UPDATE:Seized By Manchester PD For Carry - 911 & Dispatch Transcript


PDA






d-mac
August 5, 2004, 11:35 PM
see
http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/28894/

If you enjoyed reading about "UPDATE:Seized By Manchester PD For Carry - 911 & Dispatch Transcript" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
liliysdad
August 6, 2004, 12:00 AM
Yet another excellent reason why open carry is a horrible idea.

d-mac
August 6, 2004, 12:02 AM
Nice blanket statement.

This is all about the way the police handled this case not about open carry.

What he did was legal, what the PD did was not.

liliysdad
August 6, 2004, 12:05 AM
Im not saying what he did was wrong, nor what the police did was right......though they did respond to a call from a concerned RP.

Open carry will draw these kinds of things, no matter how "right" it is..its simply not smart.

Goet
August 6, 2004, 12:26 AM
Excuse me, Mr. Frog.

Your pot is boiling. :rolleyes:

Shield529
August 6, 2004, 12:26 AM
Ok I am going to have to comment here. This Anti-Cop @#$ just went to far. I am an officer and if you look at my few prior posts I do not stand blind behind everything cops do we make errors and are human.

Lets look this this situation for a police perspective.
1. 911 call of man with a gun open in a book store. I am from an open and concealed carry state and this would be a very serious call as I cannot possibley know this man intentions, (and open carry of a gun, while legal is unheard of and IMO not that bright of an idea).

2. Police arrive and see said man. They did not draw guns, yell, or threaten him. They touched him yes, but I belive the level they touched him at, by his own discription, was minimal and for actual officer safety.

3. Took and secured his weapon, Guess what last time I was stopped I showed badge and ID and my weapon was taken and secured for the duration, this simpliy comes down to "I want to go home at night". When I make contact with you for any reason I DO NOT KNOW YOU, I understand when someone says "but I should not be treated that way I'm a law abiding citizen", that they feel wronged. But I do not have a crystal ball and magic powers that tell me good guy or bad guy. I am just trying to live.

4. Checked his gun and him for stolen, warrants respectivley. After seeing CCL and observing that he was not a threat this seems pointless but I don't know that Dept. policy.

The man was then released no worse off.
This is my opinion only (I don't want him sueing me)
He wanted this confrontation he wanted to sue get a nice settlement and make the police look bad. Something soured him to police and this was revenge nothing more.

I saw several comments in packing.org that stated the police did not need to check this since the caller refused her name. Let me say that we must check every call that has an address (law not policy) if we get the call even if the caller calls back on a serious call and tells us its ok to cancel we must confirm in person.

We are just trying to do a job and this time the officers did it right.

liliysdad
August 6, 2004, 12:31 AM
After reading the thing again, Im gonna have to agree...they did NOTHING wrong..they received a call, they responded, the defused any threat, and they released...wheres the harm?

I can guarantee you that if the man had had different intentions, and had shot the place up, and the police had not responded, since she didnt leave her name (:rolleyes: ), the police would have been crucified for not doing the very thing that was done here. You cant have it both ways, folks.

Sindawe
August 6, 2004, 12:50 AM
Sheild529:

He wanted this confrontation he wanted to sue get a nice settlemen

Can you elaborate on the basis for your opinion? *I* read nothing in mvpel's accounting of this encounter that supports your opion, but I'm willing to be enlightened.

liliysdad and Sheild529:

Did you guys read the original posting on this by mvpel?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74034

Zak Smith
August 6, 2004, 01:16 AM
So were they investigating a crime, or, you know, investigating and investigation?

The hysterical woman called in evidence of something completely legal happening.

-z

Shield529
August 6, 2004, 01:38 AM
Yes I have read it. I stand behind my Opinion as that is all it is, not a fact. some points I will cite.

Quote from: mvpel "I was dressed neatly in slacks and a purple oxford shirt, and was clean-shaven".
So people in this country should be treated diffrentley based on apperance? Are killers always dirty and dishelved?

Quote from: mvpel "Since I had neglected to tuck my shirt over it, my holstered Glock 30 sidearm was thus visible in the small of my back in a Workman IWB holster".
He neglected? it seems by this statement he normaly keeps it concealed, probley for a good reason/ right or wrong it scares people.
My impression from this entire story is that this personis arrogent and a braggert IMO this was showing off.

Quote from: mvpel "I informed them that I am trained, having completed the Lethal Force Institute’s Judicious Use of Deadly Force course, as well as handgun licensing requirements in California and for a Utah Concealed Carry license.
This is Bragging in the highest order about what a bad@$$ he is, anytime someone starts telling me about thier "lethel training" I start getting a real bad impression, Guess what I have training to and the most important thing to me is to Avoid Lethel force.
If you are trained and intelligent you do not need to brag nor will you.

The entire tone of this letter is VICTIM, he was innocentley just being a sweet little lamb when the jackbooted storm troopers furiously assaulted him and burned the constitution in the parking lot.

I will provide more Quotes to make my point that his attitude was most likey unpleasent and aggervated the situation.

mvpel quotes: " Given the crowd of talkative uniformed officers and detectives around me, and having been somewhat rattled by the ambush, I had difficulty finishing a sentence"
But could tell them how lethel he was.

"After about 5-10 minutes of my polite endurance of various disrespectful and arrogant statements and questions by the officers and detectives"
Polite endurance?

"I realize that some of the patrons of Barnes & Noble thought of me as a wolf, rather than a sheep-dog, and reacted accordingly by calling in the authorities. Needless to say, I will be careful to carry my firearm more discreetly in the future to avoid spooking the sheep.

However, I expect better discernment from fellow sheep-dogs.

I have not yet decided whether or not to file a lawsuit on the basis of the aforementioned violation of my rights and New Hampshire law. If I do, I will copy you on the service as a courtesy.

Again Brag, Brag, Brag. He is the mighty sheep-dog. He expects better.
LAWSUIT mentioned in first comunication. Copy you as a courtesy.
I don't care who you are or what you've done when you approch anyone with this type of attitude and arrogence, be it a cop or hotel bellboy, the responce you get is not likey to be favorable. The kind of arrogence shown is what leads me to belive he was showing off his really cool glock and when the police arrived, he actd like a @$# and then sat down and figured he could make a quick buck.

Still those are just my thoughts
I could be wrong.

Don Gwinn
August 6, 2004, 01:40 AM
Shield, I must be confused. Did MVPel sneak up and perform a "gun grab" on the police officers? I thought it was the other way around.

Don't see how that could mean that he wanted a confrontation or a lawsuit. In any case, we'll never have objective proof of your assertion, because the police in this case didn't give him a chance to explain what he was doing or to what purpose before they laid hands on him and disarmed him in what I'd have to call dangerous fashion.

they did NOTHING wrong..they received a call, they responded, the defused any threat, and they released...wheres the harm?

In the order you posted your questions:
1. Responding to a call--nothing wrong there. Good start.
2. No, they did not defuse a threat. There WAS NO THREAT, and if there had been any threat-- even the possibility to MVPel might have resorted to violence--grabbing him and his gun was an extremely stupid way to "defuse" anything. The word "defuse" doesn't even apply to that approach.
3. They released him. . . . when they never should have detained him. They could clearly see that he wasn't breaking the law, and they could clearly see that his behavior was not erratic or threatening. This is akin to saying a racist officer hasn't really hassled a black motorist since he released him--after he detained him for no legal reason. Doesn't wash.
4. The harm is in attacking, disarming by force, and detaining a person who can be seen to be acting peacefully and in accordance with the law, simply because a cop agreed with a busybody that this particular peaceful and lawful activity is distasteful. I can't believe a police officer really sees no harm in that. Your credibility with me has not been enhanced.

Zak Smith
August 6, 2004, 01:42 AM
So are you going to analyze the events that occured and their justification or lack thereof, or call mvpeel names?

-z

gunsmith
August 6, 2004, 01:59 AM
Welcome to THR.

Sometimes there is anti cop BS here.

That has nothing to do with the mvpel case though.

Open carry is probably unheard of in your jurisdiction thats all.

I carried open in AZ all over the place lots of cops and citizens saw me,no one freaked out.

Lots of folks are carrying open now in VA too, if it's legal then it's legal.

I would conceal most of the time but I prefer open carry when it's real hot and muggy.

Again Shield529
Welcome to THR

Don Gwinn
August 6, 2004, 02:03 AM
This is Bragging in the highest order about what a bad@$$ he is, anytime someone starts telling me about thier "lethel training" I start getting a real bad impression, Guess what I have training to and the most important thing to me is to Avoid Lethel force.
You've got to be kidding. Shield, do you even know what the Lethal Force Institute is? Talking about graduating LFI is bragging about your "lethal training?" LFI training is all about the prudent, judicious use of force only when it is necessary AND in accordance with law. You might have heard of the guy who runs it--Massad Ayoob. He's the police officer who writes all those gun rag articles on the topic of NOT being Rambo and understanding the use of lethal force in terms of the damage everyone involved sustains afterward. I mean absolutely no offense by this, but it sounds like you're referring to police department training, maybe in addition to academy training. If you've had that, and MVPel has had LFI, he's probably ahead of you in his knowledge of lethal force and all the wonderful reasons not to resort to it. Maybe not, or maybe you've had more advanced training than you let on above, but the way you characterize LFI and concealed carry courses as encouraging reckless application of lethal force doesn't give that impression. Frankly, it makes it appear that you're commenting on matters in which your understanding is the exact opposite of reality.

"After about 5-10 minutes of my polite endurance of various disrespectful and arrogant statements and questions by the officers and detectives"
Polite endurance?
Yes, polite endurance. It can be loosely translated as "smiling and giving polite replies while trying not to laugh at rude or unintentionally funny people." I am a past master myself, having been forced to learn the art at the hands of everyone from police officers to customers to salesmen. No matter what our teachers told us when we were kids, there ARE stupid questions, and some people can't help but ask them. If those people have the power to make your life miserable in some way, you generally act polite and endure it. Hence "polite endurance."



Let me make sure I understand this--you think that because his letter about being wrongfully detained, wrongfully disarmed, and literally having his property taken by force without cause does not show enough respect to the department which he alleges committed those acts, his accusation is false, because he must have been doing SOMETHING wrong to merit such treatment?

I know attitude matters, but this unswerving insistence that anyone who has a bad experience with a police officer must have had a bad attitude assumes that police officers can't be the ones with the bad attitude in whatever given situation. That's preposterous. Even if there weren't any bad police officers, the good ones would still be people. Do you ever watch COPS on television? No, those guys aren't representative of the police (and not everyone on COPS acts like an idiot or a tyrant) but they're certainly out there. Why is it so hard to believe that some of them work in Manchester?

I can tell you right now that where I live each police department has its own character. Virden PD's character is not what you'd call positive--they have some very good officers, but also a healthy mix of overaggressive types and officers who really believe they should have the right to make the law. I'm not passing on rumors here; my own father was told by two officers that pointing rifles at a suspect along with about 8 other officers the night before had been, and I quote, " the coolest thing they'd ever done." You don't suppose those guys might be a little too aggressive in some situations, do you?
My father also had the experience (he works for the city alongside the police department, but not for it) of asking for enough gun locks from the Project GunSafe stores for each of his guns. Dad has a lot of guns. He keeps them in a separate outbuilding with steel bars on the windows and doors, motion sensor alarms, deadbolts, etc. to keep people out, and he has no children at home, but Illinois law on gun locks still made him nervous without them.
The chief of police treated him like a criminal in that conversation based solely on the number of guns he owns (no one, and I mean NO ONE could possibly be offended by dad. He knows practically everyone in this small town and I've never heard one person speak ill of him, until this Chief arrived.)

Of course, it was probably his "attitude" and the "arrogant" way he treated the Chief when he asked someone else for some of the gun locks which had been advertised as free giveaways for two weeks (the officer dad was actually addressing when he asked for the locks gave him a wink and dropped off the locks later in the day without bothering the Chief with such details.)

