Entertainment for the night...


PDA






PTK
September 21, 2008, 11:29 PM
(A.K.A., WalMart doesn't like concealed carry in their stores)

Just got back from a WalMart run for art supplies, food, and shoes.

Sometime during the course of shopping, my primary CCW was exposed, and a shopper notified WM security who then called the police.

Once in line, I started noticing police coming into the store from both entrances (an "oh s---" moment) and I and my SO were surrounded by approximately twelve officers. Seems someone called it in as a "possible active shooter" event. :banghead:

Anyway, I was handcuffed and my weapons were removed, ID/CCW checked, etc. I was then brought to the WM security office while waiting for the clear from my ID and CCW being checked (yes, it was all clear, I don't break laws). All this time, I'm sitting there in handcuffs (my back hurts) and asking "Am I under arrest?" to which the response was "No, you're being detained for our safety."

My SO said I must've asked "Am I free to go, officers?" about half a dozen times.

Once the clear ID and CCW came back, and the guns weren't listed as stolen, they "oh so kindly" escorted me (sans weapons) out to my truck where two officers talked to me for a bit.

One basically said it was major BS for this to have happened, as I wasn't breaking any laws. The other told me I should get an IWB holster. Good people.

They set the guns inside my truck, bid me a good night, and asked me to wait until they were gone to reload and reholster my guns.

Overall, it was an annoying experience but otherwise harmless except for my back now hurts (old back injury, handcuffs HURT)

Best line of the night?

Female officer (to my SO): "Why are you carrying a knife?"

My SO: ..."Because I can't carry a gun."

I love her. :D



EDIT: Before I forget (a.k.a. my SO reminded me...)

Male officer: "You know, it's just not normal for people to carry this much, right?"

Me: "It should be."

Male officer: "...this isn't a political debate. You CAN legally carry these, but it's not normal."



Also, I'm not allowed in WalMart, company-wide, now. Not that I'm planning to ever go back anyway!

If you enjoyed reading about "Entertainment for the night..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
lee n. field
September 21, 2008, 11:40 PM
Not that I'm planning to ever go back anyway!

Make sure Wally World Corporate knows that.

Cmdr. Gravez0r
September 21, 2008, 11:42 PM
EDIT: Before I forget (a.k.a. my SO reminded me...)

Male officer: "You know, it's just not normal for people to carry this much, right?"

Me: "It should be."

Male officer: "...this isn't a political debate. You CAN legally carry these, but it's not normal."


What did you have? If you don't mind sharing.


Also, I'm not allowed in WalMart, company-wide, now. Not that I'm planning to ever go back anyway!


Who's going to know?

armedandsafe
September 21, 2008, 11:45 PM
When you notify WW that you aren't going back and why, make sure you tell them that this one WW store, security officer, told you not to enter any other WW in the world.

They will love that.

Pops

I whittles what I see
September 21, 2008, 11:50 PM
The only time I ever shop at Walmart is when I need duct tape or shotgun shells at 2 am. (don't ask I have weird hobbies) I really hate that place and how they treat people.

Mickstix
September 21, 2008, 11:51 PM
I've always heard that Walmart was one of the only store chains that DID allow CCW in their stores?? (AKA: The Walmart Walk) Perhaps "Concealed" is the key here?? Someone actually saw yours. :)

VARifleman
September 21, 2008, 11:53 PM
I've open carried into walmart...in Northern VA.

PTK
September 21, 2008, 11:58 PM
Make sure Wally World Corporate knows that.

Tomorrow morning, they'll know.

What did you have? If you don't mind sharing.

XD45, two extra mags, FN USG 5.7, two extra mags, NAA .22wmr revolver (and a knife and such). Same that I carry every day.

When you notify WW that you aren't going back and why, make sure you tell them that this one WW store, security officer, told you not to enter any other WW in the world.

They will love that.

I'll be doing so tomorrow AM, they may do something about it.

The only time I ever shop at Walmart is when I need duct tape or shotgun shells at 2 am.

We were there mainly for art supplies - my SO makes fursuits (think mascots) and such.

Someone actually saw yours.

...on my belt, in a holster, not being used. No cause for alarm, IMHO.

I've open carried into walmart...in Northern VA.

They told me OC would've been fine, and that it was my CC that alarmed the shopper, thinking I was a crook. Insanity.

Mcuraddoc
September 21, 2008, 11:59 PM
I cannot believe you went through that.

Bud, I'm glad you and your SO got out without outside issues. As far as Wal Mart goes, try Super Target!

Thanks for sharing your story!

Hoppy590
September 21, 2008, 11:59 PM
I'm not allowed in WalMart, company-wide, now.

i think you may be over estimating the span of this incident

chances are you were told this by a smart mouth manager who over estimates his power

PTK
September 22, 2008, 12:01 AM
As far as Wal Mart goes, try Super Target!

Super Target closes early, it's Sunday, and WM is open 24hr. They're convenient.

i think you may be over estimating the span of this incident

chances are you were told this by a smart mouth manager who over estimates his power

And corporate will hear of this either way. If I can carry there, I'm going to get a letter stating I can, on company letterhead. And THEN I'll happily shop there again.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 22, 2008, 12:06 AM
Female officer (to my SO): "Why are you carrying a knife?"

My SO: ..."Because I can't carry a gun."

Awesome! She got a sister?

XD45, two extra mags, FN USG 5.7, two extra mags, NAA .22wmr revolver (and a knife and such). Same that I carry every day.

Well, it's not "normal" but neither is carrying any gun. Just meaning that most people don't.

PTK
September 22, 2008, 12:07 AM
Awesome! She got a sister?

You don't want her sister. You really don't. They were raised VERY differently. As for my SO's answer, she's only 18 but very badly wants a CCW here in CO. She'll have to settle for OC once her father gifts her a handgun.

Well, it's not "normal" but neither is carrying any gun. Just meaning that most people don't.

Two of the twelve officers (still pissed, TWELVE OFFICERS?!) told me that the entire thing was major BS. Only the higher up (sergeant?) told me that it wasn't normal. The rest were just doing their thing.

VARifleman
September 22, 2008, 12:13 AM
XD45, two extra mags, FN USG 5.7, two extra mags, NAA .22wmr revolver (and a knife and such). Same that I carry every day.
I like your style.

R.W.Dale
September 22, 2008, 12:14 AM
WHAT! You were carrying 3 guns lord knows how much ammo and you wonder why everyone flipped out.
:rolleyes:
I'm a hardcore gun nut and my first reaction to someone carrying that much heat with them would be that you were planing to go postal as well.

You need to learn to prioritize a bit better

PTK
September 22, 2008, 12:15 AM
I like your style.

I do too. :)

WHAT! You were carrying 3 guns and you wonder why everyone flipped out.

I'm a hardcore gun nut and my first reaction to someone carrying that much heat with them would be that you were planing to go postal as well.

You need to learn to prioritize a bit better

Opinions are like.... ;)

Seriously though, I carry 3 guns. One LH, one RH, one last ditch belly gun. Every day.

R.W.Dale
September 22, 2008, 12:16 AM
Well I'm not the one whose been kicked out of the Woolworth's so to speak.

No wonder you have back problems

PTK
September 22, 2008, 12:17 AM
Well I'm not the one whose been kicked out of the Woolworth's so to speak

Very true, but I'll take freedom over lesser preparedness any day. :)

No wonder you have back problems

Cute. I have back problems from prior injuries that make it incredibly difficult to move quickly or easily sometimes. In essence, I'm not always able to run away easily if the SHTF.

R.W.Dale
September 22, 2008, 12:20 AM
Very true, but I'll take freedom over lesser preparedness any day

I have three vehicles but I don't try do drive them at the same time. If you find yourself in a "situation" you'll get shot before you can decide on which gun to use.

PTK
September 22, 2008, 12:21 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree. :)

General Geoff
September 22, 2008, 12:21 AM
An FN Five-seveN and an XD45, both with two extra mags, AND a .22 mag revolver? How do you do it? What holsters do you use for each?


btw if I ever visit Colorado, I want to shake your hand.



edit; krochus, PTK is just preparing for a highly unlikely but nonetheless possible "hollywood style" shootout where a bunch of guys with guns ambush him. Can't blame him for being overly prepared. :)

R.W.Dale
September 22, 2008, 12:22 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree.

I can respect that.

PTK
September 22, 2008, 12:23 AM
An FN Five-seveN and an XD45, both with two extra mags, AND a .22 mag revolver? How do you do it? What holsters do you use for each?

DeSantis holsters, one on each hip, mag pouches in front of the holsters. Haven't had a problem in over ten months here in CO so far.


btw if I ever visit Colorado, I want to shake your hand.

Absolutely. :)


I can respect that.

Thank you, friend. THIS, right here, is why I love THR. :)

Devonai
September 22, 2008, 12:23 AM
If you can carry two full-size pistols concealed, then God bless you. I am hardly going to debate whether or not this is "too much" hardware; I have done so in limited circumstances but my primary was carried in the open.

My point is, you were spotted. Do you think the reason why you were spotted was because you were trying to conceal two full-size pistols?

General Geoff
September 22, 2008, 12:27 AM
PTK, one other question. Your two spare mags for the Five-seveN, are they standard 20 rounders, or did you opt for the 30 rounders?

acmax95
September 22, 2008, 12:27 AM
Seems like if you wanted to go that route, you would have grounds for a good lawsuit. Physical & emotional distress, false imprisonment, not to mention the damage to your good name.

bragood
September 22, 2008, 12:28 AM
I work at walmart (sad to say). The policy is weird in that weapons are not allowed but no one does anything unless someone complains about it. What happened to you was wrong and I agree on letting the corporate office know. Things like this make me hate my job. Oh and I usually carry a similar amount of guns, even at walmart on my off time (dont tell!).

R.W.Dale
September 22, 2008, 12:33 AM
edit; krochus, PTK is just preparing for a highly unlikely but nonetheless possible "hollywood style" shootout where a bunch of guys with guns ambush him. Can't blame him for being overly prepared.

In that case wouldn't it be more tactically advantageous to just carry the 5.7 and the other guns weight in extra ammo for it. I bet an XD weighs the same as well over 100rds of 5.7x28 ammo

luckyrxc
September 22, 2008, 12:35 AM
Wait. Either you are allow to carry at that Wal Mart or you are not allowed to carry at that Wal Mart. They can't ban you from Wal Mart just because you got caught carrying, unless they have a publically posted policy against doing so.
I'm kinda on the fence about the police officer's reaction. Seems it was quite wrong, on the other hand I'm sure they were quite surprised to find you had three guns and six mags +. You are my hereo but I can understand that there might be an overreaction there. It sound like they may have also been inconveniencing you to the point of 'teaching you a lesson'.
However, you should not have been told that you can't go back to a Wal Mart because you were 'made' UNLESS they have a no carry policy which you broke
Was the store posted, "no guns"?

jordan1948
September 22, 2008, 12:35 AM
Hahahaha this is such BS, not laughing at you but the fact that somone thought you were a crook because they saw you shoping for art supplies with a gun on your belt lol and the fact that it was in a holster I mean I could see if it was just shoved in your belt but if I see someone with a gun in a holster the only thing that comes to mind is either they're an off duty cop or they've got a permit

General Geoff
September 22, 2008, 12:43 AM
In that case wouldn't it be more tactically advantageous to just carry the 5.7 and the other guns weight in extra ammo for it. I bet an XD weighs the same as well over 100rds of 5.7x28 ammo

You know, that's a good point, but having a backup platform is always nice. I'd have a second Five-seveN though, for ammunition sharing purposes. Still probably save on weight. And if he uses 30 round extra mags, just four would give him 120 rounds plus the 40 in the two guns. Talk about a one man army. :D

PTK
September 22, 2008, 12:54 AM
My point is, you were spotted. Do you think the reason why you were spotted was because you were trying to conceal two full-size pistols?

Honestly, the issue was a new cover shirt and the shirt getting caught on the mags. I need to go ahead and get better carriers that don't stick out. :)
I've been carrying these items without issue for about ten months now.

PTK, one other question. Your two spare mags for the Five-seveN, are they standard 20 rounders, or did you opt for the 30 rounders?

20 rounders.

Seems like if you wanted to go that route, you would have grounds for a good lawsuit. Physical & emotional distress, false imprisonment, not to mention the damage to your good name.

No desire for such.

In that case wouldn't it be more tactically advantageous to just carry the 5.7 and the other guns weight in extra ammo for it. I bet an XD weighs the same as well over 100rds of 5.7x28 ammo

I carry extra mags because of clearance drills, and two fullsize guns because I want one strong side, one weak side. No matter what hand I can get at one with, I have a full-fledged gun.

Was the store posted, "no guns"?

No.

this is such BS, not laughing at you but the fact that somone thought you were a crook because they saw you shoping for art supplies with a gun on your belt lol and the fact that it was in a holster I mean I could see if it was just shoved in your belt but if I see someone with a gun in a holster the only thing that comes to mind is either they're an off duty cop or they've got a permit

Two of the twelve cops thought so too.

You know, that's a good point, but having a backup platform is always nice. I'd have a second Five-seveN though, for ammunition sharing purposes. Still probably save on weight. And if he uses 30 round extra mags, just four would give him 120 rounds plus the 40 in the two guns. Talk about a one man army.

I keep two fullsize handguns for previously mentioned reasons.



(Not that I won't consider this other option, though! :D)

Kind of Blued
September 22, 2008, 01:02 AM
PTK, was it the one on Youngfield? I'm not sure that there is a WW closer to you...

I'm sorry you had to deal with this. From talking with you, I knew right from the start of the thread that you handled the situation flawlessly, but apparently the hassle brought forth from ignorant people is unavoidable.

I got hassled nice & hard when I went to go set up a court date to contest a "big brother camera" traffic violation the other day in Boulder...

...yeah. BOULDER. Yikes. I left both of my guns in the car (I'm with you here ;) ), broke no laws, and was cheery as a tulip, but that didn't stop the hassle.

I'll recount it if anybody is interested. It was pretty funny.

VARifleman
September 22, 2008, 01:08 AM
Right on red and it said you were running the red?

A CDL former coworker got one because he entered the intersection while the light was green, was constantly accelerating, and it turned red while he was in there.

armoredman
September 22, 2008, 01:09 AM
Evan Marshall is quite partial to carry three guns at once, and with 23 years on Detroits streets as a homicide detective, I can respect his opinion. One quote he has is, "If you have time to reload, you're in a social disagreement, not a gunfight."I still carry two spare mags, but will get my second sidearm, very soon.

Aguila Blanca
September 22, 2008, 01:11 AM
Seems like if you wanted to go that route, you would have grounds for a good lawsuit. Physical & emotional distress, false imprisonment, not to mention the damage to your good name.
It only took 26 posts to get to this. We're slipping, people.

I agree. If you were handcuffed, you were effectively detained for suspicion of lawful activity. The police acknowledge that you didn't break any laws. You were standing in a checkout line when they walked in, so there was nothing to give rise to a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" (Terry stop language) that a crime was being committed or was about to be committed. Therefore, legally they didn't really have any right to lay a finger on you. In fact, since the incident didn't meet the criteria for a Terry stop or a Terry frisk, they had no right to disarm you even if it was for their safety. You really REALLY should sue them for false imprisonment.

Kind of Blued
September 22, 2008, 01:19 AM
Right on red and it said you were running the red?

A CDL former coworker got one because he entered the intersection while the light was green, was constantly accelerating, and it turned red while he was in there.

First of all, I don't want to hijack the thread, but since you asked...

I got a 7-4-3, basically "running a red light". I have two arguments to bring up, one being that there is no evidence as shown by the photographs to prove that the light was red before or during my entry into the intersection.

The other, if told that I was in violation, is that I acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have in the situation, given that protestors were wielding 6' tall color photographs of various aborted fetuses which are clearly visible in the surveillance photographs. :uhoh: It's a long shot, but true. I'd say the argument has a decent chance in Boulder, the most... well, you'd just have to see it. :)

It's $75. Not a big deal. I mentioned it to one of my law professors and he told me "if you don't use your rights, they'll go away", which most of us THR-ites are very familiar with. He also told me it looked like I could win the case as well. :)

PTK
September 22, 2008, 01:23 AM
PTK, was it the one on Youngfield? I'm not sure that there is a WW closer to you...

Colfax and Wadsworth.

I'm sorry you had to deal with this. From talking with you, I knew right from the start of the thread that you handled the situation flawlessly, but apparently the hassle brought forth from ignorant people is unavoidable.

Kind words. Thank you. :)

Evan Marshall is quite partial to carry three guns at once, and with 23 years on Detroits streets as a homicide detective, I can respect his opinion. One quote he has is, "If you have time to reload, you're in a social disagreement, not a gunfight."I still carry two spare mags, but will get my second sidearm, very soon.

Never heard of that person, but I'll have to look into their writings (if any)

For the folks that really think I carry excessive firearms, that's fine. I carry what I'm comfortable with.

I agree. If you were handcuffed, you were effectively detained for suspicion of lawful activity. The police acknowledge that you didn't break any laws. You were standing in a checkout line when they walked in, so there was nothing to give rise to a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" (Terry stop language) that a crime was being committed or was about to be committed. Therefore, legally they didn't really have any right to lay a finger on you. In fact, since the incident didn't meet the criteria for a Terry stop or a Terry frisk, they had no right to disarm you even if it was for their safety. You really REALLY should sue them for false imprisonment.

How would I go about this? They told me repeatedly that I was not arrested, but that I wasn't free to go. What should I do?

rondog
September 22, 2008, 01:25 AM
Where did this happen? I live in Parker, CO, and work in Denver. And I CCW in WW all the time too. I only carry one Roscoe though, and no spare mags. Not into the multiple weapons thing, still too new at it.

PTK
September 22, 2008, 01:27 AM
Where did this happen? I live in Parker, CO, and work in Denver. And I CCW in WW all the time too. I only carry one Roscoe though, and no spare mags. Not into the multiple weapons thing, still too new at it.

This happened in Lakewood CO, Colfax and Wadsworth WalMart.

Aguila Blanca
September 22, 2008, 01:36 AM
How would I go about this? They told me repeatedly that I was not arrested, but that I wasn't free to go. What should I do?
You were not arrested, but you were "detained." Jump over to the legal forum here and run two searches. First, search on "Terry stop" and then on "Terry frisk." Try the same on Google. What you'll find is that before police can detain you they have to have a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed." If you were in Chicago or Washington DC, for example, where nobody can carry legally, the fact you had a gun would be sufficient "clearly articulable fact" to generate a reasonable suspicion of a crime (carry a gun).

However, you are in a jurisdiction where citizens can carry legally. Absent any overt indication that you were not carrying legally (for example, if you were a convicted felon and the responding officer happened to remember arresting you before your conviction), there was nothing to indicate any crime in commission or about to be committed. That means they had no justification to detain you. They could have asked you if you had a permit ... and you could have asked in return "Why do you ask?" Once they establish that they had a complaint, then you show them the permit.

However, there was no basis for handcuffing you, and no basis for disarming you.

Talk to a lawyer. In a town the size of yours, there must be some law firms that take on cases about police misconduct. That's who you should talk to. Most will provide an initial consultation for no cost, and they can tell you from the facts you've recited here whether or not there's a likelihood you would win at trial. If they think you have a good case, they'll usually take it on a percentage basis, without charging you up front.

rondog
September 22, 2008, 01:42 AM
This happened in Lakewood CO, Colfax and Wadsworth WalMart.

OK, thanks! Not likely I'll be stopping in that particular one, I'm very rarely around that area. I actually do remember having to go there late one night to get something for a work issue, and I don't blame you for packing three guns now.

I saw a woman there that looked like she was "unstable", to put it mildly. Her hair appeared to have never been combed/brushed, it was one big massive, matted dreadlock. Her whole head! It was bizarre, and she had the eyes of a lunatic. Glad I only saw her in the parking lot, and not inside the store.

loneviking
September 22, 2008, 01:48 AM
I'm laughing at the thought that you were too well armed! Here in Reno, the latest fad seems to be three or four guys taking down a store. That's why I now have a S&W 65-6 for the left side, and at night, the Colt Peacekeeper 357 in a shoulder holster on the right---plus two speedloaders for each and 7 loose rounds for each carried in the concealment vest.

I'd seriously be considering some type of legal action against this police department and against that Wal-Mart.

KP89
September 22, 2008, 01:53 AM
WW has adopted a no CCW policy which is certainly in their right to do as a store, I don't know if they had signs up or not but - if they did you were trespassing armed on their private property.

Ergosphere
September 22, 2008, 01:56 AM
Male officer: "You know, it's just not normal for people to carry this much, right?"

Me: "It should be."

Male officer: "...this isn't a political debate. You CAN legally carry these, but it's not normal."

Well, his first statement was political in nature... :rolleyes:

VARifleman
September 22, 2008, 02:05 AM
WW has adopted a no CCW policy which is certainly in their right to do as a store, I don't know if they had signs up or not but - if they did you were trespassing armed on their private property.
Source...

None of the stores I've ever been have been posted, and numerous letters and such have been posted on this forum in the past stating that their policy is as long as it's legal.

