worth it to argue and get in a pissing match with him. They can charge you with disorderly conduct on a whim. Just comply.

Someone suggested following up with the chief, or internal affairs, but everyone here knows (especially the LEO's) that won't amount to anything.

Might not be right, but it's reality.

glummer
October 19, 2006, 08:01 AM
M.O. Nobody was hurt, nobody went to jail. All is good, IMHONobody went to jail, only because the citizen backed down.

When blacks in the old South did the same, they were called "Uncle Toms", & "handkerchief heads."

If a lawful, peaceful citizen has to submit to insults & threats from an LEO, in order to avoid going to jail, all is NOT good, IMHO.

How do you spell "Yowzah?"

glummer
October 19, 2006, 08:08 AM
M.O. FOR THE LAST TIME, why would One wear loaded magazines around without having a weapon??? So you're saying the cop truly thought he had a citizen ILLEGALLY carrying?
And he let him walk? :confused:

roo_ster
October 19, 2006, 10:10 AM
Just because a person is carrying illegally, in a state where it is curryently illegal to carry concealed, doesn't make him a "bad guy," No sir, not at all.
I think you're starting to get it... :)

Good/bad is not synonymous with legal/illegal. A person who may be carrying illegally in some less-free state is not necessarily "bad."

I think part of the problem is that some LEOs automatically equate "illegal" with "bad" or "evil" in the moral sense. In some cases, such as premeditated murder, it fits. In other cases, such as laws against smoking, concealed carry by a citizen, painting your house the wrong color, it does not fit.

I am basically a conservative, law-abiding guy. But, even types like me see so many horse-shinola laws that have nothing to do with right/wrong, good/evil, order/chaos, that I don't get all riled up if I hear "someone broke the law."

We just can not jump to the conclusion that the law-breaker is a bad guy, anymore. I wish it weren't so.

ksnecktieman
October 19, 2006, 10:10 AM
medula? I would like to climb on your band wagon for a number of reasons. I will save the best for last. BUT, IF you have magazines exposed and a cop does not assume a gun he is an incompetent officer.
At this time in Kansas, and especially in Wichita no one but police are allowed to carry. ( Happily changing in january of 2007.)
IF/When a police officer needs to control a situation, as in a firearm MAY be involved, in a conjested public place. He should not do so, until he has extremely superior logistics, and control of the situation..... WHY has no one here asked????? WAS he poked with a gun barrel? If it wasthe officer was in control of the situation. Any escalation would have been futile. I approve of the officers tactics, even while I am sorry that he did what is reasonable and proper in wichita, this year. ( If the cop poked him with a finger, he was stupid, or just having a power trip.)

Autolycus
October 19, 2006, 10:46 AM
I agree with Medula Oblongata. The cop could have been nicer about it but overall the cop had the right to check. Common sense says that if you have a pistol magazine you MAY have a pistol. The man was doing his job. Did he go about it and act like an butthole? Possibly? Did he do his job and investigate a crime? Yes. Where is the problem?

cropcirclewalker
October 19, 2006, 11:43 AM
At this time in Kansas, and especially in Wichita no one but police are allowed to carry. Regardless of reciprocity issues, I was of the impression that it was possible for a private investigator to carry concealed presently in KS with a permit. I do not know if a KS private investigator is issued a badge of some kind. I doubt it.

WAS he poked with a gun barrel? If it wasthe officer was in control of the situation. Any escalation would have been futile. I yam not a cop but don't they have to follow the same 4 rules as the rest of us? Throwing down on a citizen (call him a potential bg if you must) in a crowded theatre seems to me to violate rule no. 4, the one about knowing what is behind your target.

Did he go about it and act like an butthole? Possibly? Did he do his job and investigate a crime? Yes. Where is the problem? Sorry, but au contraire, mon ami. He was pretending to investigate a potential crime, which as I have shown before was most unlikely and Mr. Leo knew it.

He was just hassling the citizenry.