Actually, for all I know, maybe I'm being arrogant, bragging about my dad's cool building and his bunch of gun locks and all. . . . ;)

Shield529
August 6, 2004, 02:20 AM
To Don Guinn

Your qoute "4. The harm is in attacking, disarming by force, and detaining a person who can be seen to be acting peacefully and in accordance with the law, simply because a cop agreed with a busybody that this particular peaceful and lawful activity is distasteful. I can't believe a police officer really sees no harm in that. Your credibility with me has not been enhanced.

This is a very loose interpretation of "Attack" took control of his gun arm and gun. I don't think that was to defuse anything as you mentioned it was to prevent a person from gaining access to that weapon.

I doubt the cop agreed with the so called busybody. Dispite all your hated towards police and myself, most of us agree with you on firearm laws and other points, we have to respond to calls no matter how and act the same way towards everyone. Its not a matter of agreeing.

So no I don't see harm in it, I was not calling the subect of the conversation names I was just giving my thoughts on the matter.

I will ask you the question though. If the police had ignored the call and he had started shooting would you be on here calling for our heads for failing to respond to a 911 call.

PS. I think its sad that my credibility is damaged because I speak my open honest opinion. I started talking on this site because I was impressed with the volume and intelligence level here compared to other places. I knew cop bashing took place here but I hoped I could help with that by being open and willing to answer any questions and discuss any topic about police that concerned others.
This I will continue to do. I will treat everyone with respect no matter how far our opinions differ, please do the same to me.

Shield529
August 6, 2004, 02:22 AM
"I know attitude matters, but this unswerving insistence that anyone who has a bad experience with a police officer must have had a bad attitude assumes that police officers can't be the ones with the bad attitude in whatever given situation. That's preposterous. Even if there weren't any bad police officers, the good ones would still be people."

Please read my other posts on other topics, it is not unswerving insistance.

gunsmith
August 6, 2004, 02:41 AM
I just want updates,not pages and pages of the open against concealed debates.

Is there any place other then packing and freep which is filled with the same old debates?? TFL doesn't seem to be working.

Don Gwinn
August 6, 2004, 02:42 AM
Sir, the very fact that you've decided that I must feel "hatred" toward police will tell most members of THR that you simply don't understand what's going on here and have not bothered to try to find out. Try and find another member of this website--police officers included--who will agree with that whopper. You might start by asking Lawdog, Coronach, Johnny Guest, Matt G, George Hill, Stephen Camp, or Erick, all of whom are or have been cops and corrections officers. You might then ask some of the officers on this board who have had serious and vehement disagreements with me on police issues, like tcsd1236 or Brownie0486. Those guys rarely agree with me (on anything at all) but I bet they won't say they think I hate them or police officers in general.
This is the sort of thing that fuels criticism from people like me. People who do NOT hate the police, but can't let the hypocrisy pass when a police officer tells me that it is hateful to point out when a police officer somewhere does something wrong. I understand that police officers do a sometimes thankless job, and they see a lot of unfair criticism, but surely the police are not above criticism.

To be clear: I don't hate police officers, and I don't hate you. That doesn't mean the officers in this case get a pass for the wrong they did, and it doesn't mean I have to agree with you even when you demonstrate that you don't understand the topic.

I notice you've become quiet about your idea that mentioning LFI and CCW training means arrogant bragging about l33t lethal ski11z.

You have still never, not once, articulated a single good reason why the officers felt the need to take physical control of either his arm or his weapon. Again, they did not even allege that he had behaved as a threat, and the weapon was a legal one worn in legal fashion.

I appreciate your support on gun laws, but I'd have to say we disagree on open carry based on your statements above. That's all this is, a disagreement. You may see this as a confrontation between the arrogant braggarts and lethal wannabes on the one side and reasonable people on the other, but all I ever said is that I disagree with your opinion and I don't think it's based on a clear understanding of the facts. I stand by that.

I could understand it if you pointed out that we don't have both sides of the story. That would be true and appropriate, and I've kept it in mind. You chose instead to argue that, given MVPel's version of events and accepting it as true, the officers still did the right thing.

We don't have to use the word "attacked." They took him by surprise, laid hands on him, disarmed him by force and detained him. Again, you have NOT articulated any reason for this except that it would prevent access to his legally carried weapon, which he had demonstrated no intention of touching in any case. Like it or not, there are certain things police officers don't get to do. You don't get to walk up to citizens who are minding their own business with their perfectly legal property and grab them. That is simply not acceptable.

tcsd1236
August 6, 2004, 04:02 AM
Shield, its a losing battle trying to explain the LEO perspective on this incident around here, on AR15.com where this was beat to death, etc. They'll never understand.

Muzzleflash
August 6, 2004, 04:37 AM
If I didn't know who Ayoob was, or what LFI was, I'd react to someone spouting a mouthful of words with Lethal repeated a few times with some rather obvious disdain.

0007
August 6, 2004, 06:24 AM
tcsd -
The reason it's usually a losing battle here and on other boards is because far too many of your fraternal brethern here and there seem to feel or at least give the impression that ANYTHING a police officer does is correct and nobody has the right to question them. And when these actions are sometimes impossible to justify some of you go into snit mode repeating the mantra "We're right and you people are wrong and you people are all too stupid to understand why."

It's a self-fueling vicious circle. Sometimes you're wrong and sometimes the rest of us are wrong. The difference that I see is that occationally "us'en" will sometimes admit to error. ;)

TarpleyG
August 6, 2004, 08:52 AM
Quote from: mvpel "I informed them that I am trained, having completed the Lethal Force Institute’s Judicious Use of Deadly Force course, as well as handgun licensing requirements in California and for a Utah Concealed Carry license.
I got news for ya Shields--one LFI class is probably more actual hands-on firearms training than most cops will ever have. The guy is not a braggart. You got some nerve as a new guy around here flaming people. You're a cop, we get it. Cops can't just go around harrassing folks so they can 'just get home at night.' Your job comes with risks. You took it, not me. IMO, the responding officers should have just observed the guy for a while before manhandling him. And, for the record to all, this is EXACTLY why people SHOULD open carry. To start conditioning the sheep to not freak out at the meer sight of a gun.

Greg

1911Tuner
August 6, 2004, 09:25 AM
Have to agree with the point that open carry in a public place isn't the
smart thing to do. Some people are frightened of guns...period. Why
that is doesn't matter. They just are. When people get frightened, some
tend to call the police. That's also a fact.

When the police arrive, they are walking in pretty much blind. How
many cops reading this have had dispatches that haven't given all the facts...even though the dispatcher was aware of something that the responding officer(s) should know about? It happens.

They cops don't know if the man in possession of the weapon is
Joe Good 'ol Boy who is on their side, or some gang-banger lookin'
to make his mark by cappin' a cop. They don't want to get shot either...
That's NOT part of their job description. Disarming somebody that
they interview is called "Threat Management" and that practice
can stop at that point, or it can go all the way to having one of
them mace the person and put him in cuffs...It's pretty much up to
the one being managed. Better for him to get bent outta shape over
a violation of his legal rights than to have a firefight in a bookstore or
crowded restaurant. The former is much easier to explain and justify.

Their job is to maintain order by taking control of whatever situation
that they walk up to. If they can do that without resorting to a violent
response, they will do just that.

Note also that although open carry is legal in many jurisdictions, there is
also very often a law prohibiting the practice of "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public". If one concerned citizen wants to press charges, you're busted.

Open carry is acceptable in certain places, but a family bookstore just ain't one of'em. I'm a die-hard advocate of the right to keep and bear arms...
vehemently so. I have also been more than a little concerned when I've seen somebody carrying openly in areas where it's out of place, and I
keep a close eye on'em. I also feel that people who do it are either
looking for attention or have an axe to grind, and are attempting to
provoke a confrontation with the authorities in order to whet the stone.
Either way...they are NOT helping our cause.

Just my nickel's worth.

tcsd1236
August 6, 2004, 09:53 AM
I got news for ya Shields--one LFI class is probably more actual hands-on firearms training than most cops will ever have. The guy is not a braggart. You got some nerve as a new guy around here flaming people. You're a cop, we get it. Cops can't just go around harrassing folks so they can 'just get home at night.' Your job comes with risks. You took it, not me. IMO, the responding officers should have just observed the guy for a while before manhandling him. And, for the record to all, this is EXACTLY why people SHOULD open carry. To start conditioning the sheep to not freak out at the meer sight of a gun.



I have taken the Judicious Use LFI course; it has ZERO hands-on firearms time. It is totally classroom, legalese DPF advice from Mas. And I was in the classroom with a lot of other local officers who took it with me.

I can't speak from memory for the state requirements that were mentioned, although I have seen the Utah requirements on one or two boards when I was considering getting that non-res permit a few years ago to go along with my collection of non res permits.

Another thing: for every LFI, Gunsite, Yavapei, etc graduate, there are a hundred ignorant gun owners who have ZERO training on the issue and think they KNOW what the laws regarding the use of deadly physical force are. I have seen enough proof of that on the various gun boards I post on. In contrast, EVERY officer has mandatory initial and in-service training on what constitutes the legal use of deadly physical force.

You mention hands-on gun time. OK, So law enforcement happens to share a tool of the trade with what happens to be your HOBBY. Its ONE aspect of our job, and one that rarely gets utilized by the average officer. Huge advances have been made in the area of law enforcement firearms training in the past decades, compared to what used to be taught or, more often, not taught. The reality is that most agencies cannot afford to turn every officer into a Rob Letham. There has to be a middle ground between skills building and financial responsibility for the agencies and officers involved.Car lovers expect every oficer to be a NASCAR level driver; gun people expect every officer to be a competitive level shooter. It isn't going to happen.

We DON'T just "go around harassing people". I don't know how many officers you have dealt with, and under what circumstances. Generally someone thats seeing the non-officer Friendly side of law enforcement has brought that on themselves, although you NEVER see them admit it..its always "someone elses fault" in their minds.

Our job has risks associated with it certainly..that doesn't mean that we should not and cannot take steps to reduce that risk.

The reality is that defensive firearms ownership is a rather compartmentalized area of firearms ownership; you will never have so many citizens openly carrying that it is not viewed with some suspicion by the general , non- gun owning population, in spite of you as a gun hobbyist might WANT to see it viewed by the general public.

The reason it's usually a losing battle here and on other boards is because far too many of your fraternal brethern here and there seem to feel or at least give the impression that ANYTHING a police officer does is correct and nobody has the right to question them. And when these actions are sometimes impossible to justify some of you go into snit mode repeating the mantra "We're right and you people are wrong and you people are all too stupid to understand why."

There is a time and place to handle a complaint a person might have with an officer, and thats not by the roadside or where ever the contact is/has taken place..its with the agencies administration, later, or even through the legal process if neccesary. In the meantime, the right thing to do IS to obey the officers instructions, in spite of what you think is proper.

As far as officers thinking people are idiots, well, we deal with idiots every day on our job. We have had more than enough proof that there ARE a lot of idiots in the general population. And quite often, its obvious from the sort of criticism that gets leveled at officers that the critic is speaking from ignorance. But when we...guys like Shield, myself or others, try to explain the LE perspective, we get howled down by the ignorant masses who have an opinion on what they THINK the right answer is.

Why isn't MVPEL posting here?

I believe he was banned from here for not following the posting rules when commenting on this incident. Or was that elsewhere, like AR15. Can't keep it straight; he had the same thread spread over so many boards right after it happened.....

Henry Bowman
August 6, 2004, 10:05 AM
2004: Open carry is acceptable in certain places, but a family bookstore just ain't one of 'em.
1954: Eating with black folks is acceptable in certain places, but a family restaurant just ain't one of 'em.