What the poster at the top of the page could be referring to is a ban on store workers carrying.

KC0QGL
September 22, 2008, 02:08 AM
PTK, I had the same thing happen to me at the walmart here in Greeley, but I was out in the parking lot by the time the cops showed up. I was also OCing (pre CCW). And then again at the other walmart (yes we have 2, only 3 miles apart) no cops this time, only a night manager asking "Why are you carring a gun." (IWB on my back) My awnser was "I have the right to." Then I showed him my CCW (just to shut him up), then he said in a soft voice "I'll check with the home office to see if guns are aloud in the store." He then walked away with his head down, never heared form him again.

ants
September 22, 2008, 02:13 AM
PTK, what you carry is none of my business as long as it's legal. And of course, it is legal. I have always said that my choice to carry is my personal choice subject to no one else's opinion, and I give that same personal choice to every other person in the country. More power to ya, as we used to say.

I'm posting because your Colorado permit is recognized in almost half the other states, but some states distinguish carefully between concealed carry and open carry. If you choose to conceal your firearm, you must keep it concealed under all conditions. Your mistake was to let your cover garment reveal the weapon. Well, we all learn lessons in life, and this is a good one. If you're going to conceal, make sure you do a good job of it. Just a word to the wise.

[Just a personal observation - I don't have an appetite for suing everyone who does me wrong. I think I would take this opportunity to educate as many people as possible on the Second Amendment. Personally, I don't think I would sue anyone for detaining me. They are just doing their jobs. But educating the customer who got scared of you (and everyone else who would get scared) is probably the best High Road thing to do. Somehow lots of people got scared of guns. Let's get them cured of that. Best of luck, my friend.]

Duke Junior
September 22, 2008, 02:15 AM
What the poster at the top of the page could be referring to is a ban on store workers carrying.

That is certainly correct.Wal-Mart HQ in Bentonville,Arkansas has no policy against legal firearms carry in their stores by customers in the U.S. of A.
Call them to verify:

If you're a customer, call 1-800-WAL-MART
If you're a journalist, call 1-800-331-0085

If I'm wrong call, 1-800-LONG-GON

Deus Machina
September 22, 2008, 02:17 AM
I think you're overarmed. ;) But if you can carry that much without it showing (usually, I guess) there's nothing suspicious about it.

The cops are your choice. They probably handcuffed you because of some overblown suspicion, but they should have asked to talk in private. That's up to you.

But I would lay a lawsuit on that store in particular for all the above reasons, and make a solid note that your right to carry was violated so corp doesn't get the idea to post a CCW ban so they can claim anyone that does the same is trespassing.

The only proper response from management would have been "Sir, we've had a complaint. Please pull your shirt down."

Stevie-Ray
September 22, 2008, 02:22 AM
They told me OC would've been fine, and that it was my CC that alarmed the shopper, thinking I was a crook. Insanity.Well that's it then. Start OC'ing all that stuff.:D

longdayjake
September 22, 2008, 02:24 AM
You don't happen to have really long hair or a burley beard or maybe even be a minority? I can guarantee that if you had a suit jacket on no one would have even cared.

I bet that that "concerned citizen" feels great that they just kept you from blowing up the U.S. most ultimate terrorist target. They should get a reward for saving all of the helpless children at walmart.

Mcuraddoc
September 22, 2008, 02:28 AM
PTK-

One or ninty-nine...it doesn't matter. I'd like to shake your hand...and have you escort me into my local Wal-Mart....:p I never feel safe even with my 9mm...

KiltedClaymore
September 22, 2008, 02:32 AM
LOL handcuffs suck dont they? :D :evil:

longdayjake
September 22, 2008, 02:45 AM
By the way, I do believe that it was mentioned earlier that a police officer would need to have probably cause to do a terry stop. This is not true. He only needs "articulable suspicion." In this case the citizen that phoned in just happened to be the one that is responsible for the "search" because once they get a call like that they are acting on what is called "good faith." They don't need articulable suspicion because an agent outside the government gave them the tip that you were dangerous. If the conserned citizen happened to be some form of "government agent" like an off duty cop, you would have grounds for false imprisonment. I doubt you would have much of a case in court simply because the citizen was the one that carries most of the responsibility in this case. I would sign a citation against them for giving false information. It sounds to me that you were a far cry from "active shooter." Or whatever it was that they accused you of.

VARifleman
September 22, 2008, 02:54 AM
longdayjake, the term you missed is reasonable, and it's a simple "Do you have a permit?" "Yes, here it is" "Thank you, have a nice night" instead of cuffs and a lecture.

PTK
September 22, 2008, 03:07 AM
If you're going to conceal, make sure you do a good job of it. Just a word to the wise.

I suppose so. I never really bother concealing very well here in CO, and when out of state I make a HUGE point of properly concealing. If it hadn't been chilly tonight, I'd have OCed. Haven't had a problem with that yet, funny that CC is what got me! :)


The cops are your choice. They probably handcuffed you because of some overblown suspicion, but they should have asked to talk in private. That's up to you.

They never asked for a permit - they simply cuffed me and disarmed me. Not until AFTER my guns were off did I state that I had a permit (and one of them nigh shot me with my own XD45.... dolt.)

But I would lay a lawsuit on that store in particular for all the above reasons, and make a solid note that your right to carry was violated so corp doesn't get the idea to post a CCW ban so they can claim anyone that does the same is trespassing.

I'll be calling WM HQ in the morning, seeing what happens with that...

The only proper response from management would have been "Sir, we've had a complaint. Please pull your shirt down."

That sure would've been nice.


You don't happen to have really long hair or a burley beard or maybe even be a minority? I can guarantee that if you had a suit jacket on no one would have even cared.

I'm clean shaved other than a goatee (well trimmed) short hair under a nice ballcap, and clean pants/shirt/suspenders. I've never had an image problem.

One or ninty-nine...it doesn't matter. I'd like to shake your hand...and have you escort me into my local Wal-Mart.... I never feel safe even with my 9mm...

Heh, well, thanks. Kind words. :)

LOL handcuffs suck dont they?

Freakin'-A yes.

Nobody needs to go to walmart. Ever.

You try saying no to puppy-dog eyes from a cute 18 year old woman. ;)

I do generally stay out of WM though. Now.... I'm staying out.

SomeKid
September 22, 2008, 03:09 AM
I tried to carry two full sized pistols once.

After two steps I realized I was no longer wearing pants, but I had invented a pair of ankle-cuffs made of blue jeans, a cheap belt, and two pistols.

Haven't tried it since I got a stouter belt.

PTK, what belt do you use?

(And you have made multiple references to this 18 yo SO, cmon, show us a pic of her shooting some guns!)

PTK
September 22, 2008, 03:10 AM
PTK, what belt do you use?

I knew someone would ask. ;)

I wear a no-name thick, stiff leather belt about 1.5" wide along with a nice pair of suspenders. No issues yet!

Of course, it helps that the two guns I'm carrying are in the super-lightweight class for fullsize handguns!

KC0QGL
September 22, 2008, 03:28 AM
I tried to carry two full sized pistols once.
Just for fun once I carried my Blackhawk .44mag, Bersa .380, Taurus .38 spl., NAA mini .22 lr. and I dared not undo my belt.

Dookie
September 22, 2008, 03:34 AM
Concealed means concealed, you got caught, it happens.

XD45, two extra mags, FN USG 5.7, two extra mags, NAA .22wmr revolver (and a knife and such). Same that I carry every day.So are you in charge of mall security?

PTK
September 22, 2008, 03:35 AM
Just for fun once I carried my Blackhawk .44mag, Bersa .380, Taurus .38 spl., NAA mini .22 lr. and I dared not undo my belt.

I think the most I ever carried at once, successfully, was 15 handguns.

Concealed. :D

(of course, I was wearing a trenchcoat...)

Concealed means concealed, you got caught, it happens.

Yep.

So are you in charge of mall security?

Wow, so original. :rolleyes:


Oh, oh, I have a great idea! Let's all in-fight until the antis have a ball of a time destroying our rights and making those that carry any guns at all "abnormal".

KC0QGL
September 22, 2008, 03:56 AM
I think the most I ever carried at once, successfully, was 15 handguns.

Concealed.

(of course, I was wearing a trenchcoat...)
WOW just WOW.

PTK
September 22, 2008, 04:11 AM
WOW just WOW.

I'll have to do that again and have my SO take a pic... it'd amuse her. :)

KC0QGL
September 22, 2008, 04:26 AM
Let me know I would love to see. The most I have ever carried was 7 at once, most OC, when I'm out at the grass lands shooting.

JesseL
September 22, 2008, 02:29 PM
Man, that is unbelievable. Incredibly bad handling of the situation by the store and the police.

The only thing a Wal-Mart employee has ever said to me in regard to my open carried gun was to ask if I'd like to buy some ammo for it - they didn't have any .41 Mag though :rolleyes:.


I'd be seriously surprised if WM corporate doesn't put that manger in his place.

rduckwor
September 22, 2008, 02:41 PM
Seems like if you wanted to go that route, you would have grounds for a good lawsuit. Physical & emotional distress, false imprisonment, not to mention the damage to your good name.

+1 Get a lawyer involved IF the store had not posted "No Weapons" signs.

FmrMarine
September 22, 2008, 03:56 PM
I have lurked here for some time, and this thread finally convinced me to register. I felt the need to reply to articulate a view I haven't seen in the thread yet. While I understand and respect to OP's right to carry that which is legal, I think it would be bad for those interested in preserving/promoting the RKBA to have this situation hear in a court of law via a lawsuit by the OP. A jury of 12 average joes/janes would hear about a man shopping at Wal-Mart with 3 loaded semi-automatic pistols, over 100 rounds of ammunition and a knife. The media would seize on it and could very easily paint CCW holders in a negative light.

Just my .02.

JesseL
September 22, 2008, 04:13 PM
FmrMarine, I understand your concern - but what would you do about it?

What would the media and a jury of 12 average people think if for some reason my house was searched and it came to light that I had in excess of 30 firearms (including several "assault weapons"), tens of thousands of rounds of ammo (including deadly hollowpoint bullets!), several pounds of gun powder, high explosives purchased over the internet (Tannerite (http://www.tannerite.com)), switchblade knives, and tools and materials capable of manufacturing machineguns and silencers? And an infant living in the home!

All perfectly legal too.

Should we start self-policing our own legal behavior just because of worries about how it might look to the uninitiated?

The best slaves are the ones that forge their own chains.

I think that the wisest thing we can do is to be open and unashamed about what we do, and hope that eventually the public at large will realize that we're not so dangerous or crazy as they've been led to believe.

Surat
September 22, 2008, 05:03 PM
They never asked for a permit - they simply cuffed me and disarmed me. Not until AFTER my guns were off did I state that I had a permit (and one of them nigh shot me with my own XD45.... dolt.)

(puts on flame proof suit)

As for the first half, what is unreasonable about an officer handcuffing an unknown armed subject when investigating a "man with a gun call" before disarming and ascertaining their status? The term reasonable suspicion keeps getting batted around here but I think some of the posters have an incomplete understanding of the concept. The term refers to what a hypothetical "average officer" would believe constitutes suspicion. Not your average citizen, not your average CCW'er, nor average lawyer, store clerk, hair dresser or anything else. What exactly is not suspicions to the “average officer” about finding a subject that matches the description of an armed subject of unknown provenance at Walmart in the middle of the night. To add suspicion, the subject is found with three firearms and accompanying ammo and until the weapons are removed off his person, fails to state he has a permit. To the posters who are screaming constitutional rights violations, think about this. . .

As a cop and member of the jackbooted oppressor class, I personally like to go home at the end of my shift. If I find a subject that I have been sent to find as a "man with a gun call" I'm NOT going to ask him or her to reach into their pockets to produce a permit or ID. The first thing I'm going to do is secure said hands to ensure that they don't pull out a gun and shoot me. The next thing I am going to do find said gun and secure it. The next thing I'm going to do is figure out what is going on. Looking at the OP's description of events, that is what happened. OP was ID'd as matching the description of a suspicious person, placed under what is commonly referred to as investigative detention, and released when it was found that there was no violation of criminal law. What in this chain of events or logic was unreasonable?

As for the second half, I see far too many people in my department, slack with firearms safety. I agree, “dolt” is right. We even have a hole in or training room floor courtesy of a negligent discharge. I found a round n the chamber of an AK type rifle found on a dope warrant that everyone “knew” was clear.

Lastly, I feel like a dilettante. I carry a Kel-tec .380 in the summer with a spare mag and a S&W five screw with a Bianchi speed strip in the winter.

akodo
September 22, 2008, 05:31 PM
Respondant One: Seems like if you wanted to go that route, you would have grounds for a good lawsuit. Physical & emotional distress, false imprisonment, not to mention the damage to your good name.

Original Poster: No desire for such.

Here's the deal. If you sue and make a fuss, the city is more likely to properly instruct their officers on how to deal with CCW holders in a legal manner.

Police departments in some ways are like dogs, they will get away with what they can get away with, and as the owner of the dog, it is out responsibility to make sure the dog learns to behaive properly.

If you win a big settlement beyond your legal fees and feel badly about that, then donate the money to a local shooting program, the NRA, have a minute man statue put up in the park, or whatever.

RobNDenver
September 22, 2008, 05:34 PM
PTK,

Do you have a CHL issued by a Colorado Sheriff? Please post a follow up if any action is taken by the Sheriff to revoke your permit.

I've found that just carrying my Officer's Carry Pistol, in a Desantis Speed Scabbard and an extra magazine I have to be careful not to show it inadvertently. I usually wear camp shirts (Woolrich Elite) that are designed to ride a little lower and conceal a little better. Downside is that I think they make me look fat.

Your call, but I think one of these kinds of life-altering experiences would be enough for me to rethink the way I attempt to conceal my handguns so as not to call attention to myself again. If you get made again, I would bet that your concealed handgun permit is at risk. I would also bet that the Sergeant voiced what every one on the scene was thinking.

FmrMarine
September 22, 2008, 05:42 PM
Good Points Jesse.

Would submit that there is the presumption of a certain amount of privacy in one's home. When we leave our homes we forfeit a certain amount of that privacy, like it or not. Your privacy is further reduced by carrying more gear than you can properly conceal as seems to be the case here.

Prophet
September 22, 2008, 05:48 PM
See if the Zombies come, PTK will need an extra gun to toss to his SO and an extra for between the two of them if more crap hits the fan ie jam, out of ammo, friend or relative along, etc.

I'm not one to be underprepared or overprepared, but depending on location with gangs often running rampant I can see how having 3 firearms could help level the playing field. But if you cannot conceal them appropriately, it may be time to downsize a bit and get the SO to OC or wait for her to become 21 and both CCW.

PTK
September 22, 2008, 05:56 PM
To add suspicion, the subject is found with three firearms and accompanying ammo and until the weapons are removed off his person, fails to state he has a permit.

Innocent until proven guilty...? Why assume I'm a nutjob (after getting the items and standing in checkout line for 5 minutes!)

Also, I don't volunteer information to LEOs, no offense. I didn't exactly feel like saying much after having my hands restrained and asked "where's the gun" in a rather interesting manner.

As a cop and member of the jackbooted oppressor class, I personally like to go home at the end of my shift.

No problem with that!

What in this chain of events or logic was unreasonable?

Innocent until proven guilty. I think it should still mean something - if I'm just standing in a checkout line, shouldn't I be assumed to be just another guy?

As for the second half, I see far too many people in my department, slack with firearms safety. I agree, “dolt” is right.

Hence my near-shouting at the officer that there is NO SAFETY on an XD45 four or five times...

Do you have a CHL issued by a Colorado Sheriff? Please post a follow up if any action is taken by the Sheriff to revoke your permit.

Yes, and there would be exactly ZERO legal ground for him to do so. :)

I think one of these kinds of life-altering experiences would be enough for me to rethink the way I attempt to conceal my handguns

Perhaps, but again, had it not been cool outside I'd have OCed as I sometimes do. Having OCed many times in Golden and Lakewood, I didn't think there'd be a problem with half-hearted CCing.

See if the Zombies come, PTK will need an extra gun to toss to his SO and an extra for between the two of them if more crap hits the fan.

Cute, but partially right. My SO and I have trained so that if the SHTF, I grab the gun of my choice and she gets the other if she's close enough to get it before I'm moving for cover/concealment.


I do indeed understand where many of you are coming from in terms of the viewpoint that I'm carrying too much, don't need that much, et cetera. To that, I simply state: I am not breaking any laws, I am simply exercising my rights.

RPCVYemen
September 22, 2008, 06:13 PM
Quote:
Make sure Wally World Corporate knows that.
Tomorrow morning, they'll know.

Quote:
What did you have? If you don't mind sharing.
XD45, two extra mags, FN USG 5.7, two extra mags, NAA .22wmr revolver (and a knife and such). Same that I carry every day.

Quote:
When you notify WW that you aren't going back and why, make sure you tell them that this one WW store, security officer, told you not to enter any other WW in the world.

They will love that.
I'll be doing so tomorrow AM, they may do something about it.

My guess is that - particularly if they know the amount of armament you were carrying - they really don't want you in any of their stores ever. Which sounds like it will be fine with you. :)

Let us know what you hear. My nickel bet is that the back their security guard to the hilt - politely re-state the policy, and emphasize the ban on shopping in their stores.

I am not criticizing disagreeing with your decision to carry that much weaponry. And you probably wouldn't care if I did. :) But that much armament on a civilian is going to suggest abnormality and/or metal issues to most people. They are not going to want you in their stores.

Maybe I am wrong. It would be interesting to hear what they have to say.

Mike

MJRW
September 22, 2008, 06:32 PM
The officer was right, though. It is NOT normal. Even here, it isn't normal. Are we really debating if carrying this much hardware is "normal?"

Surat
September 22, 2008, 06:44 PM
Innocent until proven guilty...? Why assume I'm a nutjob (after getting the items and standing in checkout line for 5 minutes!)

Also, I don't volunteer information to LEOs, no offense. I didn't exactly feel like saying much after having my hands restrained and asked "where's the gun" in a rather interesting manner.

And how, pray tell, should a cop investigating a man with a gun call proceed? Do people never lie to the police? Do criminals/law breakers come in all shapes/sizes/colors? What if you were carrying legit but had a warrant (FTA on tickets, child support, any number of reasons an otherwise law abiding person might run afoul of the criminal justice system)? Then the officer'd have to arrest you ad you'd be armed while they were trying to affect that arrest. Dangerous situation. Especially since people never decide they are not going to be arrested today. ANd hw is one to know what category a person will fall into?

Innocent until proven guilty is for court. Law enforcement operations do not deal in absolutes, that for the courts to do. At best cops get to deal with maybes and probably's. Reasonable Suspicion, Probable Cause.

Just like the old line goes “be polite but always have a plan to kill everyone in the room”. . . that goes double for a cop. What hangs us so often is the “polite part, as, I myself have gotten into more then my share of trouble with my mouth.

To that, I simply state: I am not breaking any laws, I am simply exercising my rights.

Good point. And the cops were exercising their legal authority granted to them by the State and their position of office. Sometimes the two intersect in unpleasing ways.

RPCVYemen
September 22, 2008, 06:45 PM
Are we really debating if carrying this much hardware is "normal?"

If you are referring to my post, I wasn't debating that issue. My point was that it looks highly abnormal to Wal*Mart corporate types, and they probably are not going to want the OP in their stores - even if you and I were to agree that he had very good reasons for doing so.

Mike

Tacbandit
September 22, 2008, 06:52 PM
Sorry you endured all of that...What an embarrassing hassle...By the way, they don't post anything at the door, do they...???I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm asking an old question...I've never seen anything here in the deep south, at any of the WalMarts...just curious...:confused:

FmrMarine
September 22, 2008, 06:57 PM
I don't think we're debating whether or not carrying that much gear is normal or not. It's cleary not normal to carry three pistols and more than 100 rounds of ammo when running to Wal-Mart. I think the issue is while it was perfectly legal to do so, it compromised his ability to appropriately conceal his weapons. The failure to properly conceal caused the situation to escalate to the level it did. One could argue that in a twist of irony, carrying this much gear actually put the OP at greater risk than carrying a single weapon and a spare mag. It is not inconceivable that this could have gone much worse that it did. As indicated, there was a potential ND on the part of the officer.

RPCVYemen
September 22, 2008, 07:05 PM
As a cop and member of the jackbooted oppressor class, I personally like to go home at the end of my shift.

As I read it, most courts agree pretty strongly with the second part of that.

Me too - if we did not permit LEOs to take reasonable precautions for their own safety, what kind of person would take the job? Probably not people who I would want enforcing laws.

A sense of self-preservation is a sign of mental health. If you require police officers to have no sense of self-preservation then who's left?

If a search/detention is later found to have been unreasonable, the evidence can be thrown out of court. But the court is pretty fond of the desire of police officers to survive their duty shifts. I think it's a pretty good to have police officers who want to go home at the end of the shift.

Mike

jonmerritt
September 22, 2008, 07:14 PM
Not normal to be that well armed, me thinks they were envious.