Mr. jfruser has, once again rung the gong.

XDKingslayer
October 19, 2006, 12:51 PM
HE WASN'T threatened with arrest if he didn't put the mags in the car, GO BACK AND READ HIS STORY. He was told that he could go put the magazines away or he would be searched. Were he searched and a weapon to be found, he would be in jail. However he excercised good judgement and went to put them in the car.

While you may call it good judgement to put them in the car, I call it bowing down to those trying to trample your rights. If there is no law banning carrying magazines, then there is no reason for him to put them in the car.

VISIBLE MAGAZINES = PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH

Is visibly driving a car probably cause for pulling someone over for DUI? Considering there is no law against carrying magazines how do you get probably cause for a search, simply because magazines go in guns? Well steering wheels go in cars...

One may NOT CCW in KS until JAN 01, and then only with a permit. Up to that point anyone CCW'ing is breaking the law and risks going to jail.

No bearing on the toping. He didn't have his weapon on him. Only magazines.

FOR THE LAST TIME, why would One wear loaded magazines around without having a weapon??? Legal to carry or not, it creates PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH. Knigit didn't want to be searched, so he went and put the mags away. Like it or not, the Cop was right. Knigit was smart and didn't make a bad situation worse. BUT IN THE END NOBODY WENT TO JAIL!!! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??? ROSES AND CHOCOLATES WITH EVERY LEO CONTACT???

He was carrying magazines because he can. Plain and simple. There's no law against it. If I'm carrying Sudafed it doesn't give you a right to harrass me for making Crystal Meth. The cop wasn't right, we was being an ass. That's pretty much shown with the "you better have a badge" statement. With me, that threat is usually given the responce "You better have a statute."

Write your letters, for whatever good it'll do. It may just inspire the watch commander to order that every contact with a suspect thought to have a CCW be done in a felony posture, and that's not good... Think "COPS" tc show happening right in front of you.

Or it could go the opposite and cause them to teach cops the laws they are supposed to enforce and what really consititutes probably cause.

glummer
October 19, 2006, 12:53 PM
ksnecktieman
WAS he poked with a gun barrel? If it wasthe officer was in control of the situationSo proper LEO tactics for dealing with a possible armed BG in a crowd is to draw your own gun and close with him? In a crowd? That's being in control?
Does any LEO want to verify/endorse that?

Tecumseh
The cop could have been nicer about it but overall the cop had the right to check
But he didn't check. No search was made. ek was allowed to go to his car and stash whatever he was carrying. He could have had pockets full of weapons. Which is what makes it smell. The cop did NOT think he was dealing with a BG. Which means he had no probable cause.

There's only one scenario that fits everything. The poke in the ribs, and the badge remark says the cop thought he was teasing another LEO. When it turned out he was wrong, he was embarrassed. He hassled ek to save face, as others have said. No other explanation fits.

english kanigit
October 19, 2006, 02:05 PM
Hmmmm, me thinks I should chime in again...


I had the mags because I didn't want to take them off after work. It was legal, I wasn't worried about it.

I was not armed.

My issue is with the threat of being cuffed and searched for something that is legal. Any other day I would have (after thinking long and hard) offered to let him pat me down. Something about the way the encounter proceeded wasn't exactly giving me warm fuzzy feelings. I felt that if I let myself be searched I would've ended up in the back of a cruiser. My closer friends know me and my thoughts about such things but there were other people in the group who did not need to see me getting searched and potentially arrested.

I was given an out and I took it.


Why can't you people understand that when you are in situations like that, where a cop has to approach a guy potentially carrying a gun in a state where its illegal to do so, that he can't walk up to you with a bouquet of roses and a box of chocolate and beg you for the favor of lifing your shirt so he can see what's underneath? If the guy was carrying illegally, which was suggested by his carrying loaded magazines that were visible, he's probably breaking other laws too. What the cop did was make an informational stop.