Popular perceptions can change, especially if they are shown to be based on irrational prejudice. But usually only if some are willing to make others uncomfortable with their irrational prejudice. Most blacks did not refuse to give up their seat on a bus. Most blacks did not drink from the "whites only" drinking fountain or swim in the "whites only" public pools. But all of us -- black, white, latino -- benefitted from those who did.

Shield -- please stick around. It takes a while for some of what's being said to not sound so foreign.

flatrock
August 6, 2004, 10:18 AM
The 911 transcript makes things sound like they handled things pretty well.

However, the original story tells a considerable different story in my opinion.

The police used force to apprehend someone who was doing nothing illegal. He was doing nothing suspicious other than possessing a gun in a legal manner. He had been in the area for a considerable amount of time and had done nothing suspicious.

The dispatcher had this information. They also knew that the manager of the store, which is private property, had checked things out and hadn't been concerned. Did they call the manager of the store, or have the responding officers talk to the manager before taking aggressive action against someone who had been hanging out in the store shopping for a considerable amount of time before they arrived?

The officers apparently didn't get all the information they needed, and then went in way too aggressively for the situation. There wasn't any evidence of a threat, and definately not an immediate one. They should have taken a moment to assess the situation, rather than rushing in to confiscate the legally carrier gun first.

They followed that up by a number of officers giving him crap about carrying a gun, acting rudely. Not a good public relations effort when you just screwed up.

Personally, I still wouldn't have contacted a lawyer at this point, and neight did he.

Those are mistakes they should admit to, and take efforts to make sure they don't happen again. He wrote the police department giving them his side of the story. Rather than start by sueing, he gave the police a chance to address the problem, and make an appology.

Did they appologize? Did they say that they would look into their procedures and train the officers and dispatchers to handle situations like this better?

No, they stonewalled him, and even originally ignored his legal requests for public records. They added insult to injury.

The officers need to be told that they handled the situation wrong. The dispatcher needs to be told that they need to get the officers more of the important information, although it's possible that they did, since it appears that the 911 recording they were given is shorter than the actual time.

This guy also deserves an appology, and since they forced him to hire a lawyer to get them to address the issue, they need to pay his legal fees.

Should he get a huge settlement? I'm inclined to say no.

1911Tuner
August 6, 2004, 10:20 AM
Henry Bowman...No argument there. It's largely a matter of where you are.
I remember a time when blacks had to take their meals "out back" too...
and about the same time, there was a little family-owned restaurant
in my area that treated everybody the same...black or white...and it was in the south. Mixed race patrons often ate together or shared tables and whiled away a few minutes in conversation before getting back to their daily routine. Status Quo for the diner. An hour down the road at another spot, it would've caused a stir...or worse.

Times have also changed in inverse order on the practice of going armed.
I can remember carrying openly into the Hall of Justice to apply for a pistol permit not so many years ago...and having the county Sheriff engage me in
convresation about my choice in sidearms, and even offer me his for inspection. I wouldn't try that in the same building now...even without the
metal detectors.

A family restaurant in Paulden, Arizona probably has a hlaf-dozen open carriers take breakfast or lunch there every day...but Atlanta might produce different results. Again...there are some places that it's acceptable, but others that aren't.

Deavis
August 6, 2004, 10:30 AM
I was thinking about the LEO view of a situation like this. The general feel I get, from reading their posts, is that a LEO is walking into this situation blind, ie he doesn't know if it is a badguy carrying a weapon or a good guy.

Now, at first I said, "yeah, how could he. I'd be worried too." That doesn't mean I agree with their actions while disarming mvpel. Then I thought about it a bit and it made me wonder, how many bad guys carry openly? I mean, seriously, I'm curious to know.

How many criminals have ever carried a weapon openly in public before committing a crime. I'm not talking about getting out of a car, grabbing a shotty, and charging the bank. I mean, they are going to rob the local Stop'n'Shop. So they strap on their piece, drop off the mail at the PO, grab the latest Maxim at the bookstop, walk over to the Stop'n'Shop, rob them, hit the liqour store for a bottle, and then go to the park to lay low with their 9 still strapped on?

A little farfetched, but seriously, by their very nature a criminal wouldn't be open carrying. It would remove all advantages to committing a crime, ie surprise, force, intimidation, and stealth. So, LEOs, chime in here and tell me, how many open carrying criminals have you arrested in your career?

I am willing to bet that none can say that they actually nailed a BG that was open carrying while not committing a crime. Thus, once again, it is the people who follow the laws that are punished by those who chose to enforce as they see fit, ie hassling a guy who was following the law.

The issue that makes me upset is this. If I am stopped by a LEO and I don't know the law, I can still be convicted for it. Ignorance of the law is not a defense to prosecution. If you are stopped by a LEO, arrested/detained/harrassed/etc because he is ignorant of the law you can not prosecute him for it. The very people who arrest us for not knowing the law are exempted from any penalties by law except under a very narrow set of circumstances. I'm not saying they should be thrown in jail, but a little something to bring home the point that you cannot exercise your power blindly would help.

Do you see how that can make people upset? LEOs say, "we are only human we made a mistake. sorry about arresting/harrasing/etc you" Yet, their is no punishment for their wrong doing that could have cost a person their life, job, money, or a plethora of other things.

LEO says sorry, they go home or get suspended with pay. We say sorry, judge says too bad, and we go to jail. Is that not injustice for a man who prides himself on knowing and following the law?

Hawkmoon
August 6, 2004, 11:24 AM
You've got to be kidding. Shield, do you even know what the Lethal Force Institute is? Talking about graduating LFI is bragging about your "lethal training?" LFI training is all about the prudent, judicious use of force only when it is necessary AND in accordance with law. You might have heard of the guy who runs it--Massad Ayoob. He's the police officer who writes all those gun rag articles on the topic of NOT being Rambo and understanding the use of lethal force in terms of the damage everyone involved sustains afterward. I mean absolutely no offense by this, but it sounds like you're referring to police department training, maybe in addition to academy training. If you've had that, and MVPel has had LFI, he's probably ahead of you in his knowledge of lethal force and all the wonderful reasons not to resort to it. Maybe not, or maybe you've had more advanced training than you let on above, but the way you characterize LFI and concealed carry courses as encouraging reckless application of lethal force doesn't give that impression. Frankly, it makes it appear that you're commenting on matters in which your understanding is the exact opposite of reality.
Pardon me for piling on if this has already been mentioned and I skipped over it, but MVPel was accosted in the Manchester, New Hampshire, Barnes and Noble bookstore. Massaad Ayoob and his Lethal Force Institute are located right up the road from there, in New Hampshire. Mass Ayoob is an annual competitor in inter-departmental shooting competitions and has won several New Hampshire state championships. If the officers who were harrassing MVPel had not heard of Ayoob and/or the Institute, shame on them.

To summarize: The "harm" was not that officers responded to the idiotic phone complaint. We all understand that they are required to do so. The "harm" is that they physically accosted an innocent person who was not engaged in threatening activity. What uif he were a martial arts expert? We might now be reading about an officer who dies from receiving a lethal karate chop, and a civilian who was shot by the backup officer for "resisting an officer" (who did not identify himself as an officer before accosting MVPel). Secondly, the "harm" was the ridiculous round of lectures about non-LEOs carrying handguns. There is no way anything of that nature wass justified. The national and state constitutions guarantee the man's RIGHT to carry. He chose to exercise that right. WHY he chose to do so is none of their business. End of story.

Gunsnrovers
August 6, 2004, 11:39 AM
We don't have the right to open carry in the PRK. I see it regularly when I visit my folks in Arizona.

I have absolutely NO problem with open carry. I would choose not to as I don't like to draw attention. However, if I CCW and print or my shirt gets lifted, ext., I would like to think I wouldn't find myself beneath the floodlights of a ghetto bird, surrounded by half the freakin' squad cars in the area, face down felony prone. BTDT wearing only my shorts on a cold January night outside my own home. No thanks. Not again. Different story for a different day.

I think it's outrageous what happened to Mvpel, but I don't know the answer. It's almost a no win for the PD. If they don't respond or don't respond "forecfully" enough, they get slammed. If they go to far, they get slammed. Until the government comes out and actually makes a stand on the 2nd amendment, we're going to have to deal with this crap. As long as it's uncertain, the responses for the public and the LEO community will be as well. LEO's are just folks. Some are great guys. Some are complete morons. Wish people wore tags so you could tell which was which before you start talking. :banghead:

DigitalWarrior
August 6, 2004, 01:03 PM
New Hampshire was chosen by the Free State Project as a place for lovers of Liberty to gather. Open carry is one of those RIGHTS that the citizens have not had stolen from them.

When I goto NH, I will open carry or CCW as I see fit. The police should not detain me "just for walking around", nor should they detain me for "just walking around with a pistol in my holster".

I understand that Police Officer's are often put in a bad position. The must try to keep people happy, and the criminal element at bay. I often feel sorry that a police officer has to walk that line. But then I stop saying "Well if they didn't want to, they would be used-car salesmen."

Cops must treat all people as potentially armed, and hostile until proven otherwise. If they don't, they leave behind a widow and two kids. But the Cops that I know seem to know that and still not frisk every man woman and child they see.

Partaking in a PERFECTLY LEGAL act is not PC for detainment. If I am ever detained for eating ice cream (cause you know terrorists eat ice cream too), I will be saddened.

DigitalWarrior
August 6, 2004, 01:05 PM
BTW Shield, do you open carry ever?

Or is it differrent because you are a police officer?

Sindawe
August 6, 2004, 01:34 PM
Lets try to keep this thread civil and not get it shut down. DigitalWarrior, you sound like you're starting down that path, I can hear the sarcasum dripping off your last post. ;) I'm not a mod, just a fellow member who growing a tad weary of the needless flamefests that sometimes occur.

Sheild529: I don't concur with your assesment at all, but thank you for posting it. flatrock and Deavis have stated what *I* see wrong here. Yes the police have an obligation to check out calls, its their job after all. We don't pay cops to sit in shiny patrol cars, drink java and look heroic after all. Checking out the situation, no problem. Contacting the individual in question/root of the call, no problem. The issue as far as I'm concerned is the manner of the contact between mvpel and the police here. It strikes me that the officers in this debacle did not take a few seconds to observe and assess the situation before acting. 5 or 10 seconds should have been sufficent to deterime that mvpel was minding his own buisness, peacefully, and not acting in an irrational or threatening manner at the moment. There should have been no need to approch from behind, grap & push mvpel unawares and assume an additude about fellow civialans carrying weapons in public. Verbal contact, yes, by one officer while the other one stands at ready out of the line of sight.

If mvpel HAD been behaiving in a erratic, aggitated or threatening manner when the police arrived, THEN the actions they took in this situation would have been justified. I listened to and read the transcript of the 911 calls, nothing there gives me cause to believe that somebody was running amuk with a gun. I rather wish the police report were available to read, since then we would have BOTH sides of the story. (If it is avaliable, any body got a URL for it?)

DigitalWarrior
August 6, 2004, 01:46 PM
There was a high degree of sarcasm in the last post, but I do not think that it was terribly inappropriate. Perhaps then I should rephrase it into a direct and Honest question:

Shield - why is it OK for you to protect your life with open carry and not OK for me to protect my life with open carry. And I do not believe that anyone would find the answer "because I am a cop" acceptable.

ojibweindian
August 6, 2004, 01:52 PM
Shield, its a losing battle trying to explain the LEO perspective on this incident around here, on AR15.com where this was beat to death, etc. They'll never understand.

And neither will you.

tcsd1236
August 6, 2004, 01:53 PM
Shield - why is it OK for you to protect your life with open carry and not OK for me to protect my life with open carry. And I do not believe that anyone would find the answer "because I am a cop" acceptable.
I can't speak for Shield, but I don't know any officer who "open carries" outside of plainclothes officers with their tins on their belt while on duty.

And neither will you.