Surat
September 22, 2008, 07:19 PM
The officer was right, though. It is NOT normal. Even here, it isn't normal. Are we really debating if carrying this much hardware is "normal?"

side note: "not normal" equals suspicious to our porcine LEO minds.

Even I don't carry that heavy and I've actually been personally threataned by various degenerates.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you nessicarily should. That includes packing an armory. Personally if three magazines of .45 ACP didn't solve my problem I'd just call for a do-over because the bad guy is more of a man then I. . .

Do you live in Beirut? Is the threat level really that high? Even our SERT team only carries a primary long gun and a side arm. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, just wondering what the train of logic is.

Not normal to be that well armed, me thinks they were envious.

I wish I could afford a FN 5.7, so, perhaps yes.

Dravur
September 22, 2008, 07:44 PM
Hey, which Wal-mart was this?

Also. When do you want to go back to Pawnee and waste some ammo?

Treo
September 22, 2008, 07:51 PM
If it's not clear open carry is legal in ColoradoW/ no limit on how many ( or even if they're hand guns FTM). PTK would have been W/in his rights to walk in to that store W/ the weapons openly displayed.

Let me say it again,
PTK wasn't breaking any Colorado law, wasn't behaving in the slightest threatening manner, even if the store was posted the signs would carry no weight under Colorado law.

Surely 12 of Lakewoods finest ( yeah right) could handle one disabled man and a teenage girl. W/ out such an overwhelming show of force.

I get concerned when I see the police deliberately over react to a legal activity. I don't see it as trying to make it through your shift alive I see it as abuse of power W/ the intent to intimidate the citizenry out of exercising their rights.

PTK, here you better use my phone, and call Frank Azar ( inside Colorado joke)

Artiz
September 22, 2008, 07:51 PM
Hey, which Wal-mart was this?
This happened in Lakewood CO, Colfax and Wadsworth WalMart.


I read every posts when the story is interresting, ;).

neviander
September 22, 2008, 08:02 PM
I gotta say, I personally wouldn't carry that much, but I don't see anything necessarily wrong with it either. Doesn't surprise me that Wally World management freaked when they saw all that, but those people especially react to their emotion, not compliance under the law.

JesseL
September 22, 2008, 08:13 PM
And how, pray tell, should a cop investigating a man with a gun call proceed?

911 Operator: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: There's a man with a gun!

911 operator: Is he doing anything threatening?

Caller: The gun is in a holster on his belt and he's in the check out line at Wal-Mart.

911 operator: Sir, carrying a holstered handgun is legal behavior. Unless the man is doing something overtly threatening, there is nothing we can do.


Unless they have reason to believe that a crime is being committed (and carrying a gun or three is not by its self a reason to suspect a crime is being committed) police should leave people alone. In some places it even works that way.

PTK
September 22, 2008, 08:32 PM
Surat, thank you very much for your rare (on THR at least) perspective of how the police mind works. It's making much more sense why the officers responded the way they did after reading your explanations.

When do you want to go back to Pawnee and waste some ammo?

When my back is closer to normal pain.

I get concerned when I see the police deliberately over react to a legal activity. I don't see it as trying to make it through your shift alive I see it as abuse of power W/ the intent to intimidate the citizenry out of exercising their rights.

Agreed. Two of the twelve officers agreed with me on that, too. One called it outright "horse s---". The other asked where I bought the FN 5.7 (Jensen's in Loveland)

For what it's worth, I just got back from another store (King Sooper, a grocer) OCing my standard amount. No issues. :)

Treo
September 22, 2008, 09:03 PM
I want to know what happened when you called Wal Mart?

BruceRDucer
September 22, 2008, 09:07 PM
PTK!!!

Hey man.....what can I say?

To heck with the Wal-Mart anyway. Just because we shop there does not mean that they don't suck.

More to the specific point though; I do not personally think that two firearms is too much. If someone wants to carry five, that's his business. Two is adequately defended, and it is really smart too, really smart. That's the kind of brains that will keep you alive, and that is the only thing that counts.

At least the police were at least somewhat sympathetic toward you, and that counts for something. Many police officers are good guys. :):uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::what::what:;);););)

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 22, 2008, 09:13 PM
Wait a sec - if OC is legal there, then what does it matter if your CCW is exposed? :scrutiny:

TexasRifleman
September 22, 2008, 09:27 PM
Also, I'm not allowed in WalMart, company-wide, now. Not that I'm planning to ever go back anyway!

Not that anyone is still reading this 4 pages in but it's been repeatedly shown that Wal Mart corporate has no policy in place banning customers carrying in states where it is legal.

But of course the truth is boring so everyone wants to jack these stories up into something huge, which they are not. At least from Wal Mart's perspective.

If the manager here "banned you from all stores for eternity" he certainly does not have the authorization to do that, and he's just running his mouth.

I want to know what happened when you called Wal Mart?

They will say they have no corporate policy and only go by the laws of the state in which the store is located.

This has been done and re-done, but the truth is boring so it keeps coming back up.


Sounds like the real problem here is local LE, not Wal Mart.

PTK
September 22, 2008, 10:14 PM
Sounds like the real problem here is local LE

Winner. The local WM manager has no authority to tell me I can't go to any WM stores. I have not yet called corporate, as I wish to contact a lawyer about this entire situation first. :)

Duke Junior
September 22, 2008, 11:05 PM
I want to know what happened when you called Wal Mart?

Winner. The local WM manager has no authority to tell me I can't go to any WM stores. I have not yet called corporate, as I wish to contact a lawyer about this entire situation first

I think Treo is correct.Why not call corporate HQ and get their opinion?
If negative,which I doubt, then call the lawyer in any case ,if you wish to proceed against them.
Use the KIS formula.It's a winner.

Wes Janson
September 22, 2008, 11:05 PM
Winner. The local WM manager has no authority to tell me I can't go to any WM stores. I have not yet called corporate, as I wish to contact a lawyer about this entire situation first.

Just talking out of my a** here, but it's my impression that if Wal-Mart tresspasses you, it would be highly unwise to violate that commandment, particularly while carrying weapons.


I'm not sure that I disagree with the whole carrying-three-weapons thing, so much as the choice thereof... I don't think you could pay me to carry a Five-seveN, and the NAA does seem somewhat irrelevant with two fullsize pistols as primaries (why not a P32 instead?).

gregj
September 22, 2008, 11:11 PM
I recently took my CCW class here in VA, and the one thing the instructor ( a sheriff from a local county's office) harped on was keeping your CCW concealed. He has had to bust several CCW holders become someone saw their weapon, felt threatened and called it it. In this situation, they have to respond, and in Va will secure you and your weapon until they know what is going on, then issue you a misdemeanor citation. All some idiot has to do is see your CC and feel threatened, and it's considered brandishing, and you get hammered for wearing a shirt that didnt quite do it's job. Sucks, but that's the way it works here. Sounds like it may be very similar in Co. Glad it all worked out for you.

General Geoff
September 22, 2008, 11:22 PM
Um, gregj, open carry is completely legal in VA. Any such "brandishing" citation would be thrown out in court if all you did was accidentally expose your piece.

SomeKid
September 22, 2008, 11:25 PM
And I would wager the VCDL would love to hear about that too greg.

Larry Ashcraft
September 22, 2008, 11:31 PM
All some idiot has to do is see your CC and feel threatened, and it's considered brandishing, and you get hammered for wearing a shirt that didnt quite do it's job.
That's not the way it works here. PTK broke no laws, he was detained for "scaring the sheep", which doesn't surprise me for the area he was in.

And, I have met PTK while he was wearing the same armament. I would have never known had he not mentioned it (we were in 'like' company).

My comment on all this "you were wearing too many guns" commentary is; it sounds like the people who tell me; "We don't need assault weapons".

This site is about freedom, seems like a lot of us forget that from time to time. :mad:

gp911
September 22, 2008, 11:47 PM
Hippie, you got what was coming to ya!

Errr, I mean, you're scary and scary people go to jail?

Okay, so I'm just glad it wasn't me. I'm disappointed you didn't at least add the SP101 in an ankle holster in case the yakuza didn't search you thoroughly enough after taking over the store!

gp911

MJRW
September 23, 2008, 12:09 AM
This site is about freedom, seems like a lot of us forget that from time to time.

It is also about discussion. And if people want to say, "seems like your hardware exceeds your use," then that is also reasonable. "Freedom" has never meant "do what you want and I have no commentary on it." Why do people so often mistake discussion and disagreement as limiting freedom?

Stevie-Ray
September 23, 2008, 12:13 AM
I think the most I ever carried at once, successfully, was 15 handguns.
Concealed.
(of course, I was wearing a trenchcoat...) Aah, I knew it! You're Il Duce!:D

Treo
September 23, 2008, 12:17 AM
( I'll bet those words have caused more trouble than any other 4 words in the English language)

But here goes,

What would happen if every body that lives is Colorado & Southern Wyoming ( THR members) showed up at that Wal-Mart, at the same time and walked in legally and peacefully and bought something. While legally carrying firearms ? I think it would have to be O.C. or nobody would get it.

Kind of Blued
September 23, 2008, 12:22 AM
My comment on all this "you were wearing too many guns" commentary is; it sounds like the people who tell me; "We don't need assault weapons".

This site is about freedom, seems like a lot of us forget that from time to time.

My sentiments exactly, and the exact reason I love this forum. I'd go further and say that this country is about freedom. I'm quite disappointed by the insinuations of some of my fellow forumites that PTK was asking for trouble by exercising his rights.

KC0QGL
September 23, 2008, 12:23 AM
Treo, I think it would be fun. If we could ever stop BSing in the parking lot that is.

larry_minn
September 23, 2008, 12:46 AM
First sorry this happened to you. A comment you (could) have used "why 3 guns" is that your wife can only legally carry a knife. You carry a extra so if SHTF she can grab it. :) :)
Thankfully I don't live in a place/interact with folks that I feel the need to carry 3 guns (and spare mags) to go to store.
When I have felt threatened I grab the AR with pistol in their proper roles. (backup)

Flyboy
September 23, 2008, 01:26 AM
Male officer: "You know, it's just not normal for people to carry this much, right?"

Me: "It should be."

Male officer: "...this isn't a political debate. You CAN legally carry these, but it's not normal."

So...are cops "Law Enforcement Officers," or "Normality Enforcement Officers?"

Sue the jerks. The won't stop trampling the rights of private citizens (who are "civilians" exactly the same as they are) until somebody makes them stop.

Damn, I hate bullies.

PTK
September 23, 2008, 05:03 AM
I have met PTK while he was wearing the same armament. I would have never known had he not mentioned it (we were in 'like' company).

THANK YOU, LARRY! Too many people assume that two fullsize guns will stick out. They simply DO NOT understand how easy it is with a proper cover shirt. Under a regular t-shirt, I concealed an XD45, HK USP 45, Glock 17, and FN USG 5.7. Without anyone noticing.

Hippie, you got what was coming to ya!

Jerk. :)

Errr, I mean, you're scary and scary people go to jail?

JERK! :D

Okay, so I'm just glad it wasn't me. I'm disappointed you didn't at least add the SP101 in an ankle holster in case the yakuza didn't search you thoroughly enough after taking over the store!

You're a huge jerk, man. In a good way. :D

Why do people so often mistake discussion and disagreement as limiting freedom?

I make no mistake and fully welcome your dissenting opinion, friend. :)

Aah, I knew it! You're Il Duce!

What if it was one guy, with six guns? ;)

What would happen if every body that lives is Colorado & Southern Wyoming ( THR members) showed up at that Wal-Mart, at the same time and walked in legally and peacefully and bought something. While legally carrying firearms ? I think it would have to be O.C. or nobody would get it.

Let's see about what the lawyer says, what WM corporate says, etc. I'm in if it goes through, obviously. I'm not exactly rich or in great health, so I have rather little to lose at this point.

I'm quite disappointed by the insinuations of some of my fellow forumites that PTK was asking for trouble by exercising his rights.

Thank you, good sir!

First sorry this happened to you. A comment you (could) have used "why 3 guns" is that your wife can only legally carry a knife. You carry a extra so if SHTF she can grab it.

We've trained for just that, but she's not my wife... (yet. ;))

Sue the jerks. The won't stop trampling the rights of private citizens (who are "civilians" exactly the same as they are) until somebody makes them stop.

Damn, I hate bullies.

I'll see what the lawyer says, but... if I can remind them that this isn't ok to do to a citizen, I will.

Armueller2001
September 23, 2008, 05:08 AM
Isn't OC legal in CO too?

PTK
September 23, 2008, 05:09 AM
Isn't OC legal in CO too?

Yes, I'll be OCing until further notice. :)

Kind of Blued
September 23, 2008, 05:43 AM
I'm game for the open-carry party if it happens. It's a date. I need to buy something big and stainless... :uhoh:

Look at us. Using the internet as a platform to conspire to exercise our rights...

What Would Happen If...
( I'll bet those words have caused more trouble than any other 4 words in the English language)

I'm actually quite certain that those four words hold second place to "Dude, hold my beer..." :D

Aran
September 23, 2008, 06:44 AM
Hogwash, a situation like this could never have occurred. The police don't just rush in, cuff you, and drag you back to the manager's office and make you sit there until they're done with you, berating you the whole way, then tell you off until they decide they're done, once they've escorted you back outside, while telling you they know you did nothing wrong.

Everyone should be calling foul and troll, not listening to this... this trash!




(Exact same thing happened to me. Including the last bit, on a different forum.)

BruceRDucer
September 23, 2008, 06:48 AM
/

The officer was right, though. It is NOT normal. Even here, it isn't normal. Are we really debating if carrying this much hardware is "normal?"---MJRW

That isn't a rational statement. "Normal" is not an established concept at law, and law, is all that the police are authorized to enforce.

"Normalcy" as a concept, is entirely distinct from the law, and citizens in Colorado (and other states) are not required by law, to conform to a NORM. If one refers to the NORM as the law itself, the argument for Normalcy is already subverted. Police cannot enforce "Normal". That's a police state proposition.

Given that PTK was licensed, and the license does not specify limitations regarding NORMAL & ABNORMAL, your understanding is not precise in this my friend.
:uhoh:

/

BruceRDucer
September 23, 2008, 06:54 AM
/:)

Innocent until proven guilty is for court. ---Surat

Surat, you look suspicious. Do you have your papers?


This site is about freedom, seems like a lot of us forget that from time to time.---Moderator Larry Ashcraft

Well stated Larry; and, wasn't Freedom one of the justifications for founding the nation also?

[Gee whiz Ma, it seems that people get so comfortable with repression, that they assume that unless the government or local authorities are repressing the citzens, the citizen's aren't getting what they pay taxes for, and isn't that silly?]

R.W.Dale
September 23, 2008, 07:33 AM
At what point does preparedness cross that fine line over to fear and paranoia?

Just throwin that out there

PTK
September 23, 2008, 07:34 AM
At what point does preparedness cross that fine line over to fear and paranoia?

I don't walk around afraid, and as for paranoia, I rather doubt anyone is out to get me.

That said, I still don't see a problem with carrying a handgun for either hand to access. :)

Aran
September 23, 2008, 08:39 AM
In honor of you, PTK, I just went to WalMart concealing both my Glock and my Witness, and made no effort to keep them concealed under my Hawaiian print overshirt.

It was also 6am and nobody was there but the early morning cleaning crew and 2 cashiers, maybe a manager in back... but I did it for you! ;)

MJRW
September 23, 2008, 12:11 PM
That isn't a rational statement. "Normal" is not an established concept at law, and law, is all that the police are authorized to enforce.

"Normalcy" as a concept, is entirely distinct from the law, and citizens in Colorado (and other states) are not required by law, to conform to a NORM. If one refers to the NORM as the law itself, the argument for Normalcy is already subverted. Police cannot enforce "Normal". That's a police state proposition.


He wasn't giving a legal opinion. He was a dude wearing a badge that made a statement. Let's not make it something bigger than it is. He wasn't requiring PTK to do anything. And despite all your talk about whether not it is a legal concept, it still doesn't make it normal. I know many people that carry. We are not truly normal. Among those of us that are carrying, fewer of us carry BUGs. We are not normal. Those carrying BUGs rarely carry a full sized BUG. They are not normal. Those carrying full sized BUGs rarely carry a second BUG. They are not normal. How was carrying that much "normal"?

And here is something I hate doing, I hate defending that which I didn't say, but I'm going to do it anyway. I never said he shouldn't carry that much, that he shouldn't be allowed to carry that much, nor did I say he brought it upon himself. I ONLY said it isn't normal. I hate doing that. People read poorly enough what was written that they shouldn't take the liberty of reading what wasn't written.

bubbaturbo
September 23, 2008, 12:31 PM
PTK said:

XD45, two extra mags, FN USG 5.7, two extra mags, NAA .22wmr revolver (and a knife and such). Same that I carry every day.


As for my SO's answer, she's only 18 but very badly wants a CCW here in CO

My SO and I have trained so that if the SHTF, I grab the gun of my choice and she gets the other if she's close enough to get it before I'm moving for cover/concealment.


I think the most I ever carried at once, successfully, was 15 handguns

I never really bother concealing very well here in CO

I carry extra mags because of clearance drills, and two fullsize guns because I want one strong side, one weak side. No matter what hand I can get at one with, I have a full-fledged gun.


You try saying no to puppy-dog eyes from a cute 18 year old woman

Too many people assume that two fullsize guns will stick out. They simply DO NOT understand how easy it is with a proper cover shirt


Am I the only one who has an entirely different take on this thread? If nobody knows what I mean, then I guess I am.

PTK
September 23, 2008, 12:47 PM
Am I the only one who has an entirely different take on this thread? If nobody knows what I mean, then I guess I am.

Insinuations of my being paranoid/foolish/et cetera are not appreciated. It's not the thought that others find me foolish that is vexing, it's the disrespect shown to only beat around the bush. If you have something to say, by all means come out and say it - I won't be offended. I welcome all opinions, especially those that I don't agree with. I've had my eyes opened before. :)

Guntalk
September 23, 2008, 01:04 PM
Interesting thread - a number of viewpoints.

The trainers we work with on Personal Defense TV all carry more than one gun. All of them.

Several of them carry three guns. Why? It's usually faster to go to a different gun than fix a malfunction on the one you are using. Plus, you may be on the ground, having been knocked down, and unable to get to the gun under you.

As for "What should the officers have done?" . . . simple. Tell the man that there was a complaint that he was carrying a gun, and ask if he has a permit. Done deal. With 12 officers, I don't think there was much danger to the cops.

From this chair, the response was way out of proportion.

On carrying a lot of guns, on PDTV this fall, we have a segment where Massad Ayoob decided to see how many he could conceal. We had to gather up guns from everywhere. The part that really tore him up? After he had loaded up pockets and holsters, and then we taped it as he removed them, one after another, and he produced . . . well, more than 20 handguns . . . we turned off the cameras, and the then found TWO more handguns on his person that he missed when pulling out all the guns!

I told him to be sure to not fall in a lake wearing all that hardware.

Carrying a backup gun isn't just okay. It's a darn good idea.

PTK
September 23, 2008, 01:15 PM
Mr. Gresham, thank you for your comments. It's nice to know that not everyone here on THR thinks I'm crazy for simply exercising my rights. :)

FmrMarine
September 23, 2008, 01:30 PM
PTK,
With respect, I don't think most people are calling you paranoid or foolish. I do, however, think that some people here, myself included, have tried to point out that the entire situation may have been avoided by either a) carrying gear more conducive to proper concealment, or b) taking greater care to concealing the large amount of gear you chose to carry. Your failure to do either of those contributed to what you experienced as well as putting you on the radar of local law enforcement. Additionally, I think those advocating a civil action over this are missing the big picture. RKBA issues are fought on both legal and public relations fronts. While you may have good standing legally, it would not be a good P.R. move to go to court where you most assuredly would be painted by defense counsel as a paranoid nut. Juries, and judges for that matter, do not always act on the basis of law. The system is not always fair. Every time an armed citizen prevents or stops a crime it generates positive press for CCW. That positive press would be un-done by someone who sues Wal-Mart because he was detained when Suzy Shopper saw his "concealed" handgun and upon further inspection law enforcement learned he was carrying 3 handguns and over 100 rounds of ammunition in addition to other "equipment." (When you carry a pocket knife along with 3 handguns it is no longer a pocket knife, it is a military-style knife in the eyes of our sensationalistic media.) I am fairly certain the media and legislators would be far more vocal about the guy in Wal-Mart legally carrying an aresnal than they would the armed citizen shooting a violent criminal.

PTK
September 23, 2008, 01:33 PM
FmrMarine

I understand your viewpoint, but I choose to stand up for my rights. I understand that many here think that's a very bad idea.

I'm rather ok with doing what I believe to be right even though others disagree. :)

(also, using "arsenal" in the improper sense is.... interesting to read from a THR member)

Trisha
September 23, 2008, 01:38 PM
Blondes have more fun! I believe you know my daily rig - and why - and here's hoping you get a grin at memory! Two middle-aged lesbians truly armed to the teeth? They'd have to clear a desk. . .

And I wasn't even wearing a favorite broomstick skirt. . .

Take care out there.