That pretty well sums it up I suppose. LEOs have a job to do, though if he had a gut feeling, I doubt he listened to it. A 'gut feeling' isn't defendable in court. However, the above statement should not used as justification to be a prick.

I can't blame the LEO for checking me out... props to him in fact. But confronting me, in that fashion face-to-face, in front of my closest friends?

It almost smacks of JBT-ism.


ek :(

cropcirclewalker
October 19, 2006, 03:11 PM
Yo, MO, you should oughta have a doughnut occasionally with all that coffee.

It helps to soak up some of the caffien.

:p

glummer
October 19, 2006, 03:12 PM
M.O.
I can't believe you people are getting upset because someone spoke WORDS ...Oh, come on, sure you can believe it. You're getting upset & sarcastic over WORDS. And none of ours include threatening to cuff you in front of your friends and a crowd of strangers. Nor are we carrying guns to threaten you with. It's just WORDS.
(A lot of which you choose to ignore; tell us again why the diligent LEO confronted the (supposedly) armed BG - and then let him go without a search. Some of us missed that part of the analysis.)

The issue here is that the visible magazines, which have NO OTHER PURPOSE ...No, the issue here is what the cop DID about it, and why. He didn't act like a courageous, tactically sound, defender of the peace confronting a dangerous perp; he behaved like a man who made an embarassing mistake, and then chose to pull rank and harass an innocent citizen to rebuild his ego.

I know, I guess I shouldn't be pulling anyone over unless I'm going to ticket them, you're right.No, but if you pull some one over by mistake, you shouldn't give them a hard time to cover your embarssment. (And actually, I doubt you would, so why are you trying so hard to cover this doofus's butt?)

Zundfolge
October 19, 2006, 03:40 PM
Ya gotta remember that this is the Wichita Police Department we're dealing with here.

The WPD overall is not a bad police department (but not a great one either). When it comes to support of the 2A (and professionalism) they have a very broad mix of officers.

I knew a lot of WPD when I lived there (I even went to highschool with several guys who are now shift supervisors). I also used to do the business cards for the WPD so I got to talk to a lot of officers when they showed up to pick up their cards.

The night I got robbed a decade ago I told the officer who took my statement that "[being robbed] makes me want to carry a gun" to which he replied "You should!". Yet I've also known officers who said if they ever found a gun anywhere in a vehicle during a traffic stop it would be impounded even if it was being carried within the letter of the law (unloaded and cased in the trunk for example) because "Nobody has a right to carry a gun on MY streets".

So one can't be too careful with the WPD. Chances are if the officer wasn't a raving anti he wouldn't have said ANYTHING to english kanigit.

Wastemore
October 19, 2006, 04:57 PM
Just because a person is carrying illegally, in a state where it is curryently illegal to carry concealed, doesn't make him a "bad guy," No sir, not at all. So tell me, what DO you call a person breaking the law if not "criminal?"


Have I carried a firearm illegally? yup.

Would I have gone to jail had I been caught? yup.

Was I willing to take that chance? yup.


Sorry, you can't have it both ways my friend.

txgho1911
October 19, 2006, 08:49 PM
I carry 2 loaded magazines all the time. Even when I'm at work crawlin under cube desks to fix a PC a dizzy blonde cannot power up if she was sittin on the switch.
I don't carry the pistol at work. It is the part of this life thing that allows a policy of disarming every one in the building.
Does this provide probable cause for any LEO to disturb my peace?
I do not carry 2 mags without a pistol to show off to everyone. They stay down in a pocket. They stay on me to save me time from accesorizing every time I set a holsterd pistol on my hip. 2 mags on a belt in KS is a non issue for me. Should not ever even be note worthy. DC, NY, CHicago law has tainted attitudes, perceptions and manufactured reactions.
Hollow points I understand equal a fellony in NJ. I cannot count the times this has been applied outside of new jersey.

nitesite
October 19, 2006, 10:14 PM
I'm still waiting to hear what the peace officer pressed into your kidney...... two fingers? A Kubotan? a weapon?