I understand perfectly well that non-LEO's don't understand the LEO perspective or how we operate other than what they see on TV, and based on that they usually post from a position of ignorance when they comment on LE issues.

ojibweindian
August 6, 2004, 02:06 PM
I understand that there seems to be a goodly number of "police officers" who are okay with abusing their authority in order to "come home safely" each night.

As far as a "position of ignorance" is concerend, I would assume that you operate with some ignorance as to the general reputation of LE at this time, because your statements and position on this issue re-inforces a part of this reputation, i. e. circling the waggons around LEOs who have exhibited bad behavior.

It's simple, when your profession loses its JBT mentality, you will see fewer "cop-bashing" threads.

SRYnidan
August 6, 2004, 02:11 PM
I have followed this thread since its inception and have said nothing but there are something’s I would like to touch on without my asbestos suit if possible.

I live and work in a state where open carry is legal. I have a CCW and carry when ever I am not at work (I work on a federal military reservation were even local LEO’s are guests).
I used to carry openly on rare occasions before the CCW requirements were changed from arbitrary and capricious (I quote the then under sheriff) to shall issue. I never liked the idea but it was the law at the time. Most of the people I shoot with and interact with in my martial arts are military of LEO of some capacity.
I have been stopped and asked about my motives by the police on three occasions. I understood their requirements and two of the encounters were both brief and professional. The third occasion was a different experience altogether after being stopped and questioned as to my motives and intentions I was subjected to a twenty minute monolog / debate on why civilians (I was active duty military at the time and had so identified myself) should not own / carry guns.

The above having been said I do agree with the concept of “COP bashing”.
However if someone who had not identified themselves attempted to physically restrain or assault me there would have probably been injured folks on both sides (I am both a defensive tactics and armed and unarmed combat instructor).

The last comment I would like to make is why is it that in my instance, as well as the one posted, the law enforcement officers most convinced that their personal safety trumps my rights and safety insist on lecturing us that our rights either do not exist or are subject to their interpretation.

The guy in the post may have exhibited poor judgment but I see nothing that justified a physical assault ( and all of you LEO types ask yourself what the law would classify this behavior if it was done by anyone else) and there is no call to lecture anyone.

Deavis
August 6, 2004, 02:11 PM
tcsd1236 -
how we operate other than what they see on TV

Come on, there are quite a few educated people here who know the difference between TV and real life. If you don't think we non-LEO do not understand it, then explain it to us so that we can learn. This is about education, for both sides. I'm explaining how I see it and trying to understand your (LEO) side. Unlike some, when I consider an issue I don't just say,

"I thought about what you said and it must be nice not to live in reality"

i.e. I didn't read it because I don't care, here is my opinion. Everyone knows that is how post flamers operate.

So if there is something missing, explain how you would have handled it and why. I'm curious to know.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 6, 2004, 02:18 PM
I understand perfectly well that non-LEO's don't understand the LEO perspective or how we operate other than what they see on TV, and based on that they usually post from a position of ignorance when they comment on LE issues.


No I understand your and Shield's LEO perspective perfectly.

1. You have contempt for the law on open carry

2. You think that your low opinion of open carry supercedes the law

3. You have a very low opinion of citizens in general

4. You think that perspectives 1-3 entitle you to violate the civil rights of law abiding gun owners any time you please

5. You haven't a clue as to the concept of probable cause

I am relieved to see from Shield's profile that this "police officer" is not any closer than 500 miles to my home.

OF
August 6, 2004, 02:23 PM
As usual, alot of static in this thread coupled with the usual questions about cop-behavior which are followed (like night follows day) with the 'cop-basher! cop-hater!' BS. Address the issue for once!

It doesn't make one iota of difference whether anyone in here or on the Manchester PD thinks open carry is a 'bad idea'.

It's legal. End of story.

You don't like it? Try to get it outlawed if you're so against it (then we'll see who's on the side of freedom and gun-rights). But don't project your personal opinions about what is or is not a 'good idea' onto this situation.

Your 'feelings' about open carry are irrelevant. The law states it is legal, therefore the cops have no authority to lay a hand on the man.

NO AUTHORITY.

- Gabe

liliysdad
August 6, 2004, 02:27 PM
If I had been on that call. the man would have been disarmed, no doubt about that. I would not have approached hm from behind, and placed a hand on his weapon, however.....just not a real smart idea. i woul dhave had him get the gun out, and hand it over for the duration of our visit...then if everything was in order, he would have gotten it back, unloaded.

Truth be told, I have a pretty good feeling we are seeing but one side of this story, the side of the "victim" ( very loosely used), and not one of us here can judge the actions of either party, because we were not there.

The ONLY problems I see in ths scenario are the facts that he was disarmed in a way unsafe for the oficers, and that these officers felt some need to express their political views......but no the fact that they have those views, as that is their right.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 6, 2004, 02:55 PM
If I had been on that call. the man would have been disarmed, no doubt about that

Given the fact pattern in this case, you'd have absolutely no probable cause to even question the man, let alone disarm and detain him.

One nice thing about living in the D.C. area is the high concentration of lawyers. It acts as a very strong deterrent to police who begin to put themselves above the law as you indicate that you would in this situation.

The man was in the bookstore for 30 minutes, reading a magazine, sitting on the arm of an easy chair chatting with his wife, no silent alarm, no call from the manager, ... and you consider yourself to have probable cause to disarm, detain and question this fellow?

liliysdad
August 6, 2004, 02:57 PM
Yeah..I do..there was a complaint from a citizen....no PC for an arrest, but enough to talk to the guy, and I would pat him down for officer safety, removing the handgun in process, run him for warrants, and cut him loose.

DigitalWarrior
August 6, 2004, 03:14 PM
Please understand the content of my post. If I sound abusive, it is because I am offended by the rampant disregard for my rights.

If I called in a police complaint that a fella had "darker skin" than I thought a person in the neigborhood should have(This is a nice white town I say), would you:

1: Detain the man, search him, and run warrants.
2: Tell me (the idiot issueing the complaint) that there is nothing illegal about being black, and that you will not harass a man who is doing nothing wrong.

If you choose option 1, I hate you (not all cops). I do not want to violate the ethics of the high road, but this is essential that I make clear. Option 1 is not acceptable. 1 is evil beyond measure.

Shield529
August 6, 2004, 03:17 PM
"BTW Shield, do you open carry ever?

Or is it differrent because you are a police officer?"

I will respond to this, Yes it is diffrent my Dept. policy forbids my wearing of and open weapon when not in uniform.

Termination offence.

liliysdad
August 6, 2004, 03:32 PM
I do not make the connection betwen being black, and having a firearm. You cannt do harm by simply being black, but you have the potential to do so with a firearm.

Yes, it is a right, however, with that right come responsibilities. One MUST ascertain the intentions of the person being complained against , since the firearm posessed lends a whole new plethora of consequences. You may not like it, but its the truth....just because YOU say you are a stad up guy, and have no ill wishes..I dont know it to be fact. What makes your statement any more valid thean the one made by the complaintant? Nothing, thats what.

Again, this is prrof positive that open carry is a terrible thing to do , whether right or wrong, 99% of the time.

ctdonath
August 6, 2004, 03:36 PM
And therein lies the problem:

MVPEL did something absolutely legal, moral and acceptable, causing zero harm beyond inadvertantly triggering a stranger's holoplophobia. There is nothing in the situation to warrant even questioning him.

Shield529 would be punished severely for doing exactly the same thing.

That explains a lot in this thread.

Hawkmoon
August 6, 2004, 04:18 PM
However if someone who had not identified themselves attempted to physically restrain or assault me there would have probably been injured folks on both sides (I am both a defensive tactics and armed and unarmed combat instructor).
This is precisely the point I am trying to make here, and in this even Lilysdad (who seems never to agree with me) seems to be in agreement. I can understand a responding LEO wanting to secure the other guy's weapon while the initial review of his identification and crednetials is being carried out. But as with virtually everything, there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish this. Sneaking up behind an armed individual and laying hands on him WITHOUT letting his see you and WITHOUT first identifying yourself as a police officer isn't just dumb and probably illegal, it is INVITING a physical retaliation -- which could range from simply attempting to retain possession of the handgun, to a martial arts expert incapacitating the officer with a single well-placed chop to the neck. And, of course, if that had happened the backup officer(s) would then have felt justified to use force to restrain the "offender," whose only offense was to defend himself against an attack by person or persons UNKNOWN.

What would have been wrong with having one officer positioned at the 3:00 (or 9:00, take your pick) o'clock position while the other officer walked up to the subject, identified himself, explained that they received a complaint, and asked if they could secure the weapon while they discussed the matter? MVPel could then have agreed to let the officer hold the weapon while he (MVPel) explained that he forgot he was carrying when he decided to leave his jacket in the car, but that (a) open carry is legal anyway and (b) he had a concealed carry permit. That should have been the end of the discussion.

ojibweindian
August 6, 2004, 04:21 PM
Circle them waggons, guys.

Never admit your fellow brothers may be wrong; it's ALWAYS the "civilian" who is at fault.

How many of you think that these "LEOs" would willingly take part in a gun confiscation program because it was "the law"?

sumpnz
August 6, 2004, 04:41 PM
I do not make the connection betwen being black, and having a firearm. You cannt do harm by simply being black, but you have the potential to do so with a firearm. You know, a lot of the racist laws and attitudes towards black people came from the ridiculous idea that black men were out there looking for innocent little white girls to rape and murder. Black men would be arrested simply for the fact that they were black in an area that contained a lot of white women. In the asinine thinking of the time they had the "potential" to do harm simply because they were black. Just like you said a gun carrier has the "potential" to do harm.

A firearm is just a tool. It is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything until a person causes it to do so. The two loaded guns in my headboard (one each for me and my wife) do not cause me to become suicidal, or make me want to go go rob the Quicky Mart. Sure, it gives me the potential to do so where I otherwise wouldn't. But I'm not a robber. It is my real actions, not my potential to commit other actions based on the fantasy that some hunk of metal will drive to do so that should be of concern to LEOs.

I have a lot of respect for police officers in general, and I have always strived to treat them better than most anyone else does. That (and a healthy amount of luck) is probably why I'm 5 for 5 on not getting tickets when pulled over while driving. I know you have a dangerous job, and more than anything, at the end of the day, you want to go home to the wife and kids just like the rest of us. I'll never begrudge you that. All I, and a lot of other people here, ask is that you be respectful of our rights when we wind up having a professional contact with you. That includes not being assaulted while legally carrying a legally owned object. That also includes not being lectured at length on why legally carrying a legally owned object is a bad thing to do (In this case, at most a passing comment to the effect that since he has a CCW permit that it would be more prudent to keep it covered in the future would have been OK).

DigitalWarrior
August 6, 2004, 05:00 PM
Thank you sumpnz. You saw my point precisely.

"Blacks rob and rape and kill, so each one must be investigated" is not a real far stretch from "People who open carry rob and rape and kill, so each one must be investigated"

I am deeply sorry that you chose option 1.

EricOKC
August 6, 2004, 05:03 PM
Just a question for the LEO's here:

If someone called into 911 and said something like:

"Oh my God! There's this guy in the bookstore and he's carrying an open cup of hot coffee! Please Help!"

What would your reaction be? Its perfectly legal. Not necessarily a good idea, but perfectly legal.

The dispatcher should have reacted with a couple questions along the lines of "Is he acting in a threatening manner?" and explained to the caller that open carry is LEGAL in that state and left it at that.

If the dispatcher still felt the need to send an officer, they could have just as easily responded by observing mvpel for a moment, recognizing he was not a threat and calmly left the scene.

He was doing nothing wrong and as such, they had NO probable cause to stop him. Its no different than pulling someone over for doing 60 in a 60mph zone just because you dont like the color of his car.

DigitalWarrior
August 6, 2004, 05:14 PM
I imagine that you open carry in while in uniform for a reason, while I am not sure what that reason may be, it may also be valid for those who do not wear a badge.