PTK
September 23, 2008, 01:41 PM
Trisha

Thanks for the smile. I hope you've been doing fairly well. :)

FmrMarine
September 23, 2008, 01:46 PM
I was using the word arsenal to articulate how the situation could be portrayed by defense counsel and the media.

I respect your decision to stand up for your rights and hope you don't think I intimated you were acting outside of those rights.

Regards,
Brian

PTK
September 23, 2008, 01:51 PM
Brian,

Not in the least did I understand your post as insinuation of my acting outside stated rights in both the BoR and CO law. You were simply telling me one possible outcome, one which I am very well aware of.

My first step is obtaining legal council and asking what they think. :)

john917v
September 23, 2008, 02:15 PM
PTK, seems to me as though they were catering towards the anti (assuming (s)he is one) Organizations often seem to think that most people are anti's, and structure themselves that way.

If he was 'wrong' in carrying three guns ('more than necessary'), you're wrong in getting a car with more than 4 cylinders, you could be using that extra power from a V8 to mow down many more people. Same general idea.

And, if it's a CCW, it's not a Concealed Carry In Everywhere except Wal-Mart license, it's a carry in every public place license!

Besides, what if he is invited to an impromptu plinking event, or he is in a shooting (alongside police), and they run out of shots/police weapon malfunctions (it could happen)

PTK
September 23, 2008, 02:19 PM
Here in CO, a CCW means I can OC or CC. :)

For some reason, the police forgot that.

Artiz
September 23, 2008, 02:23 PM
My SO and I have trained so that if the SHTF, I grab the gun of my choice and she gets the other if she's close enough to get it before I'm moving for cover/concealment.
XD45, two extra mags, FN USG 5.7, two extra mags, NAA .22wmr revolver (and a knife and such). Same that I carry every day.
I like that! :D
I'm happy to see that you exercise your rights as much as you can. :)

BruceRDucer
September 23, 2008, 02:53 PM
At what point does preparedness cross that fine line over to fear and paranoia?

Just throwin that out there.---Krochus


Fear & Paranoia exist on no objective line. They are psychological terms, so in order to answer your question, we have to dissect and fracture a particular individual's PSYCHE.

Neither you, nor I, nor the police, nor store management, have medical or legal authority to do that.

It is however, the legal right of the individual to make such a decision according to their own (rather than societal) criteria.

/:uhoh:

MarshallDodge
September 23, 2008, 03:03 PM
Let's see here:

PTK is a good guy.

PTK likes guns, as do most of the people on THR.

PTK excersizes the right to carry guns and lots of them.

PTK is a good guy.

How do I know?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Hmm....it doesn't say anything about how many guns you can carry, or how you dress, or what kind of shirt you have to wear. Yep, PTK was doing the right thing. :)

WalMart and the local PD need to be schooled on what our rights are. Don't be a coward, get out there and push back. :cool:

BruceRDucer
September 23, 2008, 03:06 PM
Re:

This site is about freedom, seems like a lot of us forget that from time to time.----Larry Ashcroft, Moderator





It is also about discussion. And if people want to say, "seems like your hardware exceeds your use," then that is also reasonable. "Freedom" has never meant "do what you want and I have no commentary on it." Why do people so often mistake discussion and disagreement as limiting freedom?---MJRW

Respectfully MJRW, your comment is only partly accurate.

That the site is about discussion, is obvious.

However, you make a secondary conclusion that does not follow from its premise. When you wrote:

if people want to say, "seems like your hardware exceeds your use," then that is also reasonable.----MJRW

But not without actual "reasons" objectively given it is not reasonable. Without objective reasons, it just becomes mere "opinion" which doesn't count much for objective knowledge.

Otherwise, we could identify objective criteria which dictates specific limitation on the number of guns carried.

The site, in that regard is about freedom, and we should carefully distinguish between reasons given for justification, versus mere opinion simply thrown out.

/:uhoh::uhoh::uhoh:

RPCVYemen
September 23, 2008, 03:10 PM
Sue the jerks. The won't stop trampling the rights of private citizens (who are "civilians" exactly the same as they are) until somebody makes them stop.

I am not sure that I see any RKBA issues here. The police officers did not arrest the OP, or confiscate his weapons.

What actually happened? Stripped of histrionics:


Officers received a report of a man with a gun.
The stopped the OP - who was far too manly to tell them he had a CCW license until late in the process - handcuffed him, and took temporary control of his weapons.
One officer remarked that carrying that many weapons to Wal*Mart was abnormal.
When the CCW was found to be legit, the OPs weapons were returned to him, and he went on his merry way.


I don't see any rights violations here at all. If the officers had beat him or taken his weapons, I could see that. If they had arrested him on a bogus charge, then he might have had a case.

The officer's remark was a absolutely true, and there's no sense from the story that it was anything more than a true remark.

Mike

scottgun
September 23, 2008, 03:19 PM
I agree with RPCVYemen.


PTK - keep us posted on your legal action, it will be interesting to hear what an attorney has to say about this situation.

PTK
September 23, 2008, 03:24 PM
Stripped of histrionics

You mean, like the following tidbit from you? :rolleyes:


who was far too manly to tell them he had a CCW license until late in the process

Try getting surrounded by police (twelve. police. officers.) and doing/saying ANYTHING until they order so. It's difficult.

In any case, I'd say it was well under a minute after contact that I informed them of having a CCW for CO.

RPCVYemen
September 23, 2008, 03:52 PM
They never asked for a permit - they simply cuffed me and disarmed me. Not until AFTER my guns were off did I state that I had a permit ...

Also, I don't volunteer information to LEOs, no offense.

In any case, I'd say it was well under a minute after contact that I informed them of having a CCW for CO.

So you decided not to tell them initially that you had a CCW license - and now you're complaining because they assumed that you didn't have the CCW license you wouldn't tell them you had.

And they did something wrong in all this?

Seems like you can take one of two courses of action in this situation:


Declare that you have a CCW, and reasonably expect that the officers expect that you have a CCW.
Not declare that you have a CCW, and reasonably expect that the officers not expect that you have a CCW.


But what you want is:


Not declare that you have a CCW, and reasonably ecpect the police officers to expect hyou have the a CCW.


You can either get the tough guy street cred of "Also, I don't volunteer information to LEOs, ..." or you can make as easy as possible for officer to do their work.

Mike

PTK
September 23, 2008, 03:55 PM
So you decided not to tell them initially that you had a CCW license - and now you're complaining because they assumed that you didn't have the CCW license you wouldn't tell them you had.

And they did something wrong in all this?

Seems like you can take one of two courses of action in this situation:

1. Declare that you have a CCW, and reasonably expect that the officers expect that you have a CCW.
2. Not declare that you have a CCW, and reasonably expect that the officers not expect that you have a CCW.


But what you want is:

1. Not declare that you have a CCW, and reasonably ecpect the police officers to expect hyou have the a CCW.


You can either get the tough guy street cred of "Also, I don't volunteer information to LEOs, ..." or you can make as easy as possible for officer to do their work.

Mike

Mike,

I'm glad you're perfect. Perhaps you could teach me.

bubbaturbo
September 23, 2008, 04:09 PM
PTK said:

[QUOTE]Insinuations of my being paranoid/foolish/et cetera are not appreciated. It's not the thought that others find me foolish that is vexing, it's the disrespect shown to only beat around the bush. If you have something to say, by all means come out and say it - I won't be offended. I welcome all opinions, especially those that I don't agree with. I've had my eyes opened before.QUOTE]


I don't know that I made any reference to you being paranoid or foolish. I only quoted you. How you take your own quotes is your issue, not mine.

If it is "the thought that others find me foolish that is vexing", you always run the risk that any thread you start will be met with disagreement and discussion which I thought was the point of posting.

But OK. Fair enough. I will admit that the posts I have quoted stuck in my head as I was reading and made me wonder whether you are really concerned about your gun rights or just angry that the type of attention you received at Wal-Mart was not the type of attention you wanted. (Remember, you said you wouldn't be offended.)

Wes Janson
September 23, 2008, 04:11 PM
Someone, and I wish I remembered who, said in another thread something about a given weapon being useful up to a certain percent of the time. A Kel-Tec P32 might be "enough gun" in 70% of situations, while a Sig 226 with three mags would suffice for 95% of possible scenarios, etc. The downside is that as you approach 100% (which I can only speculate involves a Bolo Mark XXXIV), the costs (financial, comfort, manuverability, concealability) increase significantly.

Which means that it's up to each one of us to decide what level of protection we're willing to accept based upon perceived potential threats. Most of us don't feel the need to layer our level IV plates to protect against multiple hits from .338 LM. I frequently carry a 5-shot .357, without a backup firearm or reloads, because I feel it meets my perceived needs. The day may come where I'm confronted with more than five attackers, but thus far it's not been a problem...and I'm not going to worry about it when there's so many better things to waste my worry on.

On the other hand, were I a beat cop in the hood, I wouldn't feel comfortable with any fewer than two handguns and a rifle. On a street corner in Iraq, I'd strongly prefer a Ma Deuce. The environment should ultimately be the primary factor.

NG VI
September 23, 2008, 04:43 PM
When you notify WW that you aren't going back and why, make sure you tell them that this one WW store, security officer, told you not to enter any other WW in the world.

They will love that.

Pops

Wally world has a corporate policy that whatever is legal firearms related is legal in the store.


WHAT! You were carrying 3 guns lord knows how much ammo and you wonder why everyone flipped out.

I'm a hardcore gun nut and my first reaction to someone carrying that much heat with them would be that you were planing to go postal as well.

You need to learn to prioritize a bit better


He was carrying 105 rounds. Or 125 if his spare 5.7 mags were 30 rounders.

Artiz
September 23, 2008, 05:03 PM
He was carrying 105 rounds. Or 125 if his spare 5.7 mags were 30 rounders.

Where is the problem? lol, I don't see any problem in someone carrying 3 guns and spare mags, he is prepared, maybe in a serious situation he would be the only one getting out of this on foot, and I respect that.
He is carrying enough so the person with him could defend herself with enough firepower too, so they would be 2 to get out on foot, and I truly respect that.

springmom
September 23, 2008, 05:09 PM
I'm just amazed he can keep his pants up with all that hardware on :neener::neener::neener:

Seriously, good for you, PTK. Two guns is one gun, one gun is no gun, is not just idle thought. Everybody on this board who owns ANY guns is considered "abnormal" by an awful lot of folks, and I doubt it keeps anyone up at night.

Keep us posted as to what the corporate office says, and what your attorney suggests.

Springmom

D-Day
September 23, 2008, 05:10 PM
I've carried two 1911's before. Usually behind me, pistol grips reversed; and usually when on foot in big cities. One of them is a 6" long slide. No special belt or suspenders.

On Saturday I had them placed more traditionally, one on each side of my hip, for an open carry walk with others.

I usually reserve the New York reload for when I'm on foot in big cities a lot. Otherwise, one is more comfortable.

NG VI
September 23, 2008, 05:14 PM
Where is the problem? lol, I don't see any problem in someone carrying 3 guns and spare mags, he is prepared, maybe in a serious situation he would be the only one getting out of this on foot, and I respect that.
He is carrying enough so the person with him could defend herself with enough firepower too, so they would be 2 to get out on foot, and I truly respect that.


I totally agree, the fact that his SO can't carry yet, but almost certainly goes to the range with him, means he could very well be carrying the XD for himself and the Five-seveN for her, with the NAA in case they run over a raccoon or something.

Surat
September 23, 2008, 05:42 PM
PTK, I'm not arguing with you, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. I'm not even casing around veiled accusations about your mental status as other have. I did ask why on earth you carried so heavy on a trip to wally world, which you answered and that answer seems to makes sense. I don't personally agree with that logic, but it's your life to live and your chiropractor bills for your back.

Surat, thank you very much for your rare (on THR at least) perspective of how the police mind works. It's making much more sense why the officers responded the way they did after reading your explanations.

NP. I'm trying. What a lot of people don't understand is that the entire world starts to look like perps when you are on the job. Separating the sheep from the goats is why we talk to people, ask hard questions, and check them NCIC etc etc. If people don't understand what I mean, then go for a ride along a couple times with your local agency Better yet, come to mine and ride with me. We have per capita rates that are nearly identical to New York City's.

I am arguing with the “the man is out to get us and cast us all into slave chains” faction along with the "cops are all bad, they just want my guns” faction. Attitudes of LEO's vary from place to place and laws differ from state to state. What a LEO says is not case law or statute. It's just his opinion. He is not a judge sitting on the bench. he is as someone else said, a guy with a badge who opened his mouth. If the officer in question made a bogus charge or false arrest this would be different. There was no rights violation on the OP. Period dot. It was an unfortunate circumstance brought on by a somewhat dimwit citizen who called in and, to my eyes, the lack of forthright communication on the part of the OP. Sorry PTK, if I was you "I'm packing and I've got a permit" would have been the first words out of my mouth. Too many cops have been shot by other cops on mistaken ID.

As for the statement of:
Unless they have reason to believe that a crime is being committed (and carrying a gun or three is not by its self a reason to suspect a crime is being committed) police should leave people alone. In some places it even works that way.

Great, I can see you have no clue how law enforcement operations work. Every single call is answered. BS or not. Telecommunicators cannot “10-22” (“disregard” around here) a call. They are in a building (sometimes a hundred) miles away. I answered a call the day before yesterday from a (personally) known paranoid schizophrenic who claimed people were breaking into her house. How can we be sure that there weren't people actually breaking in this time? Every 911 hang up, even when the TC can tell it's a fax machine. Every barking dog call. Woof Woof. It's not the job of the TC to investigate the call but the job of the officer. Maybe it works different in where you live but not at our department. All Suzie Scanner on asile 2 sees is “a man with a gun”. She doesn't know that robbers don't generally carry high dollar ordinance with nice holsters. She just sees a gun on a guy at Wal-mart at 2am.

Someone stated to the effect “All the officers had to do was ask for PTK to produce a permit and leave.”

OK, I tell you what, you volunteer to be the cop to ask that. Is he gonna pull out a permit or a .S&W .500 and blow your head off? How do you know this is a honest god fearing upright member of the community? Because he “looks ok”? Pray tell, answer that. If he pulls out a gun but I beat him on the draw, now I have to shoot him and I really don't wanna go through that.

How do I know that the permit he produces is still valid? Now I have the guy, who I know is armed but maybe his permit is revoked. . . now I have to effect and arrest of an armed subject.

Another aside. To most cops, except maybe newb rookies, criminals lie or evade, while honest people tell the truth. Simple fact. When you refuse to speak with an officer in a open forthright manner on the grounds that "his investigating is violating you god given rights", then you are acting like a suspect. If you get treated like a suspect, don't be surprised.

As for the inevitable wise elbow that crackd off "where are your papers" etc.,I hope that was a joke because you so don't wanna go there. Gotten so much as a cell phone contract without a social security number? Let me know how well you can write a check without your government issued ID (driver's licence). Ever had your print's taken for a job application or the like? Don't even get me started on AFIS. Been in the military and had your DNA collected (mouth swab)? Use a debit card? Gotten a passport?

JesseL
September 23, 2008, 05:51 PM
Great, I can see you have no clue how law enforcement operations work. Every single call is answered. BS or not.

Okay, but I feel terrible for the taxpayers that are footing the bill for having an officer respond to a call where somebody says "I just took a huge dump. You gotta get an officer over to see this thing" or "I just saw a little girl eating a tootsie roll, that's gotta be bad for her teeth".

RPCVYemen
September 23, 2008, 06:05 PM
I'm glad you're perfect. Perhaps you could teach me.

Honestly, I think that's a little out of line.

It seems to me that as I understand the situation, you were entirely within your rights to carry the weapons you carried. And I don't read anything in your story that suggests that the police violated you rights.

The point of my post is that actions have consequences - the older I have gotten, the more I have learned to accept the consequences of my actions. As the old blues line goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

When I was quite a bit younger, I used to do a lot of hitchhiking. That meant a lot of encounters with police officers late at night on lonely roads, etc. Even though I looked and acted like most of my hippie friends - as I was one of them, I never had any hassles. Even as an always stoned hippie, I realized four things:


Constitutional issues are resolved in courts, not on the street. Maybe sometimes I was stopped/frisked when I shouldn't have been. But I wasn't going to win that one on the street.
Being a police officer can be a very dangerous line of work. When they stopped me, they didn't know - at first - if I was some wandering stoned hippie or an escaped con who looked like a wandering stoned hippie.
I really, really, wanted them to find the aforementioned escaped con before I stumbled on him under a bridge abutment at 3:00 AM. So it was in my interest that they do their jobs.
I really just wanted to be on my way. I was hitchhiking because I wanted to be somewhere else.


So I answered questions - volunteered information - and went on down the road.

I respected people who sought a confrontation, got a confrontation, and finally got most of the vagrancy laws overturned as unconstitutional.

I respected folks who avoided a confrontation.

In fact, at one officer's suggestion after a stop in NJ, when an officer first approached me, I kept my hands in the clear where the office could see them - instead of immediately reaching for ID when they walked up. Then, when they asked for ID, I would tell them which pocket the ID was and which hand I was going to retrieve it with. To a man, when I did that, they smiled, and the situation grew a lot more relaxed. And I got on down the road faster. :)

I couldn't understand people who sought confrontation and then complained when they got one. I had friend who wanted to confront "the pigs" at every opportunity. Then they were surprised when the got "hassled by the man". Even to my drug addled brain 35 years ago, that didn't make any sense. I actually never encountered anything but courteous professional behaviour - some friendlier than others.

I am not suggesting that you do what I did. But if you enter into the interaction with a macho, "I don't volunteer information to cops!" attitude, you should expect that they will respond appropriately. My guess is that if you had announced you had a CCW earlier, things might have been more relaxed. For reasons of self-preservation, they absolutely need to take control of your weapons in that situation - or face the potential of not making it home at the end of shift. :)

Mike

Surat
September 23, 2008, 06:11 PM
I took a call for a suspicious vehicles. I turned out to be a woman that was upset that the people picking up their kids from the nearby elementary school don't keep her driveway clear "What if I needed to leave in some kind of emergency?" she asks me. You have no idea the idiot calls we have to answer. :barf: It's not all like on COPS. They take an entire 12 hr shift and sift through all the "good calls" that get funneled to one car.

"I just took a huge dump. You gotta get an officer over to see this thing"
Mentally disturbed people are always good for craptastical calls

Even "BS" calls like a 911 hang up can be deadly. This was last week, two counties away.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425711,00.html

http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/caldwell_county_deputy_killed_suspect_sought/8766/

Can't let your guard down. You'll get killed.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
September 23, 2008, 06:23 PM
Hmmm, I wonder if he can carry three concealed, maybe I can manage to carry my ONE 500 Magnum concealed.

Problem is, I'll need to start wearing suspenders (or have my pants down around my knees).
LOL :eek:

cassandrasdaddy
September 23, 2008, 06:26 PM
I couldn't understand people who sought confrontation and then complained when they got one.


we call em drama queens/kings

PTK
September 23, 2008, 06:28 PM
Honestly, I think that's a little out of line.

Agreed. I got frustrated, and I fully apologize. I've bolded this so that more people will see it - I apologize to you. :)

I was taking your opinion and viewpoint as an attack, which it was not. I do appreciate your view.
Constitutional issues are resolved in courts, not on the street

Exactly the plan. ;)

I couldn't understand people who sought confrontation and then complained when they got one.

I sure as heck wasn't seeking confrontation, I was rather stunned to be detained by the police as I was. I was seeking to buy art supplies with my SO at a WalMart!


"I don't volunteer information to cops!" attitude, you should expect that they will respond appropriately.

ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they ordered/asked was complied with and answered. I simply didn't start running my mouth off - no need to. I think you may be misunderstanding what I said as more of a "screw the po-po", vs. it being a clam up and only answer what they want to know. At no time did it seem that they were frustrated (other than at my constant "Am I free to leave?") with my behavior/responses.

BruceRDucer
September 23, 2008, 06:56 PM
The officer's remark was a absolutely true, and there's no sense from the story that it was anything more than a true remark.---RPCVYemen


Respectfully, there is nothing more absurd than the proposition that a police officer made a remark that "was absolutely true".

In fact, police officers are under no warrant from the state, city, or municipality to utter sayings that are "true" or "truths" or even wisesayings.

It can hardly be established that what people write here is "true" or "untrue".

The issue here is not TRUTH. The issue is the LAW.

Was the man [member PTK] operating within the LAW?

Answer? Yes.

We see this a lot. Given any proposition, people go skyrocketing up into some kind of an upper atmospheric TRUTH, when all that is at issue is the law, and whether we comply with the law.

Since PTK complied with the law, the questions is, is the USA becoming some kind of fascist police state, wherein "loyal" citizens phone in or report their vague "suspicions" or fears, and the authorities rush in?

Think about what you are suggesting. :what:

/

/

RPCVYemen
September 23, 2008, 07:05 PM
ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they ordered/asked was complied with and answered. I simply didn't start running my mouth off - no need to.

It sounds like it went more or less as you intended it to. I had read your earlier posts to mean that you were unhappy with the actions of the police officers.

You apparently want to fight the issue in the courts - that's a reasonable decision on your point.