I really see nothing wrong with the officer's actions.

kirkstick
October 19, 2006, 11:38 PM
How about looking at it this way: The Police Officer sees a subject with magazines printing through clothing at a public place. Concealed carry laws in effect or not, the last time I checked, most of those laws require a permit of some type that can be presented to a LEO upon request to insure that the person carrying is a "legit" member of society with right to carry and not a convicted felon looking to rob someone. If the Police Officer had not checked you out, he would have not been "doing his job". Imagine if you had been a "bad guy" with those magazines and had actually had a gun too!
The real question is how he did his job, isn't it? He certainly was within "his rights" to cuff you and do a "Terry Search" or pat down for a weapon, since you didn't advise him that you had a permit and you told him that you didn't have a badge. He may not have been perfect in his technique of dealing with the public (you) in this case, but most Police Officers do not screw around when it comes to possible weapons concealed on people who admit that they do not have a legal reason to have them. ;)
And, yes, I am a Police Officer. And yes, I fully support the rights of the citizens of this country to own and carry firearms of all types, for hunting, self defense, target shooting, collecting, or whatever else they want to, as long as it's not for the purpose of committing crimes of violence against others!!! But, at the same time, those rights do come with added responsibilities...:D

glummer
October 20, 2006, 09:11 AM
For the prosecution:

kirkstick said:
If the Police Officer had not checked you out, he would have not been "doing his job". Imagine if you had been a "bad guy" with those magazines and had actually had a gun too!
... most Police Officers do not screw around when it comes to possible weapons concealed on people ...ARGHH! :banghead: But he DIDN'T "do his job!" He DID "screw around!"
He LET EK GO WITHOUT A SEARCH!
For all he knew, ek DID have a gun. The question here, is WHY did the cop do it this way.

And the Devil:

Thanks to Zundfogle remarks on the WPD, I have thought of a scenario which makes the cop look good. Don't know if it's plausible, but it's possible.

Cop is a gunnie, and an RKBA supporter.
He is happy about the new law & wishes it were in effect already :) (because he still is obliged to enforce the old one.) :(
He spots the mags, sizes ek up, accurately, as not_a_BG, and thinks "Crap. He's a "Sooner", jumping the gun on the new law, and I've got to collar him!" :(
So he gives ek the poke, and the "better have a badge, Buddy" jibe.
When ek explains, the cop is relieved (because he doesn't have to arrest ek, after all), but also ticked off, because ek put him in a situation he didn't want to be in.
So he says, in effect, "do me a favor and ditch the mags."
EK seems reluctant at first, so the cop says "we both know I could (and maybe should) cuff you, and search you, but I don't want that, and you don't want that, so get the d**m things out of my sight."

Could that be what happened? It seems to fit the facts.

george_co
October 20, 2006, 11:15 AM
Okay, so we have John Q. at the movie with an exposed or printing magazine for his bottom feeding auto. Concealed carry is illegal in his state right now. The magazine is (I am assuming) on his left side.

Was the poke at the kidney area on the right side? Where the vast majority of carriers carry the gun if their magazines are on the left side. It isn't stated in the message which side was poked.

My guess is that the cop poked you in the kidney area to see if you were in fact carrying a gun there. He didn't feel anything when he poked you, you answered where you worked, in his mind he went yeah! I remember seeing you in there when I bought some ammo last week, you aren't illegal, but to keep the peace please go put your magazine in your car.

No harm, no foul, everyone goes home, he doesn't have to bust you, a win any way you look at it, except for the fact that the law against carrying is immoral (but the law's not his fault).