I see the biggest difference between police and the rest of society is that police have decided to make a career of defending the rights of others against predators. I like cops. In doing so they place themselves in huge danger, and are (in my opinion) seriously under compensated.

There seem to be a few police officers who have forgotten that they are suppossed to protect the rights of citizens. I have an amazing textbook for police. A huge portion of that book is dedicated to getting people to give consent, in order to bypass requirements for evidence and uniportant stuff like that. My personal favorite part of the book is where it instructs the trooper to pull over people for petty offenses, so that when they profile a car and find Drugs (OMG!), they can show that they pull people over for petty crap all the time.
:barf:

Thankfully not a lot of cops I have met (they are very cool) have taken that advice :)

DigitalWarrior
August 6, 2004, 05:15 PM
Actually it is like pulling over a corvett that is doing sixty in a sixty zone, because they have the capacity to excessively speed and cause deadly accidents.

DigitalWarrior
August 6, 2004, 05:15 PM
[Deleted double tap]

sendec
August 6, 2004, 05:17 PM
Carrying a cup of coffee in a bookstore is a normal, everyday behavior. Wearing a gun visibly is not. Let's switch "cup of coffee" for "axe". It is perfectly legal, but it'll raise some eyebrows and I'll bet someone'll call the cops. Anybody remember Thong Guy? Just because something is legal does'nt mean it is the right thing to do.

Is'nt there a new horse to beat?

DigitalWarrior
August 6, 2004, 05:20 PM
Nothing wrong with an axe either.

OF
August 6, 2004, 05:32 PM
Yes, it is a right, however, with that right come responsibilities.This drives me absolutely nuts. It is the weak little false 'trump-card' that all statists and apologists play when they run up against freedom and just really can't bring themselves to admit that they are anti-freedom and anti-rights.

What are you saying with this? Somehow the one exercising the right just didn't realize that they have 'responsibilities' too...responsibility to what, exactly? Not exercise their rights? What difference does it make if it 'scares' people? Who's problem is that? What if political leafleting 'scared' people, would they have their right to leaflet curtailed due to some bizarre 'responsibility' for the mental state of others? Others that are ignorant of the law and ignorant of what constitutes a threat?

Of course not.

It would not matter if 99.99% of Manchester was scared of the sight of an open handgun: the law is clear. Open carry of a handgun is perfectly legal. The police have NO AUTHORITY to accost someone engaged in a perfectly legal activity ! No more so than they have to accost someone just walking down the street minding their own business. Someone's potential for harm (which if they have a gun is outweighed by their potential for good) is IRRELEVANT. Everyone has potential for harm. Basing your assault on that line of reasoning is anti-freedom. Period.

If the citizens of Manchester do not want open carry of firearms in their city, there are legislative measures they may take to try and curtail that right. Yelling 'OH MY GOD' to the police and having people engaged in a perfectly legal activity harrased at their whim is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

The proper response for the police is to inform the complaintant that there is no crime being committed and if they continue to sic the cops on law-abiding citizens for no reason other than they are 'scared' of their own shadow they will be brought up on charges!

The duty of the Manchester police is to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS. The man in question here was within his rights, therefore he should not be the object of assault, the complaintant should!

There are responsibilities with rights: the responsibility to be held responsible for your actions. The man has the right to openly carry a firearm, that right does not come with the 'responsibility' to consent to being man-handled by the police.

:banghead:

FedDC
August 6, 2004, 05:35 PM
TO all my fellow LEOs- Don't even try to explain the way the world works on this bord. It will always end up the same: JBTs trampling the "Rights" of gun owners who know what they think are their "Rights"... although often they seem to be blissfully unaware of what their rights actually are. Some people see what they want to see whether it is there or not and it goes both ways.

This has been beaten to death and I tried to explain that in the LE world, to question an armed man is suicidal... that whole Action Beats Reaction thing and how he could draw, move, and fire before the LEOs could react thereby endangering the LEOs and the general public which is why we disarm the people we are interviewing as potential suspects...

I think that the disconnect seems to be that folks on here want us to treat everybody we meet as if they are Medal Of Honor winners and not ever raise our voice until they start shooting at us...as opposed to just disarming them upfront and thereby avoiding the whole gunfight.

What people need to realize is that LE Tactics must be based, not on the assumption that people will comply and not try to kill us, but on the 5% of people that we meet who intend to do us harm. We do that in order to stay alive and it is just that simple. It is better to offend a few people and be safe when we meet the one that intends to send us home in a box, than be super nice and end up dead.

FedDC
August 6, 2004, 05:39 PM
The rights vs responsibility is simple, if you do not utilize a right responsibly, you will loose the support of the people who decide what your rights are and those voters will remove what you believe to be your "Right".

ojibweindian
August 6, 2004, 05:39 PM
Fed

You need to find a new job if you can't handle it.

OF
August 6, 2004, 05:44 PM
I've got an idea, why not just implant everyone with some kind of neuro-inhibitor at birth that can be activated by police? Whenever you have to speak to one of the 'citizens', you just press a button and they're paralyzed from the neck down for the duration of the 'interview'.

Sure would cut down on officer injuries.

How could anyone have a problem with that? No lasting effects, only the police would have the controls. It's not only safer for the officers, but for the citizens as well. 'Interviewing' citizens is dicey, anyone could have a hidden weapon - there just isn't any way to tell who the good guys are. So a little unobtrusive measure like this, while expensive for sure, would go a long way towards reducing officer injuries, officer-involved-shootings and other LEO-public interface problems.

In the end, the public is better off, the officers are safer and no one has had their 'rights' unnecessarily infringed. If there isn't a problem, the citizen goes on his/her way and no harm done.

What do you think?

- Gabe

OF
August 6, 2004, 05:45 PM
The rights vs responsibility is simple, if you do not utilize a right responsibly, you will loose the support of the people who decide what your rights are and those voters will remove what you believe to be your "Right".Talk about a disconnect. What is a 'right', FedDC? Define it for me.

- Gabe

FedDC
August 6, 2004, 05:46 PM
Obi-

You need to try something before you go around spouting an uninformed opinion. It is easy for you to be brave at your keyboard. Try that same theory in SE DC with echoing gunfire in the background as I have and then I'll give your opinion some weight. Until then...soldier on there Chairborn!

Sindawe
August 6, 2004, 05:50 PM
FedDC said:
What people need to realize is that LE Tactics must be based, not on the assumption that people will comply and not try to kill us, but on the 5% of people that we meet who intend to do us harm. We do that in order to stay alive and it is just that simple. It is better to offend a few people and be safe when we meet the one that intends to send us home in a box, than be super nice and end up dead.

So does that same apply for us who are not LEOs when encountering LEOs for what ever reason? There are a small fraction of LEOs who are powermad jerks drunk on their own authority. Some of them are dirty as mud in a pig sty and mean us non-LEOs ill intent. Would *I* be justified in treating all LEOs I may encounter as possible threats to my life? If not, why not? Seams to work for you FedDC.

FedDC
August 6, 2004, 05:51 PM
Gabe-

The debate of what actually constitutes a right would best be served by another topic so as not to derail this discussion. For the purposes of my point, I was referring to the rights as codified into Law here in the US.

Those rights were all voted on and can be voted on again if the will of the people demand it...so yes, the 2nd amendment could in theory (God Forbid) be erased just as prohibition went south after it lost popular support.

Sindawe
August 6, 2004, 05:53 PM
FedDC said:
Until then...soldier on there Chairborn!

Gee, so I guess this is gonna devolve into another round of name calling eh?

ojibweindian
August 6, 2004, 05:54 PM
Fed.

Seriously, you sound stressed out. You need to find a new job before you go and permenantly deny a citizen the right to breathe. After all you've been through, and the exaustion of worrying about getting zapped by all of us middle-aged fatsos trying to kill you, you might legitimately mistake a Tootsie Roll for a gun and...:rolleyes:

OF
August 6, 2004, 05:58 PM
Actually, the Bill of Rights is inviolate, and not subject to revision or revokation. But the interpretation thereof is certainly varied. My point is, that the 'right' is currently enshrined and respected in NH law. Open carry is legal, he has the right to do so. Whther if that scares people they will move to have that right abridged is another argument. But as of this incident, it is very clear that the man was within his rights to carry that firearm as he was carrying it.

I think we agree on that at least?

So that said, where does the PD derive it's power to accost those who are carrying openly?

The complainant? Some nebulous and subjective 'officer safety' concept? Who decides what is allowable? Doesn't the law dictate what powers the police have? In NH, you don't get to lay your hands on someone carrying a firearm any more than you do to someone just walking down the street or as was said earlier, driving a car within the speed limit.

He was within his rights. Whatever your definition, that much is true. Agreed?

- Gabe

FedDC
August 6, 2004, 06:12 PM
Was he whithin hs rights? YES, he was. However, he was not arrested and he was not assaulted in the eyes of the law so his rights were not violated.

This is one of my cheif complaints, lack of knowledge when it comes to legal terms. The term here is "Investigative Detention" and maybe a "Terry Stop" both of which allow LE to Disarm the subject and ask him/her questions. If it is determined through the course of the investigation that a crime was commited, the subject becomes a suspect and goes to jail...or as in this case, he is told to have a nice day and that is that.

We talk to a LOT of people every day, many of which are frisked for weapons...much less an obvious openly carried weapon and often they are not arrested.

As was stated earlier, no LEO can ignore a 911 call and god help the guy that told a citizen to shut up and ignore what they thought to be a crime. We are duty bound to go to the scene and investigate...so, in order to investigate, we must make the scene safe which includes disarming a potential suspect. This is 101 level stuff.

As to why we are careful-

http://odmp.org/

On that page, you will see memorials to a lot of brave men and women who died, some of which bc they did not follow good officer safety procedures like disarming potential suspects.
Look at the "Survived By" parts and you will see why we are careful

Penforhire
August 6, 2004, 06:13 PM
This discussion does not need to devolve so much. Why not stick to the particulars of this case? I know we're only hearing one side of events, MVPEL's, excuding the off-site 911 info. Why not accept his account and respond to that?

People on both sides are painting with pretty broad brushes. No all LEO's are JBT's. Some LEO's are JBT's. How's that? Can we agree on both statements?

I'll grant LEO's have standard practice to disarm during investigation. The manner of disarming is what many here, myself included, object to. NEVER forget MVPEL he was doing something that was legal to do. It really doesn't matter how unusual it is. The lack of other circumstances should require greater than normal courtesy, not less. Why wasn't this a five-minute non-event: no warrants, no witnessed complaint, no broken laws? The manner of the responding officers made this an event.

FedDC
August 6, 2004, 06:17 PM
I thought this was a non event?

They showed up, disarmed him (And no, you would never ask someone to hand you their gun for obvious reasons), did some checking, found out he was not violating any law, gave him his gun back and told him to have a nice day...

Seems open and shut to me... I don't think they took him out back and gave him some stick time;)

sumpnz
August 6, 2004, 06:20 PM
FedDC - I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I do think that most of here were not outraged by the fact that mvpel was disarmed during his encounter with the Manchester PD. It was the manner of the disarming (physical assault on a non-threatening individual) coupled with the lecture he recieved while being illegally detained that steamed our collars. If a cop were to calmly approach me (with his partner positioned to quickly intervene if I did turn violent) in a similar situation while I was armed and politly requested that I disarm for the duration of the encounter, I would hand him my weapon in its holster. At the end of the encounter (hopefully a very brief one at that) I would take it back and all would be well with the world. Then the cop would find the individual who phone in the complaint and arrest him/her for filing a false complaint and haul her off to the pokey. Well maybe that last part wouldn't happen, but it should.

EricOKC
August 6, 2004, 06:22 PM
...the people who decide what your rights are ...

That has to be, without a doubt, the most disturbing thing you've said so far.

Tell me, oh enlightened one of the years of law school and law enforcement experience, who decides what my rights are?

I'd really like to see you back yourself out of that corner, sir. When a government functions under the misguided belief that it decides what rights people have or not, that government has forgotten its job.