I tend to want to de-escalate situations - whether I "need to" or not. I would have let the officers know from the get-go that I had a CCW. Maybe would have avoided being cuffed that way, maybe not. But that's just a different path, no more right or wrong than the path you chose.

Mike

Friendly, Don't Fire!
September 23, 2008, 07:11 PM
I happen to live in a state where we don't need a license or anything to carry (the person only needs to be legal as far as not a convicted felon, child rapist, etc).

My question is, is there some type of protocol that is expected when one lives in a state where a license is mantatory and said person is confronted by LE?

Is it best to tell them right off that you have such and such a weapon on your person and where it is and that you also have a license to carry (as you call it CCW)?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

I know when I'm traveling with my piece, if I were to get pulled over, I would immediately let the officer know where he or she could expect to see my hand cannon.

RPCVYemen
September 23, 2008, 07:13 PM
Respectfully, there is nothing more absurd than the proposition that a police officer made a remark that "was absolutely true"...


Man I hope you're smoking some pot as you type, or you left yourself logged in at a public terminal, or something.

In fact, police officers are under no warrant from the state, city, or municipality to utter sayings that are "true" ...

Police officers are not permitted to make true statements? Huh? Is there some article of Constitution that skipped my notice.

Given any proposition, people go skyrocketing Given any proposition, people go skyrocketing up into some kind of an upper atmospheric TRUTH, when all that is at issue is the law, and whether we comply with the law."

OK. I'll play. Here's the proposition I want to test: "Given any proposition, people go skyrocketing up into some kind of an upper atmospheric TRUTH, when all that is at issue is the law, and whether we comply with the law."

Is it true?

Mike

Sweden
September 23, 2008, 07:23 PM
I guess I've never registered here, so hello. I absolutly have to chime in though...........................
Here in CO, a CCW means I can OC or CC.

For some reason, the police forgot that.

Are you sure? About every metro area municipality has an open carry prohibition on the books. These pre-date the May 2003 statewide preemption laws, and as such have been unchallenged. Remember the preemption law was directed towards CCW which is why Denver was home-ruled to disallow open carry. see City of Denver: DRMC 38-117(b).

City of Golden: 8.04.940 Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited

1. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, wear about their person or under their clothes, or concealed about their person, any firearm, handgun or mechanical gun.

2. The prohibition of wearing a handgun under one’s clothes or concealing a handgun upon oneself shall not apply to any person in possession of valid state concealed handgun permit and in compliance with federal, state or local laws and regulations.


City of Arvada: 62-17 (c) Openly carry. It shall be unlawful for any person to open or openly carry any firearm in or upon any public building or specific area within the city.

62-17 (f) Concealed permit. Possession of a valid concealed carry permit shall not constitute a defense to a charge of openly carrying a firearm where prohibited.

City of Westminster: 6-2-9(E) It shall be a criminal offense for anyone, other than a police officer, an armored car employee providing money transport from a city facility, a private security guard hired by the city, or an authorized city employee, to carry any weapon in view onto or in a city premises. Possession of a concealed handgun permit shall be of no defense if the handgun is carried in such a manner as to be visible, in whole or in part, or accessible for any length of time to another individual.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
September 23, 2008, 07:29 PM
So, from what Sweden cites, if you carry CONCEALED, then the gun must REMAIN CONCEALED AT ALL TIMES!:uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

FIFTYGUY
September 23, 2008, 07:47 PM
Surat wrote:

As for the first half, what is unreasonable about an officer handcuffing an unknown armed subject when investigating a "man with a gun call" before disarming and ascertaining their status?

By your own words, you've already determined that when you respond to a "man with a gun" call that the "man with a gun" is going to be a threat. You seem to have forgotten that many of us are on YOUR side.

To add suspicion, the subject is found with three firearms and accompanying ammo and until the weapons are removed off his person, fails to state he has a permit. To the posters who are screaming constitutional rights violations, think about this. . .

I'm thinking this is the guy I want on MY side in case of a problem, not a guy I want to annoy unnecessarily.

As a cop and member of the jackbooted oppressor class,

I really hate to say it, but "You got that right!" Please read my words carefully and take them to heart. Maybe you're not too burned-out to change.

I personally like to go home at the end of my shift.

If that's your expectation, you're in the wrong line of work. You sound too smart for running around in a cruiser investigating "barking dogs". Have you considered the Detective's Exam?

If I find a subject that I have been sent to find as a "man with a gun call" I'm NOT going to ask him or her to reach into their pockets to produce a permit or ID. The first thing I'm going to do is secure said hands to ensure that they don't pull out a gun and shoot me. The next thing I am going to do find said gun and secure it. The next thing I'm going to do is figure out what is going on.

Are you saying there's something wrong with *asking* somebody for their carry permit before you've cuffed them, secured them, and secured their weapons?

Do you make people get out of their cars, cuff and secure them, and boot their cars *before* you ask to see their license and registration? No? Why not? Isn't poor operation of a motor vehicle an issue of life and death public safety? What's the difference in threat level? Won't a bad car wreck kill you just as dead as a bullet? So what's your problem that you have to violate somebody's rights simply because they might possess a firearm?

It's that attitude of "us vs them" that you've unfortunately picked up.

As for the second half, I see far too many people in my department, slack with firearms safety.

I'm sorry to hear that. But just becasue your fellow cops are dangerous with guns, doesn't mean us civilians are, too.

Lastly, I feel like a dilettante. I carry a Kel-tec .380 in the summer with a spare mag and a S&W five screw with a Bianchi speed strip in the winter.

Back-ups, or off-duty?

Great, I can see you have no clue how law enforcement operations work. Every single call is answered. BS or not.

And this is a Good Thing.

Someone stated to the effect “All the officers had to do was ask for PTK to produce a permit and leave.”

Yup. Then your valuable time (and apparently that of 11 other officers!) could be better spent preventing *real* crimes.

OK, I tell you what, you volunteer to be the cop to ask that.

Not a chance! I thank you for your service, but I'm certainly not crazy enough to want to be a cop.

Is he gonna pull out a permit or a .S&W .500 and blow your head off? How do you know this is a honest god fearing upright member of the community? Because he “looks ok”? Pray tell, answer that. If he pulls out a gun but I beat him on the draw, now I have to shoot him and I really don't wanna go through that.

Why don't you just "shoot first and ask questions later"?
Hazards of your line of work. Just be glad your'e not in Iraq!
Again, don't violate my rights for your safety/comfort.

How do I know that the permit he produces is still valid?

Here in VA, they have expiration dates, and have to be carried with a valid photo ID. How do you know the photo ID is valid? Or not stolen? Gee, spotting fake IDs is part of policework, no? And if everything appears OK to the best of your abilities, you let him go about his business. It's that simple.

Now I have the guy, who I know is armed but maybe his permit is revoked. . . now I have to effect and arrest of an armed subject.

If his permit APPEARS revoked (and I dunno how you would tell without instant database access), then you still ought to consider that he may not *know* that it has been revoked. Could be a clerical error. He probably had a clean record up to the point of issuance (that "clerical error" works both ways!).

Another aside. To most cops, except maybe newb rookies, criminals lie or evade, while honest people tell the truth. Simple fact. When you refuse to speak with an officer in a open forthright manner on the grounds that "his investigating is violating you god given rights", then you are acting like a suspect. If you get treated like a suspect, don't be surprised.

"If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be suspects!" Spoken like a true cop.
The point is to do your job the *right* way, even if it sucks to have to do it that way.

As for the inevitable wise elbow that crackd off "where are your papers" etc.,I hope that was a joke because you so don't wanna go there.

Darn right we don't want to go there! "Never Again". The only way to keep from "going there" is to vehemently fight every step in that direction. But II'm guessing you'd welcome it, since it would make your job a little easier...

Gotten so much as a cell phone contract without a social security number?

Yup, and when asked I've told them that they had neither reason nor right to ask for it.

Let me know how well you can write a check without your government issued ID (driver's licence).

Some of us don't write checks, for this very reason. Cash and money orders for everything.

Ever had your print's taken for a job application or the like? Don't even get me started on AFIS.

As an owner and individual manufacturer of several NFA firearms, I've been thoroughly and repeatedly fingerprinted. I guess BATFE expects my fingerprints to be DIFFERENT on the next application, otherwise they're just wasting our tax dollars by asking for them over and over again.

Been in the military and had your DNA collected (mouth swab)?

Military service effectively erases any individual rights.

Use a debit card?

Yeah, all the time - over the phone, online, or to buy gasoline. Funny how I don't need a photo ID, govt-issued or not, to do so.

PTK
September 23, 2008, 08:36 PM
City of Golden: 8.04.940 Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited

1. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, wear about their person or under their clothes, or concealed about their person, any firearm, handgun or mechanical gun.

2. The prohibition of wearing a handgun under one’s clothes or concealing a handgun upon oneself shall not apply to any person in possession of valid state concealed handgun permit and in compliance with federal, state or local laws and regulations.

Odd how the police here all state point-blank that OC is legal. I OC fairly often here in Golden without a problem. :)

Friendly, Don't Fire!
September 23, 2008, 08:43 PM
Sometimes I wonder how many of the police actually know most or all of the laws in comparison to how many laws they DON'T know.

PTK
September 23, 2008, 08:46 PM
That too. THAT, or they're under orders to keep the law on the books and not get it challenged... ;)

BruceRDucer
September 23, 2008, 09:30 PM
Police officers are not permitted to make true statements? Huh? Is there some article of Constitution that skipped my notice.---RPCVYemen


Yes there is an article of the Constitution that skipped your notice. It is the article TRUTH is specified.

(It is a philosophical proposition, not a matter of law)

Is it true?---RPCVYemen


If that is a philosophical proposition, it could be TRUE. More precisely, it either is or isn't an objective FACT, rather than a TRUTH. (You see where you are taking this? It is well into metaphysics now, and can only with the greatest of efforts be identified with a proposition for LAW, which is the issue the original poster is contending with.

By reason itself, in order for your proposition that the issue is a TRUTH to be valid, you would have to demonstrate objectively that the Police were called, based upon a violation of TRUTH, owing to some philosophical proposition offered up by PTK. In fact, he offered no such philosophical proposition. The police were called because someone suspected a violation of LAW. (which was stupid anyway).



/

Blackbeard
September 23, 2008, 09:54 PM
You could try making this call until they get the picture:


911: 911, what is your emergency?

You: There's a man with a gun at the Dairy Queen.

911: Can you describe the suspect?

You: He's dressed all in black, has a black hat with something shiny on it. Also has handcuffs and a nightstick.

911: We'll send someone immediately.


Maybe the cop at the Dairy Queen will cuff himself for his own safety.

BruceRDucer
September 23, 2008, 10:05 PM
Blackbeard, now that's concise!

Or, how about this call:



CALLER: "Help! 911!"

OPERATOR: "How can I help you?"

CALLER: "I'm frightened!"

OPERATOR: "What are you frightened of Maam?"

CALLER: "There's a bunch of gangsters outside in the street and they're waving their guns around. Please help, Quick!"

OPERATOR: "Remain calm. I'm sending several squad cars and the gang response unit right away!"


45 minutes later, the police officer ends the response by explaining to the distraught lady;

OFFICER: "Um, Maam. It was just the neighborhood children playing Cops and Robbers with their toys. See the bright orange tips on the ends? Those are toys. Everything seems to be okay. Now you remember to take your medication, okay? That's fine."

[As they walk away, the officers consider the cost to the county or city, for such idiotic calls, from people who don't have a lick of sense.]



/

Larry Ashcraft
September 23, 2008, 11:00 PM
I'm thinking its something like the smoking ordinance that the police just don't want to be bothered with. I have cops as regular customers, they aren't going to arrest me and get a $300 fine slapped on me because they are "protecting the public" or some such nonsense.

Yes, my PPD friends have walked into my shop numerous times and seen me in the back, doing my thing, with a cigarette hanging out of my mouth. Hey, they might need a plaque in a hurry next week.

Most cops I know are reasonable folks, just like you and me, doing a job they don't especially enjoy, just trying to pay the bills and get by.

PTK
September 23, 2008, 11:17 PM
Most cops I know are reasonable folks, just like you and me, doing a job they don't especially enjoy, just trying to pay the bills and get by.

This bears remembering. :)

Larry Ashcraft
September 23, 2008, 11:37 PM
Something else I thought of; it cost the City of Denver plenty in legal fees to keep their ban on open carry. The suburbs don't want to fight that fight over again (they don't have the "home rule" claim Denver used).

The suburbs probably only have those ordinances on the books because they haven't been challenged yet.

Sweden
September 24, 2008, 12:13 AM
Odd how the police here all state point-blank that OC is legal. I OC fairly often here in Golden without a problem.

As a looooong time Golden resident, I can assure you this is the municipal code (http://www.ci.golden.co.us/CodePrint.asp?CodeID=454). I did preclude by stating it was probably outdated & unchallenged, but do you want to be the test? Knowldege is power. You have the knowledge, from here 'yu're gona do what yur gona do'. :cool:

poor_richard
September 24, 2008, 12:15 AM
There was no rights violation on the OP. Period dot. Sorry, but are you actually trying to convince us that “officer safety” is a crime? That’s what they claim to have detained him for, and it isn’t a crime. Since they MUST be able to articulate reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to detain him, using the bogus reason of "officer safety" is most certainly a violation of his rights.

…Another aside. To most cops, except maybe newb rookies, criminals lie or evade, while honest people tell the truth. Simple fact. When you refuse to speak with an officer in a open forthright manner on the grounds that "his investigating is violating you god given rights", then you are acting like a suspect. If you get treated like a suspect, don't be surprised.
… The officers in this case detained the OP for “officer safety”. That is most certainly NOT reasonable suspicion, because “officer safety“ is not a crime. “Period dot”. That is a violation of his rights. “period dot”. Lots of honest people don’t trust police officers, and would rather exercise their rights to refuses to speak. If the officer doesn’t like that, then he has the authority to detain or arrest depending on the situation. If he does not have RS, then that detention is illegal, and I’m sure you know this. Refusal to speak to the officer is not RS, a MWAG (where carrying a gun is lawful) call is not RS.

What crime would you articulate reasonable suspicion of for a cripple checking out at the local Wal-Mart with his daughter in tow, with a gun (or three) visible on his person? I’d be interested in hearing what crime the prosecutor would articulate has been committed after that arrest.

As for the inevitable wise elbow that crackd off "where are your papers" etc.,I hope that was a joke because you so don't wanna go there. Gotten so much as a cell phone contract without a social security number? Let me know how well you can write a check without your government issued ID (driver's licence). Ever had your print's taken for a job application or the like? Don't even get me started on AFIS. Been in the military and had your DNA collected (mouth swab)? Use a debit card? Gotten a passport?
None of that matters one iota if the locality does not require one to produce identification upon LEO contact. None of it should be okay, but it is what it is. Nor does any of it justify passing further intrusive laws requiring people to submit to such practice. Stuff like that is commonly associated with totalitarian regimes. Just because it’s increasing here doesn’t make it okay, it’s only a dire indication of where our country is.


It seems to me that as I understand the situation, you were entirely within your rights to carry the weapons you carried. And I don't read anything in your story that suggests that the police violated you rights. The police may not detain someone unless they can articulate reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be commited, has been committed, or was committed. That is a “right” that we have. Maybe you missed it but, the stated reason for the OP’s detainment was “officer safety”. That is not a crime. Furthermore, a MWAG call (where legal, as it is in CO) is also not reasonable suspicion to detain someone. …

The point of my post is that actions have consequences - the older I have gotten, the more I have learned to accept the consequences of my actions. As the old blues line goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
… The difference being that here, the only crime commited was by the officers who illegally detained the OP. …Constitutional issues are resolved in courts, not on the street.
… Absolutely correct. That is why it is best to just get the pertinent information from the officer, and conclude the encounter as quickly as possible. That means get his RS, and ask if your free to go (when appropriate). Once the office gives his RS (not doing so can be seen as an act of bad faith since he is required to have it in order to detain someone), then let him continue his investigation without your assistance (generalized term “your”). That means, say nothing except, “am I free to go?”. If the officer decides to arrest you for that, then definitely don’t talk until you speak with legal counsel. …
Being a police officer can be a very dangerous line of work. When they stopped me, they didn't know - at first - if I was some wandering stoned hippie or an escaped con who looked like a wandering stoned hippie.

I really, really, wanted them to find the aforementioned escaped con before I stumbled on him under a bridge abutment at 3:00 AM. So it was in my interest that they do their jobs.

I really just wanted to be on my way. I was hitchhiking because I wanted to be somewhere else.


… Each situation is different. Good judgment is a benefit. …I couldn't understand people who sought confrontation and then complained when they got one.

… Exercising one’s rights is most certainly NOT, “seeking confrontation”. …I had friend who wanted to confront "the pigs" at every opportunity.

… Bad friend to have, and it has no similarity to what the OP did. …Even to my drug addled brain 35 years ago, that didn't make any sense. I actually never encountered anything but courteous professional behaviour - some friendlier than others.

… It’s different now. Witness the opening post where they illegally detained the OP. …But if you enter into the interaction with a macho, "I don't volunteer information to cops!" attitude, you should expect that they will respond appropriately.

… So, not surrendering one’s rights is a “macho attitude” that should have an expected return of thuggish behavior!? Disgusting, but fortunately the courts don’t agree. …For reasons of self-preservation, they absolutely need to take control of your weapons in that situation - or face the potential of not making it home at the end of shift. 

… Your right in a sense. During a detainment, they do have an obligation to officer safety, and may do a Terry Frisk for weapons (which should be immediately returned upon/if the contact is broken). It isn't always absolutely necessary, but it's up to the individual officer. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Unfortunately for them (in this case), that detainment was illegal, due to bogus RS. They have to work within the law also. took a call for a suspicious vehicles. I turned out to be a woman that was upset that the people picking up their kids from the nearby elementary school don't keep her driveway clear "What if I needed to leave in some kind of emergency?" she asks me.

… Such is the nature of the job I suppose. However, people have been prosecuted for unauthorized use of the 911 system in the past. In that case, I’d imagine that there might be some ordinance against blocking peoples driveways. Not an emergency, but definitely worth a non-emergency call to dispatch.

As always, thank you for your service.

cassandrasdaddy
September 24, 2008, 12:19 AM
i think someone forgot to read the post about their call originating with a citizen call. and has confused the word reasonable with articuable

Arrogant Bastard
September 24, 2008, 12:20 AM
Also, I'm not allowed in WalMart, company-wide, now. Not that I'm planning to ever go back anyway!

Somebody mentioned getting a letter from WalMart corporate stating that this is not company policy. Then waltz back in, look for the manager, and ask him if he remembers telling you you weren't allowed in any WalMart ever again. Then ask what he's gonna do about it. Be sure to allow at least 3 of the 8 concealed weapons to be exposed. Make sure you've got the letter. :evil::D

Sweden
September 24, 2008, 12:21 AM
Something else I thought of; it cost the City of Denver plenty in legal fees to keep their ban on open carry. The suburbs don't want to fight that fight over again (they don't have the "home rule" claim Denver used).

The suburbs probably only have those ordinances on the books because they haven't been challenged yet.

While I agree, anytime your best defense is you expected the local gendarmerie would have better tolerated your illicite behavior rather than.......well, pressing the issue :scrutiny:

poor_richard
September 24, 2008, 12:52 AM
i think someone forgot to read the post about their call originating with a citizen call. and has confused the word reasonable with articuable
If your referring to my post, there is no confusion.

MWAG call= Man With A Gun call, so I addressed it in my post.

An anonymous call does not constitute RS. Period. The officer MUST be able to articulate Reasonable Suspicion that a crime is afoot, in order to detain an individual. That’s the law. Where carrying a gun is legal, it (the gun, as well as a MWAG call) does not (in and of itself) equate to reasonable suspicion because carrying a gun is not a crime. It can be used in conjunction with other indicators. Whether or not you, or anyone else thinks that a MWAG call should be RS is irrelevant, because the law says it isn’t.

Furthermore, The citizen call is irrelevant in the context of the opening post because the officers stated that their RS was “officer safety”. In this case, even IF a MWAG call was allowable as RS, it wouldn’t matter because the officers stated that their RS was “officer safety”, not the call, or the gun itself. That is why it’s a good idea to get the officer to state his RS up front. Had they found an illegal knife on the OP, then the officers would either have to lie about their RS (because they’d have to change their story), or the whole thing would be thrown out on improper RS. It is also a good reason why these officers should not be engaging in such behavior, as it would be a shame for a real criminal to go free just because they failed to observe the proper rules and conduct for such stops.

Ask Surat (or any officer) if their local prosecutor would be happy with them using “officer safety” for RS or PC to detain or arrest someone, which then turned into a major bust. I’m sure they’ll say that they are allowed to do a Terry Frisk for weapons under the umbrella of “officer safety”, but I’ll be surprised if they say it’s allowable as RS.