I am not a cop, nobody in my family is a cop, I don't want to be a cop. Hopefully, when the law becomes effective in January the cops will just to tell you to "Dress it UP". But, you may still get hasselled in the theaters because many of them will post their private property with gun buster signs.

glummer
October 20, 2006, 11:22 AM
george co
My guess is that the cop poked you in the kidney area to see if you were in fact carrying a gun thereVery good point. That could help explain why he started to check ek out, and then didn't follow through all the way.

english kanigit
October 20, 2006, 01:13 PM
My guess is that the cop poked you in the kidney area to see if you were in fact carrying a gun there

Nope, good guess. Left kidney right above the mags...

ek

xd9fan
October 21, 2006, 02:38 PM
I'm still waiting to hear what the peace officer pressed into your kidney...... two fingers? A Kubotan? a weapon?

I really see nothing wrong with the officer's actions.

you find this behavior normal?....respectful??? If your wife has a cell phone or whatever...you wouldnt mind her getting the poke????

please:rolleyes:

44AMP
October 21, 2006, 09:11 PM
A possible one nobody has yet mentioned (I think), Cops sees mags (print), ek does not fall under cops radar as possible bad guy, civilians can't CCW (yet), cop figures ek is undercover LEO, and gives him a poke and "better have a badge buddy" to razz "undercover LEO" that he is printing his ammo.

Situation turns out different (Cop is wrong), and now he is not sure just what he has got to deal with. Offering (threatening) to cuff prior to search could just be the SOP, for officer safety. Cause, if he has to search you, then he is not sure that you are no threat.

Cop has to be embarassed (at least to himself), and has to maintain his control of the situation, so he gets a bit intimidating (threat to cuff/search), and when situation becomes clear, has ek put mags in car. Cop can't back down (and apologize) that is a loss of face. Losing face in public means you weren't actually in control of the situation, and that is another loss of face for the cop. He could have been more polite, but other than that, the cop really didn't do anything wrong after he found out he wasn't dealing with a fellow officer. Cops are trained to be firm. Polite, but firm. Sometimes polite takes a back seat.

Just my .02$

thexrayboy
October 21, 2006, 10:04 PM
From my perspective I have a problem with the situation as reported.

First, officer is aware of a person carrying a mag for a weapon. Reasonable assumption is a weapon will be present also.

Second, officer asks if person is legally entitled to carry. Wording is subjective but the intent is essentially that.

Third, citizen replies he is not carrying a weapon, has rational explanation for
presence of magazines.

So far all is well, cop does job, citizen is innocent.

From here things go a bit south. If in fact officer does not believe subject is truthful his options are basically two. He either searches the citizen to check for weapon with the attendant risk of legal action if he is wrong or he takes the citizens word at face value, encounter over.

But no, he requires the citizen to remove said magazines from his person and store them in his vehicle. This is a violation of your civil rights. Unless possesion of a loaded magazine is a crime in that jurisdiction he had no right to make you divest yourself of them. It would be no different than making you leave your cell phone in the car because he wanted you to. He had no right to make you do that. Either you were in violation of the law and he should have arrested you or he was wrong in his assumption and you are innocent and to be left alone.

However it appears he had to throw his weight around a bit. This is the attitude most find unacceptable. He was wrong but wasn't willing to smile, eat a little crow and apologize for making a minor mistake.

glummer
October 23, 2006, 08:06 AM
xray
He either searches the citizen to check for weapon with the attendant risk of legal action if he is wrong or he takes the citizens word at face value, encounter over. There is no risk of legal action, since he clearly had probable cause - CCW was not legal yet, and ek admitted to not being LEO. A search would be totally legal. By taking the citizen's word, he was (perhaps - we don't have enough detail to be sure) doing the citizen a favor, and looking for a return favor (ditch the mags, to eliminate the cause of the confusion.)
Either you were in violation of the law and he should have arrested you or he was wrong in his assumption and you are innocent and to be left alone.Third possibility: ek was innocent, but APPEARED guilty. The erroneous assumption was, therefore, perfectly reasonable. The cop's position could well be "You tricked me. I realize you didn't intend to, but you did. This wasted my time, and yours; I'm doing you a favor by taking your word, and not searching you, so do me a favor get rid of the mags so it can't happen again."

If you enjoyed reading about "Fighting over the magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!