The people decide what their rights are - government is explicitly tasked with protecting said rights.

ojibweindian
August 6, 2004, 06:25 PM
That's right Fed, with comments like that, you're sure to undo the years of self-inflicted LEO PR damage.

Thank you for providing more affirmation for distrusting cops.

Tom Servo
August 6, 2004, 06:51 PM
Listening to the tape, there's a second where the responding officer is talking to dispatch while she describes the situation. She tells the officer that the caller hung up, and you can hear him snicker, as if he knows what a silly call this likely is. It's about 3:45 in, just before a "701" for all units is called.

I thought 911 calls were traced. Personally, I'd like to see the caller made to answer for her goofy troublemaking. Seems like she wasted a great deal of resources that could have been better spent elsewhere.

Carlos
August 6, 2004, 07:14 PM
The ONLY problems I see in ths scenario are the facts that he was disarmed in a way unsafe for the oficers,

Hey, what about the guy who was wearing the gun? Could have very well gone off into the dude's a$$, back, legs while frenzied officer was busy disarming man for "his (officer's)" safety. Here we go again with the one-sided safety issues again.

sendec
August 6, 2004, 07:16 PM
Determining what your rights are is within the bailiwick of the courts and the electorate. Sorry, you dont get to decide what they are any more than the cops do.

gunsmith
August 6, 2004, 07:39 PM
I used to open carry a big fixed blade in CA.
One time in Sonoma county I was doing 75 in a 55 zone (on my motorcycle)
and I (surprise surprise) got pulled over by a CHP officer.
As I took off my helmet he noticed the large knife on my hip.

He said before I talk to you ,could you put your hands on your head and interlace your fingers sir?
I did and he held on to my fingers and had me spread my legs. And he took my knife and he asked if I had any other weapons and I told him about my pepper spray which he took as well.

If the CHP could be calm and professional I see no reason why the Manchester police can not have the same policy.

Whe he asked me what the knife and spray was for I answered that I go through rough neighborhoods and I may need them,he didn't give me any grief for my answer.

BTW, I got my knife back and the pepperspray and the ticket was for "over 55" not the full speed which would have had a larger fine...

My brother is a cop back east and I know a few cops here in Frisco,one cop in particular I know just can't acccept that regular citizens can have more knowledge on gun handling and law then cops, he is an anti gun knee jerk liberal who really thinks Kerry is going to win the vote.
Our hours long debates send our friends running for the earplugs.
You know what? he is a nice guy and our debates are allways civil and fun.

Other cops I know are life NRA members like me and have no problem with the Second Amendment as it is written

I think the members of THR should all unite against the common enemy...
the peoples front for the liberation of Judea!

Sindawe
August 6, 2004, 07:57 PM
Not the Judian People's Front?

Darn, I guess I'll just have to go cut down the forest....

WonderNine
August 6, 2004, 08:02 PM
Open carry will draw these kinds of things, no matter how "right" it is..its simply not smart.

There you have it folks. "Exercising your rights is not smart".

EricOKC
August 6, 2004, 08:27 PM
No - its the People's Judean Front.

Sindawe
August 6, 2004, 08:35 PM
involved in middle eastern politics.

I'd rather hurl Trojan rabbits at the French. :neener:

Lord Grey Boots
August 6, 2004, 09:07 PM
From the original issue, I thought the problem wasn't that the police came and checked him out, it was that they were clumsy and rude when they did it.

It wasn't an issue of "violating his rights", it was of handling a stupid noproblem complaint with a lack of civility. IIRC it was when he got stiffarmed when he complained about the officers being rude, that the lawyer got involved.

From what I read, MVPEL did not know he was carrying openly, and was not looking for trouble for anyone.

I like the comparison of the original 911 complaint to "Help police! there is someone driving a car on the road!"

I do think a 911 call back should have been done to find out what is the guy with the gun was doing.

Deavis
August 6, 2004, 09:41 PM
Man, FedDC, I love it when you chime in. It makes it so much easier for me to point out the immense disconnect between LEOs and the people they serve. This is the part where you stop reading and say, “I thought about what you said and decided it must be nice not to live in reality.” For everyone else, I want to counter some points FedDC made.

Let's deconstruct these arguments in a more preciseway. That way the only thing that be used against it is irrational emotional rhetoric such as, “You don’t understand what it is like,” “I must be nice not to have to live in the real world,” “I’m against that because it isn’t fair,” or my favorite, “You are a stupid head.” Don’t worry,

It is easy for you to be brave at your keyboard.

This one will definitely be added to my list of completely illogical and useless arguments meant to cover the fact that I have no real logical and truthful argument against your completely valid, well written, and superior position. Muahaha! Lol.

Now, let’s start, shall we?

This has been beaten to death and I tried to explain that in the LE world, to question an armed man is suicidal... that whole Action Beats Reaction thing and how he could draw, move, and fire before the LEOs could react thereby endangering the LEOs and the general public which is why we disarm the people we are interviewing as potential suspects...

Suspect: To think (a person) guilty without proof.
Suspect: One who is suspected, especially of having committed a crime.

Tell me, what was the crime that led the police to suspect mvpel of a criminal action warranting interview, detainment, and subsequent lecture? No crime? Then what were his actions that potentially made him a suspect? The man was exercising a legal right to carry his firearm. That is not a crime, thus he cannot be a suspect, yet you brand him as a potential suspect. He was not acting in a threatening way, casing the establishment, or being unruly. So explain, what is the difference between being a suspect and a potential suspect in this case?

See, you have, in your eyes, already made a guilty connection somehow. The problem is that you don’t see that as a wrongful act. Rather, you explain it as taking action to prevent harm to your life and the general public. You assume that a potential suspect, who is by definition an innocent person and thus a member of the general public, (even though a suspect is technically an innocent person as well until proven guilty later in a court of law) is a threat somehow. Therefore, you have made him guilty of some unknown, yet to be committed crime of, according to your suicidal comment, mass murder. You have presumed that he is going to attempt to murder you or a member of the general public for no reason. So a man standing in a bookstore, with a holstered firearm, reading a book is a suspect of some unknown crime and is willing to murder an officer of the law. Explain how you came to that conclusion logically based on the situation.

Don’t say it was because he had a gun because that isn’t a logical argument based on the situation. For example, I have been stopped more than once late at night on my motorcycle. I drive fast and I pay for it. I carry a weapon and every time I have been stopped I have told the each officer that I was armed, but they have never disarmed me. Mind you, I’m not in a car, I’m standing face-to-face. According to you, it is suicide to talk with an armed man, but those officers are still alive. You see, unlike you, they chose to handle the situation carefully and be respectful of my rights. Yes, I have the right to be armed for my protection. That includes protection against LEOs who would threaten my life unlawfully, much to your chagrin I’m sure. We still have that right in Texas.

Here is how it went all three times, at night…

“Officer, I am armed and am carrying a weapon. I have a CHL permit.”
“Where is the weapon?”
“On my right hip, in my holster. My mags are on my left side.”
“Okay, please don’t reach in that area and keep your hand visible when I am in the car. Can you hand me your license and registration, please”
“Yes sir, I will with my left hand. I’m reaching for it now.”
“Okay. Thank you. Remember keep your hands out for me while I run this.”
“Yes sir.”
Turns his back to me. And walks back to the car.
“Everything checks out okay, but here is your ticket for speeding.”
“Thank you officer, have a nice night.”

Nobody died. Funny how that works, isn’t it? So explain to me why the police couldn’t have handled mvpel’s situation in a way that did not result in death you foretell happens when interviewing an armed man? Don’t say, “That is a split second decision, you don’t understand.” No, it isn’t a split second decision, it is conditioning. When I hit my thumb with a hammer, do I automatically curse? Split second decision, but it will be based on my past conditioning. Do I normally curse or do I restrain myself? Do you normally go power trip or have you trained yourself to respond in appropriate levels? Those officers had nothing to fear from me, I am a speeder, not a murderous criminal, otherwise I wouldn’t have told him I had a gun and presented a CHL, would I?

I think that the disconnect seems to be that folks on here want us to treat everybody we meet as if they are Medal Of Honor winners and not ever raise our voice until they start shooting at us

Why is this so hard to do? You act as if civilly approaching mvpel would not have worked. Once again, you have determined that he is out to kill you when he turns around. This isn’t some no-knock raid that you are so fond of. This is a man standing in a bookstore reading. Are you still going to tell me that you are incapable of modifying your tactics to fit the situation? If so, then the flaw lies in your inability or, more likely, your unwillingness to adapt to situations that you do not like.

What you can’t understand is that many situations do not call for the 5% tactics you wish to employ on innocent people. Nobody here is going to tell you not to disarm someone when you are reporting to a scene and there is gunfire going on, ala SE DC where nobody is supposed to have a gun. Nobody is telling you to have a conversation with a man who is brandishing a firearm while he robs a bank. What they are asking you to do is to treat normal people with a little respect because they aren’t always criminals. How hard is it to approach a situation with some caution and make your tactics fit it? Is it that you are so selfish or that you are too lazy to extend the courtesy you expect to another man?

You wonder why they call you a coward when you dominate an innocent man by force. Everything inside of a good man rebels at such a spineless display of mob power. You have gotten used to a way of life that was built up by others who are too self-important and now you believe it is reality. Disagree? Here is another example to prove my point.

I am being detained by two police officers that enjoy their power. I know my rights and the length to which an officer may go during a traffic stop. I ask, “Am I under arrest?” “Am I suspected of a crime?” “May I leave?” No, no, and no. So I try to leave and am arrested. It isn’t lawful, I fight back, and lose. I am arrested. What am I charged with? Resisting arrest. Yet how can I be charged with resisting an arrest that was unlawful in the first place?

Here is where your special world begins. In the 70’s Texas, for example, passed a law saying that resisting arrest, even an unlawful arrest was illegal. It is better to fight it out in court than fight it out in the streets. By passing that law, we have made it illegal to fight back against someone who would use the authority we gave them to discriminate against us. This automatic condemnation of one man in favor of the safety of another has built up a system that you now take for granted as, “the way it should be.”

Nobody is allowed to question your authority and if they do, you get to jail no matter what. Remember, you said you could get a DA to press charges or get you a warrant on anything you want. That is real life, right? So if a man with pride objects and fights because he knows what you are doing is wrong, he still goes to jail and you think that is an okay reality. You, even though you broke the law, get to go home free because the law also exempts you from prosecution even for making an unlawful arrest.

So, you are mad at people because they object to you receiving special treatment by the law, which you take for granted as part of your job. That is why you can’t convince anyone of your arguments’ worth because they know that this isn’t the way it should be, it is the way you want it to be. It is an illusion you and many of your brethren others have constructed at the expense of innocent people’s rights.

Being able to get a warrant or prosecute a man without sufficient proof tends to make some off us a little upset. Explain to me, logically, how it is legal for you to arrest a man illegally but it is illegal for a man to resist your illegal action. You can’t because it involves you saying that you are more important than the “suspect,” which you also cannot logically explain to me. Those sordid tactics you enjoy today made so many Americans sick in the 60’s that we passed civil rights legislation to prevent it from happening. Now look what we are back to.

Nobody here, of any significant moral character, wants a police officer to die. However, we also don’t want to be subject to overwhelming and unnecessarily offensive tactics for the sake of your inflated self-worth. Logically explain to me why two officers could not have carefully initiated a non-offensive dialog without threats to mvpel to ascertain his intentions? There are thousands of solutions to this problem, yet you think that it is asking too much to find one that is safe for both parties while maintaining a fair and equitable environment. Once again, the problem isn’t that you are a cop, it is that you have decided that your life and job are more important than his because you are unwilling to accept him as an equal.

It is better to offend a few people and be safe when we meet the one that intends to send us home in a box, than be super nice and end up dead.