Like I said, if your referring to me, there is no confusion on my part. That isn't to say that I don't make mistakes, but the confusion between reasonable and articulate is not one of them, Yet.;)

cassandrasdaddy
September 24, 2008, 12:58 AM
what makes you imagine the call was anonymous? and what part of the officers actions do you believe falls outside terry?

poor_richard
September 24, 2008, 01:22 AM
what makes you imagine the call was anonymous? and what part of the officers actions do you believe falls outside terry?Doesn't matter. They gave "officer safety" as their RS, not the gun, or the call. Of course, I doubt that that part of it will make it into the report (I even find it hard to believe that it's true, but I'm going in context of the opening post). I'm sure they'll put something else in there report as their RS to detain him.

However, I'll address your question anyway. If the complaint was not anonymous, then (I believe) that person may file a complaint against the OP (doubt it would go anywhere). Then, I suppose the officers would be obligated to "investigate". That doesn't mean that they have RS to detain him (not sure on that part, but I doubt they would as again, they need RS that a crime is afoot, not an offended individual). Just one more reason to politely and respectfully ask the officer for his RS, and then politely decline answering any questions, while asking to be released.

As for the context of the Terry Stop did you even read my post (#173)?

I clearly stated:
Your right in a sense. During a detentment, they do have an obligation to officer safety, and may do a Terry Frisk for weapons (which should be immediately returned upon/if the contact is broken).

Oops, missed a spelling error. Have to go back and edit.

Anyway, I believe I was clear in that they could seize his weapons (Terry Frisk). My point wasn't that they couldn't search for weapons, but that the stated RS was bogus.

Truth is, I could be wrong, or someone else could be wrong. Either way, it's something to let the court sort out. If the officer acted properly, then they have nothing to worry about as far as legal action from the OP. If they acted improperly, then they deserve anything the OP can throw at them.

PTK
September 24, 2008, 01:33 AM
Somebody mentioned getting a letter from WalMart corporate stating that this is not company policy. Then waltz back in, look for the manager, and ask him if he remembers telling you you weren't allowed in any WalMart ever again. Then ask what he's gonna do about it. Be sure to allow at least 3 of the 8 concealed weapons to be exposed. Make sure you've got the letter.

I know where your screenname comes from now. ;)

Sweden
September 24, 2008, 01:37 AM
So, from what Sweden cites, if you carry CONCEALED, then the gun must REMAIN CONCEALED AT ALL TIMES!

Not really, what's on the books say it's town by town wrt open carry in colorado, never been challenged, so it hasn't been legistalted as being "of statewide concern".........yet.

Surat
September 24, 2008, 01:41 AM
Surat wrote:


Quote:
As for the first half, what is unreasonable about an officer handcuffing an unknown armed subject when investigating a "man with a gun call" before disarming and ascertaining their status?

By your own words, you've already determined that when you respond to a "man with a gun" call that the "man with a gun" is going to be a threat. You seem to have forgotten that many of us are on YOUR side.

And how am I supposed to know that you are a good guy? Because you tell me?


Quote:
To add suspicion, the subject is found with three firearms and accompanying ammo and until the weapons are removed off his person, fails to state he has a permit. To the posters who are screaming constitutional rights violations, think about this. . .

I'm thinking this is the guy I want on MY side in case of a problem, not a guy I want to annoy unnecessarily.

I shouldn't have to worry about annoying him. Once. Again. How do I know he's a good guy? Becasue he has a CCW Permit badge?

As long as I conduct myself with professionalism and stay within the bounds of law and department policy I am 100% covered and 100% right. I believe where the conflict arises is with your incomplete understanding the legal issues at hand.


Quote:
As a cop and member of the jackbooted oppressor class,

I really hate to say it, but "You got that right!" Please read my words carefully and take them to heart. Maybe you're not too burned-out to change.

And what pray tell are you exactly trying to say? All guns are good, therefore all people who carry guns are good? What should I change? By the way, burned out cops are the ones that stop doing their jobs and hide in alleys. Too much TV and Hollywood portrays it the other way.[/QUOTE]


Quote:
I personally like to go home at the end of my shift.

If that's your expectation, you're in the wrong line of work. You sound too smart for running around in a cruiser investigating "barking dogs". Have you considered the Detective's Exam?

I like patrol. The only thing I want out of this job is a chance to run a dog. Other then that I'll keep my happy ass in a patrol car wher it belongs. I take the good with the bad. It doesn't mean I like the bad, just that I put on my "happy face" when dealing with it. Apparantly, by your words, you suffer from the same delusion that all law enforcement officers are mental pigmys and this was the only job they could get after getting a degree in Phys Ed or dropping out of High School.


Quote:
If I find a subject that I have been sent to find as a "man with a gun call" I'm NOT going to ask him or her to reach into their pockets to produce a permit or ID. The first thing I'm going to do is secure said hands to ensure that they don't pull out a gun and shoot me. The next thing I am going to do find said gun and secure it. The next thing I'm going to do is figure out what is going on.

Are you saying there's something wrong with *asking* somebody for their carry permit before you've cuffed them, secured them, and secured their weapons?

It depends on the situation. In North Carolina you are legally obliged to tell a LEO that you are carrying when you are on your permit. It's a misdemeanor not to. First offense is citation with mandatory court date.

Do you make people get out of their cars, cuff and secure them, and boot their cars *before* you ask to see their license and registration? No? Why not? Isn't poor operation of a motor vehicle an issue of life and death public safety? What's the difference in threat level? Won't a bad car wreck kill you just as dead as a bullet? So what's your problem that you have to violate somebody's rights simply because they might possess a firearm?

No, but the person in the traffic stop is expressly told to stay in their car. If they get out they get put back in. If they continue to approach they get drawn on. I am always the first one out and the last one in. When I appoach, I keep in the small area of protection offered by the B pillar because it make it harder to shoot me.

Do you make people get out of their cars, cuff and secure them, and boot their cars *before* you ask to see their license and registration?

Apples and oranges. Cars don't generally run you over when you stand next to them. Hands pull out weapons in tenths of seconds. In some cases, like a felony stop (say a car comes back stolen) f_ck yes they get proned out and cuffed before we get better introduced. There's been more then one car owner that forgot to report he had found his stolen car and gotten a rude full out felony stop out of it.

It's that attitude of "us vs them" that you've unfortunately picked up.

Yes, I do. Us is the guys in blue that I depend on and spend more time with then my family. Them is everyone else. That includes upright citizens, criminals, generally everyone else that I don't personally know nad can vouch for. The list of people I can persnally vouch for is pretty limited. Once again, just becasue someone says they are on the side of the angels does not mean they are.n "They" generally have a poor understanding of law, police operations, and at times reality. After all these years my wife is just now understanding. I've been married to her for 10 years and she's been a soldier or cops wife the whole time.


Quote:
As for the second half, I see far too many people in my department, slack with firearms safety.

I'm sorry to hear that. But just becasue your fellow cops are dangerous with guns, doesn't mean us civilians are, too.

Yes, it does. Once again, unless I personally know you, I'm not going to assume anything. If so called trained professionals can make mistakes, the so called ametures can too. How an I suppsoed to know if you are Jeff Cooper or a mall ninja? I have a simple rule, don't point that thing at me or I'll ask if you want me to point mine back. LEO, civilian, no differance. I've seen too much stupidity at ranges to think otherwise. In general, people are unsafe. If they weren't the ER wouldn't be full of patients. My off duty is at the local ER, so I know whereof I speak.


Quote:
Lastly, I feel like a dilettante. I carry a Kel-tec .380 in the summer with a spare mag and a S&W five screw with a Bianchi speed strip in the winter.

Back-ups, or off-duty?

Off, I carry enough on my hips at work. Vest and gear weighs about 30 lbs. Be damned if I'm going to torture myself when off. I know that most would consider the above marginal but I don't make a habit of telling people what I do for a living.

Duty: Glock 23 & spare mags, 2 sets of cuffs, taser, radio, streamlight, gloves, baton, nextel, lockblade in pocket. Enough that after 12 hrs, half the days of the year I want to run light.

Quote:
Great, I can see you have no clue how law enforcement operations work. Every single call is answered. BS or not.

And this is a Good Thing.

Mostly agreed, although I sometmes wonderjust why exactly some people don't suffocate when they are not told to breath in and out.

Quote:
Someone stated to the effect “All the officers had to do was ask for PTK to produce a permit and leave.”

Yup. Then your valuable time (and apparently that of 11 other officers!) could be better spent preventing *real* crimes.

OK, more lessons on law enforcement. Cops do not catch criminals by driving around in cars, looking for some guy that looks like the Hamburgler with a sack of loot. We do it by making contact with as many people as possible. It's basically being nosey. I am paid to be nosey. Contact, contact, contact. Traffic stops, checks on suspicious persons, license check points, knock and talks. That's how you serve warrants, that's how you get dope, that's how you get thugs and thier illegal street guns off the streets so that the thugs don't hold up mom and dad's store. If you are lucky the Feds pick mup the case and you can ship one of these turds off for some serious time or you finaly get them stuck for a habitual felon. Should I do less (investigating) on a suspicious person/man with a gun call then on any other type of call?

Quote:
OK, I tell you what, you volunteer to be the cop to ask that.

Not a chance! I thank you for your service, but I'm certainly not crazy enough to want to be a cop.

Thanks, I think. . . but how can you realisticly tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I don't tell my dentist how to fix teeth. I don't tell my barber how to cut hair. Believe me, after 7 years sworn and another 4 of military police time, I'm fairly decent with it. I know people think my job is so easy but, once again, I see a real lack of volunteers stepping up. Could there be mroe to it then running around in blue polyester and driving a car? Hmmm. Could it be alot of practical knowlege on Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Civil Law, Invstigative Proceedure, evidence handeling, etc etc etc?

Look at it this way. It takes 4 to 6 months of rookie school jsut to meet the minimum standards so that you can receve another three months of field training. So it takes at minimum 7 to 9 months to become a full fledged rookie that realizes he knows practically nothing.

And what's crazy about it? Am I crazy for wanting to be active and try to make my community better? Am I crazy for putting my body in harms way for what I believe in, the rule of law over the rule of might? Am I crazy fo wanting to stand before my creator on the end of days and say "I tried to live the best I could and make the world a little better."?

Quote:
Is he gonna pull out a permit or a .S&W .500 and blow your head off? How do you know this is a honest god fearing upright member of the community? Because he “looks ok”? Pray tell, answer that. If he pulls out a gun but I beat him on the draw, now I have to shoot him and I really don't wanna go through that.

Why don't you just "shoot first and ask questions later"?
Hazards of your line of work. Just be glad your'e not in Iraq!
Again, don't violate my rights for your safety/comfort.

Hazards of my work, so. . my life is worth less than anothers because I choose to do my job? The job Robert Peel described as "The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

If people would spend more time giving attention to the welfare of their community instead of beating their chests in histronics we might not be in such crap straights as a society

How do you know where I've been or haven't been? Now that it's been metioned, no I haven't been to Iraq. After my time. I was in during the Klinton years, policing third world pis__oles. Bosnia turned out OK, but Somalia was a waste of time and don't even get me started on Haiti.


Why don't you just "shoot first and ask questions later"?

Illogical and ad hominim.

Quote:
How do I know that the permit he produces is still valid?

Here in VA, they have expiration dates, and have to be carried with a valid photo ID. How do you know the photo ID is valid? Or not stolen? Gee, spotting fake IDs is part of policework, no? And if everything appears OK to the best of your abilities, you let him go about his business. It's that simple.

OK, OP is from Colorado. I have no idea how they work there. I'm in NC. I do know that a NC CCW has to be accompanied by a valid ID. A CCW can be revoked by the Sheriff at any time. How am I to know if it is still valid? How? I check with NCIC.

You seem to be laboring under the assmption that a LEO can't seized you if you "haven't done anything illegal". No, you can be seized if reasonable suspicion exists. Read the definition of Reasonable Suspicion. Wikipedia is good enough. . .emphasis is mine.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.


If I got a call for a man with a gun, how is it not reasonable to assume that the guy matching the description is armed? If I find said weapon, how is it unreasonable to secure this individual until I figure out just what I have.

This is not some new creation of the courts but a long standing legal precident.

Quote:
Now I have the guy, who I know is armed but maybe his permit is revoked. . . now I have to effect and arrest of an armed subject.

If his permit APPEARS revoked (and I dunno how you would tell without instant database access),

It's called a MDT and it's in my car and available with the radio but it still requires me to send and recieve the requst for this information and I'm not going to be able to do that worrying if mr mystery man is going to shoot me.

To reiterate, as the OP said, he never infomed the officers he was carrying under a CCW permit.

then you still ought to consider that he may not *know* that it has been revoked. Could be a clerical error. He probably had a clean record up to the point of issuance (that "clerical error" works both ways!).

Oh, ok, I'm supposed to just believe this guy because he told me he didn't know? Gee officer I didn't know I was speeding. Gee officer, I didn't know I had crack in my pocket. Gee officer, I didn't know I had that warrant. Gee officer, I didn't know I was over the legal limit.

Quote:
Another aside. To most cops, except maybe newb rookies, criminals lie or evade, while honest people tell the truth. Simple fact. When you refuse to speak with an officer in a open forthright manner on the grounds that "his investigating is violating you god given rights", then you are acting like a suspect. If you get treated like a suspect, don't be surprised.

"If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be suspects!" Spoken like a true cop.
The point is to do your job the *right* way, even if it sucks to have to do it that way.

As I have told many an irate victim, when you enforce the law you are bound by it. Unfotunately, once again, you appear to have an incomplete grasp of arrest search and seizure and how "we" apply it. Read the book by Robert Farb if you want to tell me how to enforce law here or in general.

http://www.sog.unc.edu/about/directory/farb.html
http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Search-Investigation-North-Carolina/dp/1560112212
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-04/13-stop-and-frisk.html

Tell me, what is the right way to do my job?

Quote:
As for the inevitable wise elbow that crackd off "where are your papers" etc.,I hope that was a joke because you so don't wanna go there.

Darn right we don't want to go there! "Never Again". The only way to keep from "going there" is to vehemently fight every step in that direction.

Have any family that suffered at the hands of the Nazi's, which I assume you are refering to? I had a great grandfather that spent time in Nazi prison for having copies of the Communist Manifesto in the attic. Kind of humorous now. My great-grand uncle got drafted and blown to bits somewhere in Poland. Slightly less humorous becasue I'd have liked to have met the man.

But II'm guessing you'd welcome it, since it would make your job a little easier...

ad hominim.

Quote:
Gotten so much as a cell phone contract without a social security number?

Yup, and when asked I've told them that they had neither reason nor right to ask for it.


Quote:
Let me know how well you can write a check without your government issued ID (driver's licence).
Some of us don't write checks, for this very reason. Cash and money orders for everything.


Quote:
Ever had your print's taken for a job application or the like? Don't even get me started on AFIS.

As an owner and individual manufacturer of several NFA firearms, I've been thoroughly and repeatedly fingerprinted. I guess BATFE expects my fingerprints to be DIFFERENT on the next application, otherwise they're just wasting our tax dollars by asking for them over and over again.

Use your social on that application?

Quote:
Been in the military and had your DNA collected (mouth swab)?

Military service effectively erases any individual rights.

I'm out now, wanna bet my DNA is still on file?

Having served my contract out, I still have relinquished my rights?? ?huh?



Use a debit card?

Yeah, all the time - over the phone, online, or to buy gasoline. Funny how I don't need a photo ID, govt-issued or not, to do so.


Did you have to show ID when you set up the account? Try setting up so much as a passbook savings account without valid ID. The point I'm making is that Social Secuirity numbers and OLN's are integral to every day buisiness. You already have "papers" and you can dang well bet the IRS wants you to have them in order. If you are in the AFIS database you have you "papers" on the ends of your fingers.

DMV files and a phone book are really good investigative tools. Post office is a close second along with the Register of Deeds. I don't need your "papers", which is what I was trying to say in the first place. Your "papers" are all out there already. So much is public information it's scary. What's not public is easly obtained with a subpeona or a warrant.

You wanna be pedantic and pick apart what I have to say, fine. I enjoy a good discussion. Ad hominim attacks are NOT THR as far as I've ever been led to believe and I don't appreciate it. Please don't infer nasty things about me and I won't infer nasty things about you.:banghead:

poor_richard
September 24, 2008, 01:41 AM
I know where your screenname comes from now. Are you talking to me?

Surat
September 24, 2008, 01:49 AM
Poor Richard

How is "officer safety" BS?:confused:

How is the above search and seizure of the OP unconstitutional and outside terry v ohio? Because the officers found out nothing illlegal happened even though there was reasonable articulable suspicion and concerns for officer safety?

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-04/13-stop-and-frisk.html

poor_richard
September 24, 2008, 02:02 AM
Poor Richard

How is "officer safety" BS?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

OMGWTFBBQ
September 24, 2008, 02:16 AM
Twelve officers to check out a CCWer buying art supplies at wally world... WHY?!?! Are they really THAT new to dealing with people carrying concealed that they can't handle it with a little more tact?

Either someone got mighty creative on the phone or the local LE lack common sense... or both... :scrutiny:

Surat
September 24, 2008, 02:16 AM
ok, nevermind. . . Going backto the OP's OP ;) we have this to parse:

Anyway, I was handcuffed and my weapons were removed, ID/CCW checked, etc. I was then brought to the WM security office while waiting for the clear from my ID and CCW being checked (yes, it was all clear, I don't break laws). All this time, I'm sitting there in handcuffs (my back hurts) and asking "Am I under arrest?" to which the response was "No, you're being detained for our safety."

My SO said I must've asked "Am I free to go, officers?" about half a dozen times.

Poor Richard, I think I misread what you posted and now I understand.

The "No, you're being detained for our safety."is not a valid reason for a seizure of a person, however the officer stating this may have been misheard or the remark misconstrued by the OP. The officer that stated this may very well be an idiot. Be that as it may, as far as I can see from the circumstances (detention for safety remarks aside) this was a valid terry stop. As soon as the reasonable suspicion dissapeared the subjects were released.

Once the clear ID and CCW came back, and the guns weren't listed as stolen, they "oh so kindly" escorted me (sans weapons) out to my truck where two officers talked to me for a bit.

One basically said it was major BS for this to have happened, as I wasn't breaking any laws.

PTK
September 24, 2008, 02:17 AM
poor_richard

No, I was talking to Arrogant Bastard. :)

poor_richard
September 24, 2008, 02:35 AM
Poor Richard, I think I misread what you posted and now I understand.
Good, I was starting to wonder:D. Glad were on the same page now ;).
The "No, you're being detained for our safety."is not a valid reason for a seizure of a person, … Exactly, that’s been my point all along. …however the officer stating this may have been misheard or the remark misconstrued by the OP. Reread my first paragraph in post #179. The officer that stated this may very well be an idiot. Be that as it may, as far as I can see from the circumstances (detention for safety remarks aside) this was a valid terry stop. As soon as the reasonable suspicion dissapeared the subjects were released. That‘s just it. What, exactly, is that “reasonable suspicion“? I know that neither of us can say without full knowledge of the circumstances, but so far all we have to go with for RS is, “officer safety“, and we both know that‘s bogus. Be that as it may, as far as I can see from the circumstances (detention for safety remarks aside) this was a valid terry stop So, if it’s a valid Terry Stop in your eyes, then what is the RS? What crime are you reasonably articulating a suspicion of to believe that it’s a valid stop?

Surat
September 24, 2008, 03:02 AM
So, if it’s a valid Terry Stop in your eyes, then what is the RS? What crime are you reasonably articulating a suspicion of to believe that it’s a valid stop?


At the very least, based on the circumstances described by the OP there would be reasonable suspiction that there was a man carrying a concealed weapon, which I amassuming is a misdemeanor if you don't have a perimt. Based on the fact no less than 12 officers showed up, I am guessing that something more "serious" was phoned in.


Can't tell from here but i'll guess based on the latter officer's remarks. . .

Suzie Scanner saw the OP's gun, freaked out and called 911 saying ". . .there as a man with a gun in the store and she thinks he's suspicious. He's been back in the art supplies for forever. I think he's gonna rob the place. There's this woman with him. I think they are drug addicts. He's wearing X shirt and pants. Please hury, he's headed twoards the front!

Can't know without hearing how the call came out. . . but I have my suspicions.

comes back under good faith

Aran
September 24, 2008, 03:17 AM
And it would be a felony if a felon was carrying it. Should it be automatically assumed that someone engaged in an activity is doing so illegally?

Should everyone driving be checked for a license, just to be sure?

stevemis
September 24, 2008, 03:21 AM
Surat,

Could you please explain how you would approach an individual peacefully openly carrying, as an officer, in the state of NC?

Thanks!

Surat
September 24, 2008, 03:41 AM
Surat,

Could you please explain how you would approach an individual peacefully openly carrying, as an officer in the state of NC?

Thanks!

Depends. Define peacful open carry. Walking down the city street? Driving down the street in car? Many store owners/operators open carry, as do many motorists. Open carry is most oent sene in rural areas, where as CC is the order of the day in most urban environments. It's generally a non issue. When I do encounter someone carrying open and I have a reason to interact (traffic stop) I generally have them place it on the dash and I'll retrieve it and unload it give it back when I'm done.


And it would be a felony if a felon was carrying it. Should it be automatically assumed that someone engaged in an activity is doing so illegally?