According to this you think it is okay to offend an innocent man so that you can “go home” safe. You don’t realize that sometimes the people that you offend don’t get to go home at all. Following your

As to why we are careful-http://odmp.org/

how about these?
http://home.earthlink.net/~ynot/victims.html
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stor...WarVictims.html

Explain to me what they did wrong and why they didn’t get to go home like you? Explain to me how your life is more important than theirs. You can say it, it is okay. You can say, “That’s right, I think my life is more important than some damn suspect. Screw you!” That is cool, just not for someone who has pledged his or her life to serve and protect the citizenry. You took a job that asks you to place a higher importance on the life of a stranger and wonder why people call you a coward when you refuse to do so? We expect you to perform to higher standards than the average man because that is what you elected to do. Don’t like the high standards, find a different job. Not everyone is cut out for it, I’m certainly not, and I don’t try to make excuses for my shortcomings.

See here

This is one of my chief complaints, lack of knowledge when it comes to legal terms. The term here is "Investigative Detention" and maybe a "Terry Stop" both of which allow LE to disarm the subject and ask him/her questions. If it is determined through the course of the investigation that a crime was committed, the subject becomes a suspect and goes to jail...or as in this case, he is told to have a nice day and that is that

This goes along with my point that *you* are living in an artificial and unfair world based on solely on your ego and backed by laws passed by those who wish to restrict the strong man among us. Is it so hard to understand why people feel violated by being stopped by the police? Why is it so difficult for you to understand that being frisked or detained for no reason is offense to men who are proud that they are upstanding citizens? Have you become so jaded that you think disarming a man from the backside is not cowardice but good tactics? You are so afraid of the people that you stop that you are forced to hide behind legal terminology for protection.

The fact that people defer to you to enforce the laws they are ruled by, notice not your personal authority, makes you think that you deserve such protection. I say hogwash. I say my life is just as important as yours, why should it not be? If I am standing in a bookstore minding my business with a holstered weapon, what makes my life worth less than yours all of a sudden? Explain to me logically how a man reading a book with a gun in a holster is somehow less important than another man and can be grouped below the book he is holding in importance of protection? Don’t say, “because that is the way we do it as cops,” that is just proving my point. It is that mindset of the many LEOs that is offensive.

That is where most people here get upset, it isn’t that you are a LEO, it’s that you have a crappy attitude toward non-LEO’s lives. It is that you think you are special and that you deserve special protection while performing your job, even if it means the rights of innocent men get trampled on in the process.

Well pardon me, some of us don’t think that is cool.

Shield529
August 6, 2004, 10:52 PM
My good God I did not intend to spark all this off

Sindawe
August 6, 2004, 11:07 PM
It tends to happen here with threads of this nature. Lots of strong feelings on both sides. All too often they devolve into flamefests, as this one has looked to be a few times, but so far not. I hope it stays that way. I'd rather talk/debate in a civil fashion than flame.

sumpnz
August 6, 2004, 11:11 PM
Shield, you didn't "spark" anything off. It was already there. I hope you'll stick around and not be afraid to keep participating in these threads. I feel it's important for those of us not in LE to hear what you have to say as it may help to clue us into how you go about your jobs. But I also hope you, and all the other LEOs on this board will also listen to the rest of us and learn a thing or two about how we feel things should be. And why we feel that way.

As Art Eatman's sig line says "Be cruel, make somebody think." If you (and I mean the universal you, not Shield specifically) see something that initially steams your coller, sit back and think about it for a minute before responding and maybe we all learn something of value rather than hurling childish insults back and forth.

Posters like Deavis, and FedDC have valid points. I think it's pretty obvious that I am more in aggrement in Deavis on this topic, but I still try to respect FedDCs posts and learn a bit from them.

Shield529
August 6, 2004, 11:28 PM
I really wish more citizens could go on ride alongs with us and see what we really do most of the time. Most people see COPS and confuse it for reality.
I more people spent time with us they would most likely "get us" a little better.

And I must say having seen this comment/question many times.

There is no way I would ever even consider particapating the a disarmament of the population, the very thought sickens and frightens me

Ron_Miami
August 6, 2004, 11:59 PM
I find this kind of amusing because I was once involved in an incident in which the reverse happened

I was managing a nightclub. One night a man came in visibily printing. One of the bouncers took control of his gun arm and weapon for "employee safety." After all, he just wants to go home safe at the end of the shift.

The now disarmed suspect turned out to be a police officer from a nearby municipality. In the process we called the local police. This was one of those nights where I earned my pay (and a few more gray hairs).

The disarmed police officer was furious. He made all kinds of threats to arrest everybody. I threatened to call his department to call a supervisor over. The local police didn't know how to handle it.

Sometimes the shoe is on the other foot.

Penforhire
August 7, 2004, 12:07 AM
Deavis, while I mostly agree with your perception of the situation there is a fine point I feel you missed. Someone did call 911 and said there was some sort of situation. I think of that differently than, say, the LEO's cruised by and saw legal open carry.

Someone obviously thought there was a "situation." And that means, yeah, there's a suspect. Suspected of what? Nobody knows yet. But this was not a random stop. I blame the sheep that called it in first.

tcsd1236
August 7, 2004, 12:15 AM
Seriously, you sound stressed out. You need to find a new job before you go and permenantly deny a citizen the right to breathe. After all you've been through, and the exaustion of worrying about getting zapped by all of us middle-aged fatsos trying to kill you, you might legitimately mistake a Tootsie Roll for a gun and...

I would like to know why it is that when an officer posts about the realities of our job and why we need to take the steps we do because of those realities , we are told we are in need of a break from our job. They are the realities of our job; recognizing that does not mean that we need some sort of a break, or have a need to get into another occupation.

Now, from earlier in the thread:



This one will definitely be added to my list of completely illogical and useless arguments meant to cover the fact that I have no real logical and truthful argument against your completely valid, well written, and superior position. Muahaha! Lol.

The net is full of people who THINK they know what the proper law enforcement procedure should be, without having to do our job. Your post further down is additional proof of the armchair critic.



Suspect: To think (a person) guilty without proof.
Suspect: One who is suspected, especially of having committed a crime.

Tell me, what was the crime that led the police to suspect mvpel of a criminal action warranting interview, detainment, and subsequent lecture? No crime? Then what were his actions that potentially made him a suspect?

He was a suspect as soon as someone called in a complaint against him. Until his actions are investigated and determined, he remains a suspect.



Don’t say it was because he had a gun because that isn’t a logical argument based on the situation.

The fact remains that open carry remains an unusual event that draws public notice, regardless of how much you wish it to be otherwise.


For example, I have been stopped more than once late at night on my motorcycle......
Here is how it went all three times, at night…

Nobody died. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Noone died because you chose not to act. The officers you dealt with gambled that you were alaw abiding citizen who would not harm them. They took a risk in making that gamble. Many officers are proactive in not ASSUMING that someone is law abiding and securing a weapon whose owner they are dealing with.



Those officers had nothing to fear from me, I am a speeder, not a murderous criminal, otherwise I wouldn’t have told him I had a gun and presented a CHL, would I?

Being a CCW holder does not automatically make you a good guy. It makes you a guy who has not been caught commiting a disqualifying offense.




What you can’t understand is that many situations do not call for the 5% tactics you wish to employ on innocent people.

Criminals do not go around with a neon sign on their forehead identifying them as bad guys. Tactics have to be applied equally across the board. Doing otherwise leads to complacency, as in the cases of the officers you dealt with on the traffic stops. Turning their back on you while having stopped you? Bad. Bad. Bad.Bad tactics on any officers part.


According to this you think it is okay to offend an innocent man so that you can “go home” safe.

Problem being that different people get offended over different things. We can't do our job worrying about who we might have offended today.



This goes along with my point that *you* are living in an artificial and unfair world based on solely on your ego and backed by laws passed by those who wish to restrict the strong man among us. Is it so hard to understand why people feel violated by being stopped by the police? Why is it so difficult for you to understand that being frisked or detained for no reason is offense to men who are proud that they are upstanding citizens? Have you become so jaded that you think disarming a man from the backside is not cowardice but good tactics? You are so afraid of the people that you stop that you are forced to hide behind legal terminology for protection.

If an officer is conducting an investigative detention, it is because they are trying to determine something about you, what you are doing, etc, for a reason. If people are offended by that, they need to grow a thicker skin. We don't know who you are or what your intentions are.You consider yourself agood guy; we don't know that about you.

That is where most people here get upset, it isn’t that you are a LEO, it’s that you have a crappy attitude toward non-LEO’s lives. It is that you think you are special and that you deserve special protection while performing your job, even if it means the rights of innocent men get trampled on in the process.

let me ask you this: do people try to kill YOU simply because you are performing your job? I thought not.

Stand_Watie
August 7, 2004, 12:24 AM
If the CHP could be calm and professional I see no reason why the Manchester police can not have the same policy

I agree with you. If the Manchester PD was called they have a duty to respond and to speak with the person in question. They don't have a duty to manhandle a man who wasn't threatening anyone. The most force they should have used to start with was to place their hand on his gun arm (gently) in case he lunged for the weapon, and after he had looked at them, to ask him not to reach toward his gun.

A car is a deadly weapon, yet every driver who is pulled over isn't immediately dragged out of his car by the neck, "just in case" he decides to run over the officer pulling him over for speeding.

Every single Arab man in a public place might be a suicide bomber (those of you who are Arab, I'm choosing the ridiculous to make a point, not that I really get nervous when I meet Arabs), but if some jerk calls 911 and says they're scared because they saw a middle easterner the police don't have the right to manhandle the man lest he grab a detonation device and blow them all up.

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 12:29 AM
This has been beaten to death and I tried to explain that in the LE world, to question an armed man is suicidal... that whole Action Beats Reaction thing and how he could draw, move, and fire before the LEOs could react thereby endangering the LEOs and the general public which is why we disarm the people we are interviewing as potential suspects...
Ya know, in an earlier post I more or less took your side on this, while trying to point out that approaching the guy calmly and ASKING to secure the gun might have been a more sensible (and safer) plan than sneaking up and grabbing him and the gun.

But a subsequent post reminded me of the fundamental fact that in this particular case any discussion of how best to approach and temporarily disarm the "sunject" is totally irrelevent. Because the subject WAS NOT BREAKING ANY LAW. As someone else posted, given that open carry is legal in New Hampshire, how is this case fundamentally different from an officer pulling someone over for driving 60 MPH in a 60 MPH zone. Maybe some hysterical woman called dispatch and reported that she saw a car that "looked very fast." Fine. Black & white gets dispatched, investigates the report, finds a 5 litre Mustang rolling along at the speed limit, end of case. Move along, people, there's nothing to see here.

Why should MVPel's case have been handled any differently?

WHY?

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 12:38 AM
This is one of my cheif complaints, lack of knowledge when it comes to legal terms. The term here is "Investigative Detention" and maybe a "Terry Stop" both of which allow LE to Disarm the subject and ask him/her questions.
Both a Terry Stop and an Investigative Detention require, first, either probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or may have been committed. Is that not correct, FedDC?

So ... since open carry is legal in the jurisdiction where the incident took place, and the subject was standing in a bookstore reading a book ... kindly explain for those of us too ignorant of the law and police procedures precisely what probable cause or reasonable suspicion might have justified the responding officer not simply approaching the subject, but sneaking up behind him and physically accosting him?

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 01:06 AM
He was a suspect as soon as someone called in a complaint against him. Until his actions are investigated and determined, he remains a suspect.
Sorry, but I disagree.

You say he "remains a suspect." I ask "A suspect of WHAT?" Remember the phrase "No harm, no foul"? As a law enforcement officer, you should know that people aren't "suspects" just at random, or because of the color of their socks. First and foremost, an individual must be suspected of having DONE SOMETHING ILLEGAL. You can look at a man with a beard and say he's a suspect of not shaving, but that's not really cause to detain, is it? You can look at any person on the street and suspect them of breathing, but that's not probable cause for detention either, is it?