Should everyone driving be checked for a license, just to be sure?

We do conduct license check points. . . gotten plenty of NOL tickets out of them too in addition to other charges. Personally I favor doing them around the methdone clinic on a Satruday (as people are coming in to get their Sat & Sun doses)

Once again, can't know without hearing how the call came out.

Obviously, there was some reason to send ot 12 cops to Walmart at 2am.

stevemis
September 24, 2008, 03:59 AM
Define peacful open carry. Walking down the city street? Driving down the street in car? Many store owners/operators open carry, as do many motorists.


I'm not sure why it would matter, but let's keep this at least tangentally related to the existing thread and say it's WalMart. I can further complicate this and state the mode of transport to and from the WalMart is by vehicle.

poor_richard
September 24, 2008, 04:13 AM
At the very least, based on the circumstances described by the OP there would be reasonable suspiction that there was a man carrying a concealed weapon, which I amassuming is a misdemeanor if you don't have a perimt.
… Are you suggesting that the mere carrying of a concealed pistol (in and of itself), is RS for detaining someone on the basis that they may be carrying without a permit? The sighting of a concealed handgun (in and of itself) is not RS, because one may legally do so. One does not need to prove they are legal. If you still believe its RS, then I highly recommend you check with your prosecutor.

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

Now, your claiming (if I’ve got this right) CCW (carrying a concealed weapon (without a permit)) as the crime you have RS for. How do you articulate that suspicion? You aren’t seriously going to say that you suspect a person of illegally carrying a concealed weapon , just because they’ve been observed carrying a concealed weapon, are you?


Based on the fact no less than 12 officers showed up, I am guessing that something more "serious" was phoned in… Tony’s in Manassas, OCB in PA. Nothing serious was called in for them, just over reacting police. 12 officers showing up means that 12 officers showed up. It doesn’t indicate the seriousness of the call. It can indicate the seriousness of a call, but not necessarily so.

Can't tell from here but i'll guess based on the latter officer's remarks. . .
Which remarks would that be.

I appreciate you going over this with me, and I appreciate your telling me what crime you believe validated the stop, but you still haven’t articulated the reasonable suspicion portion of that requirement. I’m sure that your aware that you can’t just say, “well, he could be illegal, so I think I’ll just stop him and check him out.” Granted, you can stop anyone for any reason you so choose (justifiable or not). Chances are it probably won’t go any further than the investigative interview, but if you base your RS on legal activity (just because you automatically cast suspicion on all who carry concealed), that doesn’t mean that your meeting the RS requirement of a Terry Stop.

…the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion


...If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way....


Look at it this way. If CO is a state in which it is not required that permit holders inform officers, then all he would have to do upon initial contact is ask the officer, “under suspicion of what crime are you detaining me for?”, and “what is your reasonable suspicion”. If all the officer has is, “we got a call that you are carrying a concealed gun, and we observed it.”, do you really consider that RS!? Take it a step further, and assume that the suspect did in fact not have a permit. Are you still going to maintain in your report that your RS was “he had a holstered handgun.”? Take it even further and assume that he recorded the entire stop (this is a reality as more and more gun carriers are considering a digital recorder part of their every day carry gear, and lets assume for the sake of this discussion that recording the event is legal in that jurisdiction). Are you truly going to base your RS on a legal activity (remember, even though he is carrying illegally, your basing it not on that, but that he has a gun, which is a legal activity).

I’ll have to read your response tomorrow, as it’s getting late/early.

I do hope you continue this conversation, as I truly appreciate your input.

Once again, thanks for your service.

Surat
September 24, 2008, 04:24 AM
Are we playing AD&D now? :confused:

You enter a ten by ten stone corridor. . .

I can't play what if without a scenario.

I really don't wanna play game of "twit the cop."

BruceRDucer
September 24, 2008, 08:50 AM
At the very least, based on the circumstances described by the OP there would be reasonable suspiction that there was a man carrying a concealed weapon, which I amassuming is a misdemeanor if you don't have a perimt. Based on the fact no less than 12 officers showed up, I am guessing that something more "serious" was phoned in.----Surat


The matter here reduces to issue of FACT. The facts are, that whoever saw the firearm:

(1) did not see a DRAWN firearm

(2) did not see PTK doing anything outside of the ordinary activity of shopping at Wal-Mart

(3) did not see PTK's lady companion doing anything inconsistent with shopping at Wal-Mart

This entire issue reduces to somebody seeing a firearm in a hoslter, and concluding:

"The-Sky-Is-Falling!"

//

cassandrasdaddy
September 24, 2008, 08:57 AM
"The matter here reduces to issue of FACT. The facts are, that whoever saw the firearm:

(1) did not see a DRAWN firearm

(2) did not see PTK doing anything outside of the ordinary activity of shopping at Wal-Mart

(3) did not see PTK's lady companion doing anything inconsistent with shopping at Wal-Mart

This entire issue reduces to somebody seeing a firearm in a hoslter, and concluding:

"The-Sky-Is-Falling!""

since you were there to know all this why didn't you step up when you saw it go down? or should we change the word are in your first sentence to read "as they were presented to us"

RPCVYemen
September 24, 2008, 10:02 AM
And how am I supposed to know that you are a good guy? Because you tell me?

Many folks will never understand this - including many on THR.

It makes perfect sense to start an encounter with unknown person with a lot of caution - taking temporary control of the gun and the person. If you are wrong, they are very quickly on their way. If you are right, you may save your life, and the lives of others around you.

If you decided to proceed without caution - to turn your back on an unknown armed man - if you are wrong, you don't make it home for the shift. If you are right, they are very quickly on their.

The benefits of caution are pretty obvious.

I am not speaking about theory - in my hitchhiking days, contact with officers was not uncommon. I had no objection to being stopped and temporarily detained.

Once "temporarily" turned out to be 45 minutes, while the officer checked me out. And that was fine with me. My description matched that of a guy who had killed his family and disappeared. It seemed to me that the officer could well have arrested me let somebody else sort it all out. Instead, he spent an hour checking me out by radio (that was before computers). He did me a favor, the way I read it. Would I rather be sitting in his nice warm cruiser while he checks me out, or sitting in jail in Newark, NJ?

As long as the assumption of control of weapon and unknown person is temporary, I don't see any rights issues here. The officers sounded to me like there were doing their jobs exactly as they should be doing their jobs.

Mike

PTK
September 24, 2008, 10:47 AM
As long as the assumption of control of weapon and unknown person is temporary, I don't see any rights issues here. The officers sounded to me like there were doing their jobs exactly as they should be doing their jobs.

Sort of odd that the call in (active shooter event) was very obviously wrong, by the simple fact I was standing in a checkout line with a cart full of items... don't you figure that alone should've been a clue to the police?

In any case, the only law that may have been broken would have been a misdemeanor (carriage of concealed arms without a permit) and still didn't warrant that sort of treatment, IMHO. :)

Lamb of Gun
September 24, 2008, 10:48 AM
It seems to me that the police got a call stating "possible man carrying gun around in walmart"

not

"man w/ possible CCW in walmart"

I'd say chalk it up to a crappy evening of bad luck not outrage. (I get the impression that you didn't react like a loon about it anyways)

kingpin008
September 24, 2008, 11:15 AM
While I agree, anytime your best defense is you expected the local gendarmerie would have better tolerated your illicit behavior rather than.......well, pressing the issue.

What was "illict" about PTK's actions? He was carrying legally owned pistols, with a legal and valid permit, in an area that is legal to carry in. Doesn't seem very "illicit" to me.:rolleyes:

BruceRDucer
September 24, 2008, 11:21 AM
since you were there to know all this why didn't you step up when you saw it go down? or should we change the word are in your first sentence to read "as they were presented to us"---Cassandrasdaddy


Why didn't I "step up"?

*ISSUE THE FIRST*

"step up" is neither legally nor rationally defined in your comment

**ISSUE THE SECOND**

If you wish to accuse the original poster of prevarication (lying) that's something you ought to make explicit, rather than through a vaguely worded reference.

Personally, I have no reason to suspect him of lying. Do you?

***ISSUE THE THIRD***

You cannot establish a statement of FACT with an interrogative, as in; "why didn't you step up?"

/

/

:)

MJRW
September 24, 2008, 11:47 AM
Why didn't I "step up"?

*ISSUE THE FIRST*

"step up" is neither legally nor rationally defined in your comment

Are you serious? Is this really your argument? I've been reading your nonsense wondering just how absurd you can get, and you truly exceeded my expectations. This is a forum, not a court of law. Figure out where you are and learn to have the appropriate conversation.

RPCVYemen
September 24, 2008, 12:06 PM
In any case, the only law that may have been broken would have been a misdemeanor (carriage of concealed arms without a permit) and still didn't warrant that sort of treatment, IMHO.

Actually, there are many misdemeanors that are very dangerous for police officers.

As one of the officers told when I was hitchhiking - "It's the burned out tail light'll kill you. Most of the time, when a state trooper is killed, he stopped somebody to warn 'em about a burned out taillight. Think about it - if you are stopping someone because you think they robbed a bank, you'll go in full tilt with backup. But when you stop someone for a burned out taillight, and they are bank robber - that's what gets you killed."

I don't know the stats, but what he said made a lot of sense.

I think this may identify the crux of our different understanding of the situation. Handcuffing a person and taking possession of a weapon could be for one of two purposes:


Security
Punishment


In general, the distinction is partly duration - if someone detains you or deprives you of your weapons for months or years, it's clearly punishment. If someone detains you or deprives you of your weapons for second or minutes, its probably for security.

Your remark that a misdemeanor "didn't warrant that kind of treatment" makes sense if detaining you and taking possession of your weapons was a punishment - but doesn't make any sense if detaining you and taking possession of your weapons was a security measure.

It appears that you were being punished for a crime - but I think it was a security measure.

In general, my reading leads me to believe that the courts do in fact distinguish between the motivations - and are fairly vigilant with regard to punishment disguised as security (i.e, detentions that last too long, repeated detentions that are targeted against particular individual, etc.).

Mike

poor_richard
September 24, 2008, 12:55 PM
Are we playing AD&D now? 

You enter a ten by ten stone corridor. . .

I can't play what if without a scenario.

I really don't wanna play game of "twit the cop."
Okay fine, I don’t expect you to play a “what if” scenario, nor is this a game of “twit the cop“. I value you not only as a public servant, but also for the insight you have been willing to provide based on your experience as a LEO. Nevertheless, you stated that there was RS. All I asked was for you to provide us with some insight as to what that RS is, and instead of doing that, you responded with:

At the very least, based on the circumstances described by the OP there would be reasonable suspiction that there was a man carrying a concealed weapon, which I amassuming is a misdemeanor if you don't have a perimt. Based on the fact no less than 12 officers showed up, I am guessing that something more "serious" was phoned in.

As I’ve stated, I realize that we only have one side of the story. If your basing your validation of the Stop on guesswork and assumptions then fine. However, you claimed it was a valid stop, based on what the OP related. I asked you to tell us what crime you saw as meeting the validity of that stop, and you stated it was carrying a concealed weapon without a license. That’s great, and I appreciate that, but I also asked you to articulate the reasonable suspicion for that crime, and you responded with guesswork and assumptions based on the officers actions. IOW, you used the officers actions to legally justify the officers actions. The officers actions are not RS for a stop, and neither is a MWAG call.

You also stated: …

Can't tell from here but i'll guess based on the latter officer's remarks. . .

Too which I asked you to quote said remarks your referring to.

I‘m not trying to play “twit the cop“ here. I clearly stated that, based on the OP‘s recounting of the encounter, the stop was bogus because they detained him without valid RS. I demonstrated why that is, by quoting the officers stated RS, as well as explaining why a MWAG call (irrelevant anyway in light of the officers admission), or the officer observing the gun (also irrelevant) would not even meet the RS requirements for a Terry Stop had they even tried to use it as such.

You claimed (again, based on the opening post) that, they had valid RS to detain him. You stated your reasoning for that claim was that, He had a gun (not RS), someone called in a MWAG (not RS), and you then combined that with the officers actions to articulate your reasonable suspicion that the man was carrying a concealed gun without a permit. Since none of that is RS, I again asked you to articulate your percieved RS.

You responded with a remark about imaginary scenarios. Giving the officers the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Making statements as fact, based on assumptions and guesswork is another thing altogether.

Look, I understand that we are only hearing one side of the story. Truth is, for all we know, this may not even be a true story. The OP could be some Walter Mitty acting out his fantasies. I understand taking the stance that there isn’t enough information to make a judgment either way. I even understand giving the officers the benefit of the doubt. Claiming that they acted appropriately (based on the opening post), is going beyond that.

Are you still claiming that MWAG, combined with an anonymous call, and the officers actions, is RS? Or, are you choosing to give the officers the benefit of the doubt, or are you just siding with them? Either of the latter two is fine, but if your going to claim valid RS, I‘d really like to hear you articulate that RS. If your claiming validity of RS based on MWAG call, the gun itself, and the officers actions, then fine (the US Supreme Court disagrees with you, but fine).

We can always agree to disagree, but I’m not trying to argue with you, so much as I want to hear your explanation for RS. In essence, I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, which is why I’m asking you to articulate that RS. If all you are using to articulate that RS is the officers action combined with the MWAG call, then fine. Just say so. I've already demonstrated why it isn't, but that doesn't mean you can't "stick to your guns". My main purpose is to gain a better understanding of an officers insight, which only someone in a position as yourself can provide. If that viewpoint is that the call, gun, and officer actions are RS, then that's fine also. I just want to know if there is anything else you base that on.

Surat
September 24, 2008, 03:27 PM
If your claiming validity of RS based on MWAG call, the gun itself, and the officers actions, then fine (the US Supreme Court disagrees with you, but fine).

Poor Richard,

And I think you are reading the SCOTUS's opinion wrong. Maybe it'll land me in civil court one day. One of the reasons I pay my FOP dues, in addition to a fine outdoor range.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=392&page=1

I'm saying I think that MWAG (which the OP says was called in as an active shooter) call, and defendants actions (lack of "hey guy's I'm packing") all add up to resonable suspicion, which is enough to detain until the situation can be "put to bed". When I get off vacation I'll ask everybody in readout. If I get a chance I"ll ask one of the ADAs.

Okay fine, I don’t expect you to play a “what if” scenario, nor is this a game of “twit the cop“. I value you not only as a public servant, but also for the insight you have been willing to provide based on your experience as a LEO. Nevertheless, you stated that there was RS. I should have bene more specific, that wasn't pointed in your direction but at stevemis.

To give pithy but true answer to that question. . . carefully.


IOW, you used the officers actions to legally justify the officers actions.

Ok, gotcha, no my intent, just trying to "read" the scenario based on actually very little detail from the OP.

Can't tell from here but i'll guess based on the latter officer's remarks. . .


Too which I asked you to quote said remarks your referring to.

OP stated, ""One basically said it was major BS for this to have happened, as I wasn't breaking any laws. The other told me I should get an IWB holster. ""


Giving the officers the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Making statements as fact, based on assumptions and guesswork is another thing altogether.

True but at this point, based on the thin information from the OP, it's a bit of devil's advocate. I am assuming, based on my "years of knowlege, skill and training" (a good court answer), several things. I can neither prove nor disprove those assumtions but they "feel right" in the context of what happened.

I am giving the officers benefit of doubt because, opposed to various moonbat claims to the otherwise, beat cops generally don't get off on rousting people for no reason, especially in public, with multiple witnesses.

I am assuming Suzie Scanner, called in screamed bloody murder on the phone to dispatch.

I'm assuming that Suzie's account of the OP's actions,whatever those were, coupled with an accurate description of his physical appearance gave the officers enough resonable suspicion to detain the OP for further investigation.

The OP was handcuffed, taken to an office, patted down for said suspected weapon. I am assuming that when the officers found three firearms and a bunch of mags, at 2am, their adrenal glands shot leemurs straight into thier hearts and they thought "we really need to check into this guy".

I'm assuming that when the OP asked "am I free to leave" repeatedly allong with "why am I being detained" repeatedly the officer that shot out the "detained for our safety" and handed him a line of crap to shut him up. Criminals ask the same things all the time. Officers shoot people lines of BS all the time.

Ever watch "The First 48?" Love that show.


PM sent to you.

springmom
September 24, 2008, 03:51 PM
I don't think anyone's asked this in the last nine :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: pages but,

PTK, did you tell the officers that you have a disability and were in extreme pain? And Surat, would it effect how you would treat a suspect if he did?

Seems an important question....I have rheumatoid arthritis, a torn rotator cuff, and osteoporosis; and while middle aged mom-looking ladies with Rubenesque figures are not USUALLY wanted suspects, hey, this is Houston, so you never know.... :p Seriously, though, being pushed around or cuffed in the way for a person with disabilities could be (and apparently is for PTK) something with more long lasting consequences than the usual detention.

So, Surat (or other LEO's on this thread), what if any relevance would that have to what you do?

Thanks in advance.

Springmom

Aran
September 24, 2008, 03:59 PM
I was in a motorcycle jacket (forward-curved sleeves with armor along the inside from the elbows up, pretty much) and my hands went numb about 30 seconds in to my last encounter where I was handcuffed, I informed the state trooper, and he told me to deal with it.

This was after I was patted down and everything except my pepper spray and pocket knife were taken from me, and was being held in a locked office with a manager sitting over me.

I was also forced to sit in a chair with high arms that caused the numbness to intensify as soon as I sat.

graygun
September 24, 2008, 06:13 PM
I'd be pissed at the humiliation of it. That is a lot to carry...got enough room for a frag or two?

poor_richard
September 24, 2008, 09:21 PM
Surat,

As always, thanks for responding.

I had overlooked this part:

...I'm saying I think that MWAG (which the OP says was called in as an active shooter) call,...That is something that I do not know about. I would guess that it would be cause for some alarm, but once the arrived an saw that there was no active shooter, then that part of the RS would be null. It's at that point that they should be looking for the caller for missuse of 911 system, and false report. That is a dangerous thing.

I'll respond to the rest later, as I don't currently have time. If you don't see it before leaving, have a good vacation:).

PTK
September 24, 2008, 11:48 PM
Everyone:

I would like to say, thank you all for keeping this discussion civil and on-topic. I truly do appreciate it. :)

poor_richard
September 25, 2008, 08:05 PM
Everyone:

I would like to say, thank you all for keeping this discussion civil and on-topic. I truly do appreciate it. 
I agree.

Now in response to Surats comments in post #207.

I’ll first provide the short answer, then I’ll post a second time with a more in-depth explanation.

First, to sum things up.

I stated that the officers (according to what we’ve been told) did not have valid reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot. This is a requirement for them to have detained PTK. They didn’t have RS, and that is why he has standing for legal action (google “dan moore, Norfolk“, if you doubt). Surat (who claims (and I believe him) to be an LEO) claimed that the stop was valid, based on the info provided. I personally have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he is wrong, but as I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I asked him to articulate not only what that RS was, but also for which crime it was suspicion of. In response he stated:

At the very least, based on the circumstances described by the OP there would be reasonable suspiction that there was a man carrying a concealed weapon, which I amassuming is a misdemeanor if you don't have a perimt. Based on the fact no less than 12 officers showed up, I am guessing that something more "serious" was phoned in. Here, he was stating that the crime for which the RS was incident to was “carrying a concealed without a permit (CCW)”. He is also making reference to the actions of the officers as part of that RS. When I questioned his using the actions of the officers at the scene as part of his own perceived RS, he qualified it.

Ok, gotcha, no my intent, just trying to "read" the scenario based on actually very little detail from the OP.Fair enough, but still left the question of what he based his RS for CCW on. When asked, he stated:

I'm saying I think that MWAG (which the OP says was called in as an active shooter) call, and defendants actions (lack of "hey guy's I'm packing") all add up to resonable suspicion, which is enough to detain until the situation can be "put to bed". ..
The courts disagree with him on this being valid RS. A MWAG call (regardless whether its an active shooter call or not), combined with the suspects lack of disclosure, does not constitute RS that the suspect is carrying a concealed weapon without a valid permit. Furthermore, according to the courts, “had PTK fled upon approach by the officers, even that would not combine with the MWAG call to constitute RS, especially for CCW”.

Now, in all fairness to Surat, it’s quite probable that he is taking more than just the words of PTK into consideration. My guess is that he’s probably reading between the lines a bit, and that is not understandable considering his profession.

Something that is telling (yet not damning) is the following quote:

… Maybe it'll land me in civil court one day. One of the reasons I pay my FOP dues, in addition to a fine outdoor range
Surat may correct me if I am wrong (when he returns from vacation), but this is in reference to any incident where he may detain someone with invalid RS, while acting in good faith. IOW, he's saying that his stated RS may not be valid, but he believes it is, and is willing to stand by that.

However, that is not the telling part. What’s telling is that, by taking that chance, he places in jeopardy any potential case the prosecutor may have in the event that said “good faith, yet invalid” search may produce. My take on this is that (like in the event of the OP) there is no reason to worry about such evidence being dismissed on technicality, because it won’t even get that far. Therefore, he can bend the rules a little on these things (or be less concerned about valid RS), because he’s confident that he’ll get away with it. That’s his call to make. It’s his life on the line, he’s the one doing the job that most of us wouldn’t want, and he’s the one paying the FOP dues. That's not saying that I think he's willing to bend the rules, as I think he'll act on good faith. It's just saying that he's willing to risk any fallout from a potential mistake. However, I don't doubt that just like any other cross section of society, there are some who have no compunction of playing loose with the constitution.

That is also why my take is that this wasn’t done (there are other similar cases, most involving OC) to prevent, stop, or curb crime, but that it was instead done in an effort to influence the OP’s future actions. It’s also why he needs to give this information to his lawyer, and file civil action against the proper parties (be it the individual officers, the department, or whomever). They violated his civil rights under the fourth amendment against unwarranted search and seizures, and they should be taken to task for it simply as a prevention of it’s likelihood of happening to someone else in the future. We’re fortunate to live in a time when such actions (holding the authorities accountable to the law) is getting traction. Just this summer there have been two such victories, and there are more that are currently going through the system.

That’s the short version. My next post will be the long version. If that’s too much, anyone interested could read the following:

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

It summarizes things, and gives references to look up if anyone is interested.

poor_richard
September 25, 2008, 08:16 PM
I should have bene more specific, that wasn't pointed in your direction but at stevemis.Duely noted.
Poor Richard,

And I think you are reading the SCOTUS's opinion wrong. ….

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=392&page=1
No, I’m not reading the opinion wrong, your just looking at the wrong opinion (did you even bother to read post #195?, or look at the link I posted?).

http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005#6

That summarizes things nicely, but I’ll break down the long version since that didn’t seem to register.

Holding: "[A]n anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is, without more, [insufficient] to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person."

http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/1999/jl.html


However, our Supreme Court’s holding in In re
D.M. overrides our earlier disposition in Davis, and necessarily controls.
Moreover, In re D.M. instructs us that observations tending to substantiate
details offered in an anonymous tip may, nevertheless, be insufficient to
establish reasonable suspicion in the absence of factors indicating that the
officers suspected criminal activity was afoot.

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/S51014_01.PDF


When I asked you what crime you saw RS for, you stated that it was carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Then, when I asked for that RS, you gave me
I'm saying I think that MWAG (which the OP says was called in as an active shooter) call, and defendants actions (lack of "hey guy's I'm packing") all add up to resonable suspicion, which is enough to detain until the situation can be "put to bed… This does not constitute RS to the crime of carrying without a permit.

Let’s break it down;

I'm saying I think that MWAG (which the OP says was called in as an active shooter) call, … This has nothing to do with carrying without a permit, and the court has already stated that a MWAG call where the reported call is that the person is brandishing, is not RS. As for the “active shooter” aspect, well… that’s also been addressed (albeit not directly).
" Though anonymous tips may provide information describing a subject that aids police in correctly identifying that person, such information does not, by itself, justify a search. Instead, searches need to be justified by information that suggests the informant "has knowledge of concealed criminal activity….In this case, the reference to “a possible active shooter scenario”, doesn’t apply since there obviously was no active shooter, and therefore said claim was uncorroborated. It actually leans more toward the part I’ll later quote about such calls being used to harass gun owners.

Furthermore, in relation to your claim of RS, it doesn’t matter because you claimed RS to a different charge. I understand why you claimed RS to CCW instead of AS, because there was obviously no AS. Therefore you couldn‘t possibly use any crime related to an AS since there was no evidence to cooperate that.
…" In *Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990), for example, the Court upheld a Terry stop based on police corroboration of an anonymous tip that "a woman was carrying cocaine and predicting that she would leave an apartment building at a specified time, get into a car matching a particular description, and drive to a named motel."[B] Only after the police corroborated the informant's predictions was it reasonable to conclude that "the tipster had inside knowledge about the suspect and therefore to credit his assertion about the cocaine." [B]
…Emphasis mine (boldfaced).
…The Court also explained that it is unwilling to make a firearm exception to Terry stop requirements that would allow a stop and frisk for guns on the basis of "bare-boned tips about guns." Such an exception would "swallow the rule" and "enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search…simply by placing an anonymous call."


http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/S51014_01.PDF


That’s what it sounds like you are using as RS . Your using MWAG/possible active shooter call as RS. The problem is that it’s not only an uncorroborated claim, but proven to be plain false since they arrived to no such incident. They don’t get to base RS on their lack of knowledge to the suspects intention. They must base RS on what knowledge they (the officers) posses prior to the stop and search.


MWAG call, along with the false claim of active shooter (remember, they showed up and there was not such thing occurring, giving poor credibility to the claim), must first be corroborated before it can be RS. What your suggesting is equivalent to doing it backwards, by first using the MWAG call for RS, then corroborating it. Without knowing everything, and hearing the 911 recordings, we really don’t know what happened, but I think it’s safe to say that, “based on what we have thus far been told, the claim of possible active shooter was quite false.” As the court said, if this exception
would "swallow the rule" and "enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search…simply by placing an anonymous call."


Now, for the other part of your claim of RS for carrying without a permit.
… and defendants actions (lack of "hey guy's I'm packing") all add up to resonable suspicion, which is enough to detain until the situation can be "put to bed…
Again, this is wrong. The court found that a MWAG call is not RS (and that‘s what your using). Then, they went on to say:
“Stated another way, when one ‘is unconstitutionally
seized by the police, i.e. without reasonable suspicion or probable cause,
any subsequent flight with the police in pursuit continues the seizure and
any contraband discarded during the pursuit is considered a product of
coercion and is not admissible against the individual.’”It’s telling how, the courts are saying that if he were to flee, then that wouldn’t constitute RS, but your saying his lack of disclosure is! Keep in mind that the referenced case was a case in which the evidence was suppressed due to lack of RS.

Here’s more:

defendant threw the gun and continued his flight from the officer. Shortly
thereafter, the defendant was apprehended.
…This is so similar to your stated RS of a, MAWG/possible active shooter + lack of disclosure, leading to RS to carrying without a permit (except for the fact that in this case PTK wasn‘t charged with CCW, nor was any incriminating evidence found from the search). In the referenced case, the defendant actually was illegally carrying a concealed gun without a permit, and that evidence was suppressed because, the MWAG call, combined with the flight of the suspect, was not RS according to the court.

The court is stating that a MWAG call + flight doesn’t equal RS, but your trying to pass off MWAG call + non disclosure as RS. Using the same old, “if they aren’t answering the questions, then they have something to hide.” line doesn’t pass constitutional muster.


Poor Richard,

And I think you are reading the SCOTUS's opinion wrong. Maybe it'll land me in civil court one day. One of the reasons I pay my FOP dues, in addition to a fine outdoor range

You can use anything you want for RS to a crime, and your right, they‘ll have to fight it in court, but that doesn’t make your claim (in the context of what we know about this case) correct, especially in the face of previous court rulings.

It’s also why I believe that this is nothing more than simply LEO’s harassing a gun owner. If this were actually about criminal behavior, then logic would dictate that they follow the proper procedure for the Terry Stop, as not to render any discovered evidence inadmissible. Like I said, had they actually found illegal drugs (or even that he didn’t have a permit), then that would have been inadmissible due to lack of valid RS (again, I‘m just going by what the OP reported. Like you, I could guess that they OP misunderstood the officer, but I‘m not really into AD & D either :D). They didn’t care about any evidence that may have been gathered (and later dismissed), and seemed more interested in teaching him a lesson. Now it’s his turn.


And again I’ll quote:

…the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion


...If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way....

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

Soldiersurfs
September 25, 2008, 10:04 PM
(A.K.A., WalMart doesn't like concealed carry in their stores)
Im sorry but I joined this board just for this thread ..... If it WAS CONCEALED THIS THREAD WOULD NOT EXIST

poor_richard
September 25, 2008, 10:21 PM
(A.K.A., WalMart doesn't like concealed carry in their stores)
Im sorry but I joined this board just for this thread ..... If it WAS CONCEALED THIS THREAD WOULD NOT EXISTWalMart's store policy didn't cause the police to over react in an inappropriate manner (again going by just the opening post). It wasn't the poorly concealed handgun that caused the police to violate the OP's rights. OC is legal at that location, and WalMart as a company has built a reputation of implementing policy that mirrors state law, so the statement, "If it WAS CONCEALED THIS THREAD WOULD NOT EXIST" is completely wrong, as it was a permissible thing to do, and while there most certainly were wrongful actions, they were not on the part of the OP.

Soldiersurfs
September 25, 2008, 10:36 PM
I didnt just go by the first post , I sifted through all 9 pages of this hillarious thread. If the gun remained concealed as intended no one would have seen the gun , no call to the police would have been made. There is no in between you either conceal or OC ... I am a huge ... HUGE pro 2A advocate , but the cop was right this is NOT NORMAL
The OP feels its neccessary to carry aprox 100 rds on his person , does the need to mozambique drill on 33 attackers happen often in CO? Its ok for the OP to use 3 weapons and an obnoxious amount of ammo to protect himself , but the police were out of line for using handcuffs to protect themselves?

TexasRifleman
September 25, 2008, 10:40 PM
(A.K.A., WalMart doesn't like concealed carry in their stores)
Im sorry but I joined this board just for this thread ..... If it WAS CONCEALED THIS THREAD WOULD NOT EXIST

100% completely wrong.

It has been documented, repeatedly, in writing from Wal Mart corporate that they do not have a company wide policy regarding firearms in their stores, they simply go by the laws of the state where the store is located. This store is located in Colorado, open carry is legal. ETA: It's not legal in all of CO, just some areas.

I am a huge ... HUGE pro 2A advocate , but the cop was right this is NOT NORMAL

Hmm, you seem suspicious too. YOU say you are normal but I don't think you are. I think you should be detained. You didn't break the law you say? So what, you are not "normal". I want you locked up.

That work for you? You want that to be the foundation for whether or not you can be arrested?

That's ridiculous.

Soldiersurfs
September 25, 2008, 10:48 PM
He complains about a CC issue , yet admits he failed to CC. Dont see how I could get that wrong there. And he was not arrested , he was detained

TexasRifleman
September 25, 2008, 10:56 PM
He complains about a CC issue , yet admits he failed to CC.

Maybe you don't understand. Open Carry is legal in this part of Colorado. You don't "fail to conceal" there, it's just open carry. And it's legal.

The OP said his CCW was exposed. That's open carry.

In states where there is ONLY concealed carry then yes, it's normally a problem if your concealed weapon is exposed, but not in this case.

poor_richard
September 25, 2008, 11:25 PM
… If the gun remained concealed as intended no one would have seen the gun , no call to the police would have been made. Doesn’t matter. The above statement is completely irrelevant.
… There is no in between you either conceal or OC Doesn’t matter.
… I am a huge ... HUGE pro 2A advocate , but the cop was right this is NOT NORMALDoesn’t matter.

The OP feels its neccessary to carry aprox 100 rds on his person , does the need to mozambique drill on 33 attackers happen often in CO? Its ok for the OP to use 3 weapons and an obnoxious amount of ammo to protect himself , If the law allows it in his jurisdiction, then yes, it’s okay.
… but the police were out of line for using handcuffs to protect themselves?If the OP has accurately recounted the story, then yes, they were most definitely out of line. If you’d read the rest of the thread, you would understand this. To save you from reading the entire thread, you could just read the following:

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

Essentially, the police did not have reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop, and as such, said Terry Stop was therefore illegal. There may be more to the story, but as the way the OP tells it, that’s the way it is.

slide release
September 25, 2008, 11:30 PM
Here is a good reason to carry at walmart. :D http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080828/NEWS/80828002

schloe
September 25, 2008, 11:56 PM
THR's best thread ever :)

BruceRDucer
September 26, 2008, 12:19 AM
(from Member PoorRichard's link)

"Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun if properly licensed, a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.1 Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop."----paragraph 1, Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports

By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts



Anonymous Tip
In a 1990 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that, through corroboration of its detail, an anonymous tip can be enough to give rise to the reasonable suspicion required for a stop.5 More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated.---paragraph 3
Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports

By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts

This is explicitly clear, particularly so in regard to PTK's original circumstance.:):):)

BruceRDucer
September 26, 2008, 12:23 AM
Originally Posted by Soldiersurfs

The OP feels its neccessary to carry aprox 100 rds on his person , does the need to mozambique drill on 33 attackers happen often in CO? Its ok for the OP to use 3 weapons and an obnoxious amount of ammo to protect himself ,

This also is gross stereotyping, and reflects badly upon the character of a THR member, and it is not necessarily reflective of the character of any THR member./:)

poor_richard
September 26, 2008, 12:51 AM
WOW!

You mean someone actually thought to read the linked page before making comments that were already addressed?:eek:

JesseL
September 26, 2008, 12:56 AM
Wow!:what:

Good work poor_richard and BruceRDucer. That info should really put the whole debate to bed.

poor_richard
September 26, 2008, 01:16 AM
Wow!:what:

Good work poor_richard and BruceRDucer. That info should really put the whole debate to bed.You would think, but then I'd orriginally posted that link in post #195. Didn't take then...:cool:

JesseL
September 26, 2008, 01:28 AM
You would think, but then I'd orriginally posted that link in post #195. Didn't take then...

Yeah, this late in the thread it's easy to start skimming and overlooking things. Bruce was kind enough to electronically beat us all upside the head with the relevant info enough for me to really take notice and appreciate the value of what you linked.

Soldiersurfs
September 26, 2008, 02:27 AM
Funny , how you assume the dominant posistion instead of attempting a mediate posistion. DOESNT MATER DOESNT MATTER DOESNT MATTER .... CAUSE POOR RICHARD SAID SO! Almost as hilarious as the thread itself.
You would think, but then I'd orriginally posted that link in post #195. Didn't take then... I did read it. Tell me where anything about PRIVATE PROPERTY is mentioned in that article? You are Interpeting!

Colorado 18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
(3) An offense under…(1) (f) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.
If you like it or not , when the weapon failed to stay concealed it was possible to become considered DISPLAYED RECKLESSLY
Do i believe the OP commited a crime? Of course not , however there was Reasonable suspicion

Since your so versed on the subject , why don't you represent the OP in a civil case Poor Richard?

PTK
September 26, 2008, 02:54 AM
Colorado 18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

Read that again, friend. :)

Soldiersurfs
September 26, 2008, 03:03 AM
Read that again, friend.
Actually you should ..... you missed the , and the or


(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

Treo
September 26, 2008, 03:11 AM
Open carry is legal in Colorado just having a weapon publicly displayed is not illegal.

Soldiersurfs
September 26, 2008, 03:21 AM
Open carry is legal in Colorado just having a weapon publicly displayed is not illegal I am aware , and I am by no means saying it is. What I am contending is that somepoint a transistion from CC to OC was accidently made (his shirt got caught on a magazine). That the transistion could be interpeted as "reckless display" and hence grounds for "RS" again not even saying its enough for a charge ..... just that it is enough to amount to reasonable suspicion

Big Daddy Grim
September 26, 2008, 03:24 AM
I carry 3 but im not of "normal" size so still support your carry.Mine change from day to day but I always carry one wheel gun. Either way screw wally world.:neener:

Soldiersurfs
September 26, 2008, 03:44 AM
What Poor Richard also fails to realize in his self appointed posistion of Supreme KeyBoard Justice that the link he provided may only apply soley to "tips" It is unknown to him if the police had witnessed anything on store video or anything else for that matter. But because he read it on the internet ITS FACT :barf: He is not a lawyer and should reconsider his ability to give legal advice.

Kind of Blued
September 26, 2008, 05:23 AM
PTK, I'm selling that giant boomstick because I had my share of fun with it and I NEED a few other guns.

One of these will be a handgun, and I will carry it concealed along with my two EDCs the next time we go to the range/Subway. :)

Pat-inCO
September 26, 2008, 08:18 AM
(A.K.A., WalMart doesn't like concealed carry in their stores)
Ahhh, excuse me? As has been pointed out, CONCEALED means just that.

Don't complain because you tripped on your own foot. :D

poor_richard
September 26, 2008, 02:41 PM
I did read it. Tell me where anything about PRIVATE PROPERTY is mentioned in that article? You are Interpeting!
Interpreting what? Why do you think private property is an issue?

Colorado 18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
(3) An offense under…(1) (f) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Read that again, friend. 
Actually you should ..... you missed the , and the or


(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.



No, I think he’s right about that. I did look at, and consider it, but the “or” does not exclude the, “in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm” from the other elements of the sentence. That part of the sentence applies to all elements of the statement. IOW, for DTP to apply, it would be that he is “displaying a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”

If you were correct in what I think your saying, then OC would be illegal in all of CO. Just to make sure I’m properly understanding your take on it; it sounds like your saying that it’s illegal to “display a deadly weapon”. While I believe that to be an incorrect interpretation, were it correct, it could effectively make OC illegal in CO.

They would still need RS that he “displayed” it “in a manner calculated to alarm”. If that part is unnecessary, then they had more than RS, but actually had PC for an arrest. I think your reading the law incorrectly. Not saying I‘m right, just that your argument doesn‘t add up. I am aware , and I am by no means saying it is. What I am contending is that somepoint a transistion from CC to OC was accidently made… If OC is legal, then it doesn’t matter (as long as it wasn't "in a manner calculated to alarm.").
…That the transistion could be interpeted as "reckless display" and hence grounds for "RS" again not even saying its enough for a charge ..... just that it is enough to amount to reasonable suspicion

I don’t see anywhere in the law you provide where it mentions “reckless display” (or a definition for it). Is there another law that does?

Nevertheless, if the officers had video evidence, or had observed the weapon, then that would obviously be “displaying a deadly weapon”. Were “display of a deadly weapon “ a crime, then it would go beyond RS for a stop, to PC for arrest, because they’d have evidence of a crime. Like I’ve said, if “display of a deadly weapon” is not dependent upon “in a manner calculated to alarm.”, then I don’t see how OC could be legal in CO, since OC is “display of a deadly weapon”.

What Poor Richard also fails to realize in his self appointed posistion of Supreme KeyBoard Justice Resorting to personal attacks is an indication of a lack of confidence in one’s argument. …that the link he provided may only apply soley to "tips" Actually, both links I provide clearly stated that the sighting of a gun is not RS where it is legal to carry in such a manner. Had the law you cited not qualified the elements with ,“ in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”, then the sight of the gun may have provided RS. However, where OC is legal, the inadvertent sighting of a gun cannot be used as RS. It is unknown to him if the police had witnessed anything on store video or anything else for that matter. But because he read it on the internet ITS FACT Lie.

Nowhere did I represent the OP‘s story as fact. Quite the opposite actually. I’ve clearly stated on this thread that I am only addressing what the OP stated, as we don’t have all the information. He is not a lawyer and should reconsider his ability to give legal advice.

I’ve also stated that I’m not a lawyer, and the only legal advice I‘ve given was for the OP to consult a lawyer, as well as asking said lawyer if the OP should remove his comments from this board. I fully realize that I may not have all the facts, or even be correct in my views. That doesn’t mean that I’m not willing to learn. Debate the issue, counter the arguments, but when you resort to personal attacks, its because that’s all your left with.

BruceRDucer
September 26, 2008, 02:45 PM
/

Since your so versed on the subject , why don't you represent the OP in a civil case Poor Richard?----SoldierSurfs\

Essentially, and by definition, SoldierSurfs, that is nothing other than mocking the THR Member. The comment does not contribute anything of a factual nature to the core issue.

Whether PTK is after the initial event, represented by any particular person, is not critical to the discussion, since nothing in the original post indicates that the critical question involves whether or not PTK is represented by counsel.

By way of affirmation, I would suggest that the critical issue, is whether any citizen is liable to harrassment or unnecessary searches, merely based upon a tip that indicates that someone is in possession of a firearm, in the normative process of shopping in the store. :)

Do we want that? Do you want that?

--------------------------------------------------------------

What Poor Richard also fails to realize in his self appointed posistion of Supreme KeyBoard Justice that the link he provided may only apply soley to "tips" It is unknown to him if the police had witnessed anything on store video or anything else for that matter. ---SoldierSurfs


This statement also is a manner of mocking a THR Member, and is as far as I can tell, entirely inconsistent with the stated policy for courtesy that you will find situated in the first topics of each and every forum page.


PRIMER ON COURTESY link: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=370999

In those guidelines, you will find something written regarding a shift in topic, away from discussion an idea, to discussing a person and characteristics about that person, such as your reference to "Supreme KeyBoard Justice" which you apply to the THR Member.

That is not only fundamental discourtesy, it could be interpreted to imply that the website actually has such an office, when in fact it does not. All of which goes to say you are discussing non-existent titles, irrelevent issues, and displaying a surprising lack of courtesy, in light of which, no justification by way of reason is offered.

(((blink....blink....))))





/





/

FIFTYGUY
September 26, 2008, 03:38 PM
soldiersurfs wrote:

Actually you should ..... you missed the , and the or


(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

If the "," and the "or" were interpreted so as to parse:

"A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally displays a deadly weapon in a public place.", with no condition that it's "in a manner calculated to alarm",

then the cops who responded should have arrested the manager of the Walmart for displaying knives and guns for sale. :neener:

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