Okay, someone in the bookstore called 911 and reported a man with a gun. But ... that's not illegal in New Hampshire. So exactly what was MVPel a "suspect" of? The caller did NOT report any suspicious or illegal activity, she reported a man with a gun. Fine. The officers reponded and they saw ... a man with a gun. READING A BOOK. Precisely what might make this individual a "suspect" when there was no report of a crime having been committed, no evidence of a crime having been committed, and nothing to suggest that the indivual in question might be intending to commit a crime?

FedDC complains about non-LEOs tossing around terms he claims we don't understand, but it has been my observation that a lot of the LEOs in these discussions do the same. Yeah, they've been to class and they know the lingo, but in some cases it appears they either slept through that class or took it so long ago they forgot the lesson.

In legal terms, I submit that you can't have a "suspect" if you don't have a crime.

tcsd1236
August 7, 2004, 01:21 AM
Sorry, but I disagree.

Go ahead and disagree then, but it remains that a complaint has been made, an officer will respond and investigate, and until the matter is cleared up, he remains a suspect by virtue of being the party the complaint was lodged against. The complainant is automatically the person who got to the phone first, the suspect is the person who is identified as the person against whom the complaint is being lodged, until such time as the investigation shows otherwise. The original complaint was for an armed man with a gun; THAT is what he is a suspect for.

benewton
August 7, 2004, 01:47 AM
"
If an officer is conducting an investigative detention, it is because they are trying to determine something about you, what you are doing, etc, for a reason. If people are offended by that, they need to grow a thicker skin. We don't know who you are or what your intentions are.You consider yourself agood guy; we don't know that about you."


If an citizen must conduct an investigative detention, it is because they are trying to determine something about you, what you are doing, etc, for a reason. If LEOs are offended by that, they need to grow a thicker skin. We don't know who you are or what your intentions are.You consider yourself agood guy; we don't know that about you.

Problems with the reversal?

S_O_Laban
August 7, 2004, 01:58 AM
The original complaint was for an armed man with a gun; THAT is what he is a suspect for.


So you are saying, he is suspected of being lawfully armed :scrutiny:

S_O_Laban
August 7, 2004, 02:03 AM
It would be very interesting to know what the 911 caller might have said , had they been questioned about what law they thought Mvpeel was breaking. Unfortunatly we'll probably never know....

insidious_calm
August 7, 2004, 02:16 AM
For all the LEO's on here preaching about what they can and can't do:

There was NO pc to detain. Now as you are blowing a gasket let me point out to you why you are wrong. Enter Florida vs. JL.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1993



No. 98-1993. Argued February 29, 2000--Decided March 28, 2000


After an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun, officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, respondent J. L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct. The officers did not see a firearm or observe any unusual movements. One of the officers frisked J. L. and seized a gun from his pocket. J. L., who was then almost 16, was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search. The intermediate appellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of Florida quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment.


Held : An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30 . Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White , 496 U. S. 325, 327 . The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.




The jbt's DID NOT have authority to perform a terry stop.



I.C.

S_O_Laban
August 7, 2004, 02:31 AM
After listening to the audio file of the 911 call, one thing seems clear to me. The only reason this woman called this in was because she felt " uncomfortable".

She clearly didn't give any information that suggested any law had been broken, given that open carry is legal. If open carry was not legal, then PC would have existed, but that clearly isn't the case.:D ( this thread feels like it needs a few more smilelys):D :D :D

edited for creative spelling.

Gunsnrovers
August 7, 2004, 05:33 AM
insidious_calm,

I don't see how your example applies here. MVpel was carrying openly. In the original posts from way back, he was carrying small of the back with out a jacket or the benefit of any concealment.

There is no assumption of a weapon, it was visible to the officers.

I don't agree with the stop either. I just don't see how your case law example applies in this situation.

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 07:44 AM
The original complaint was for an armed man with a gun; THAT is what he is a suspect for.
Once again -- there cannot be a "suspect" without there being an offense, a crime, for him/her to be suspected of having committed.

WHAT WAS THE OFFENSE HERE? C'mon, LEO people -- forget about where you work and focus on the facts of THIS case. THE GUN WAS LEGAL. Being an "armed man with a gun" was LEGAL. What was the offense? Absent some offense to suspect him of, there can be no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion.

Is this or is this not fundamentally correct?

tcsd1236
August 7, 2004, 08:55 AM
Once again -- there cannot be a "suspect" without there being an offense, a crime, for him/her to be suspected of having committed.
Not true; they are a suspect until the investigation shows otherwise. I don't know how many times I have to say that. You are looking at this with 20/20 hindsight in typical LEO-bashing style. We don't KNOW that no crime has been committed until the investigation has been conducted.

Problems with the reversal?

That doesn't fall within their job description , nor are they legally empowered to do so.Our job is to respond and investigate.The same cannot be said of them.

ojibweindian
August 7, 2004, 08:56 AM
let me ask you this: do people try to kill YOU simply because you are performing your job? I thought not.

People try to kill others for a measly $20. Spare me the hyperbole.

OF
August 7, 2004, 09:41 AM
So ... since open carry is legal in the jurisdiction where the incident took place, and the subject was standing in a bookstore reading a book ... kindly explain for those of us too ignorant of the law and police procedures precisely what probable cause or reasonable suspicion might have justified the responding officer not simply approaching the subject, but sneaking up behind him and physically accosting him?You will never get a straight answer to this. All you wil get is something that makes it very clear that the LEO's on this thread consider everyone a suspect, possibly guilty of a crime, until they convince themselves that there was no crime.

And they see that as perfectly acceptable. That someone doing nothing wrong is harrassed by the police, physically assaulted no less, until the cops are happy and when the 'suspect' complains, he's unreasonable and we are all LEO-bashers and hate-mongers for crying foul.

This argument is getting nowhere. I am waiting, I am begging for one of the LEO's defending this garbage to post some law, some reference, anything tangible that cites their power to manhandle and detain someone who's reason for coming under scrutiny is that some soccer mom doesn't like him.

Anything tangible. Even one single court-supported bit of evidence. Terry stop? You have to be kidding. 'Suspect' because an anonymous 911 whiner complained that he made them 'uncomfortable'? Is that what passes for 'probable cause' these days?

- Gabe

BB62
August 7, 2004, 09:54 AM
GRD,

GOOD POST!

I agree 100%.

I do want to support LEO's firmly, but some of the badge heavy thoughts posted and personal encounters have diminished my respect greatly.

What I will never understand is why some cops are so damn short sighted, and why their fellows or superiors don't curtial their actions or boot their fannies off the various forces...


BB62

Justin Moore
August 7, 2004, 11:05 AM
Not true; they are a suspect until the investigation shows otherwise.

Well of course, that makes total sense. Everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise. How could any sensible person even argue that point? :neener:

Your logic seems to be that he was a 'suspect' until the 'investigation' showed otherwise. Since its perfectly LEGAL to open carry in this situation, what EXACTLY was there to investigate? What CRIME was being investigated?

Well oh wait, everyone is a criminal until they are properly investigated.

Why not be intellectualy honest, and just come out and say that's how you feel.
Its fairly obvious at this point after all, don't you think?

El Tejon
August 7, 2004, 11:28 AM
GRD, well, for a Terry stop the officer just needs reasonable suspicion.

That said, I believe this case raises a valid point. Can police officers stop someone who is merely carrying a pistol? If they cannot pull over a motorist who needs a license to operate a motor vehicle over soley to check their license, why should they be able to stop someone for merely carrying a pistol?

Mixlesplick
August 7, 2004, 11:56 AM
Grabbing someone from behind and taking their gun when that person has done nothing to suggest he is breaking any laws may make him more docile while he is lectured about why he doesn't need to carry a gun. Or it might have the opposite effect.:confused: At least the officers knew the law well enough to let him go afterwards but he shouldn't have been approached in this manner in the first place. He was minding his own business until the 911 caller sicced the police on him.:mad:

FedDC
August 7, 2004, 01:15 PM
The people that decide what your rights are are just that, the people. You and me and every other citizen decide as a group what our rights are... It is a close argument to the one we had a while back about open carry whereby my point was that if we end up frightening the non carrying citizens of VA, they will vote to remove our "Right" to open carry. The people, through our elected representatives can remove what we consider a right.

As to how we should go about disarming someone on a routine contact, I have to respectfully disagree with allowing the potential suspect to hand the officer his firearm. Action beats reaction every time and unless I am aimed in on his head in Single Action from behind cover, the suspect would have an advantage with his gun in his hand. The last thing anyone dealing with an LEO should ever do is put their hand on a gun. I don't even do that on traffic stops after I ID myself and tell them that there is a weapon on me. The officer has the be the one to do the disarm and that works best if the potential suspect is a little off ballance/unaware since it is all over before he knows what is going on. It is safer that way for all concerned as was demonstrated in this contact...no ground fighting, no shots fired.

FedDC
August 7, 2004, 01:21 PM
One last thing-

Before anyone else quotes a case about PC, please learn the difference between Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and what both of those standards allow the officers to do.

Also, PC is not required for a stop, only reasonable suspicion. Terry Stop doctrine is very flexible and could easily be used to cover this case.

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 01:23 PM
I don't agree with the stop either. I just don't see how your case law example applies in this situation.
The Florida case applies because it holds "that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person."

First, the anonymous tip in the MVPel case did not assert ANY illegality, and second, there WAS NO illegality. Ergo === probable cause did not exist.

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 01:28 PM
Not true; they are a suspect until the investigation shows otherwise. I don't know how many times I have to say that. You are looking at this with 20/20 hindsight in typical LEO-bashing style. We don't KNOW that no crime has been committed until the investigation has been conducted.
You can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it true or correct or legal. Police do not have authority to stop people at random to determine if a crime MAY have been committed. If you want to apply a standard of "We don't know that no crime has been committed until the investigation has been completed" you would have to stop every person you encounter to investigate if they MIGHT have committed a crime.

Get serious. If you actually believe what you wrote, I find that very frightening ... and I don't mean that as "cop bashing," I mean that in the most fundamental sense of "What depths has this country fallen to?"

insidious_calm
August 7, 2004, 01:41 PM
No FedDc, a terry stop was not justified. The case SPECIFICALLY deals with ANONYMOUS TIPS. Which is exactly what we have here. THERE IS NO GUN EXCEPTION TO THE TERRY REQUIREMENTS. Terry requires REASONABLE SUSPICION that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed. Mere possession of a gun in a legal manner clearly does meet that criteria. Furthermore, the USSC specifically stated that there will be no gun exception to those requirements. Period.

In order for officers to make a terry stop on an anonoymous tip the tip must be "RELIABLE IN IT'S ASSERTION OF ILLEGALITY". This caselaw is exactly about what happened here except that in this case the anonymous tipster was asserting that someone was obeying the law! These officers would be felons in my state, aggravated battery, and they should be treated as such.

Now, the next thing the LEO's on here are going to say is that they can go up and talk to whomever they choose. This is true, but they cannot disarm someone simply because they want to ask him a few questions. Terry "officer safety" matters only apply if reasonable suspicion exists.

Go read the courts opinion. An anonymous tip that does not RELIABLY assert illegality does not amount to reasonable suspicion.



I.C.

ctdonath
August 7, 2004, 02:12 PM
As I tried to point out before:

Those on one side of this argument see the act in question (open carry) as something absolutely legal, harmless, and righteous; they do it themselves and expect no consequences for doing so. They see no reason to manhandle/detain/question someone who simply carries openly - no more reason than to force a breathalyzer on someone simply for having car keys.

Those on the other side of this argument are faced with punishment, including job termination, for open carry; they expect bad consequences for doing so. They frequently see reason to manhandle/detain/question someone solely based on weapon possession - just as they see a significantly higher percentage of people drunk or otherwise about to endanger society, with the tip-off being possession of car keys.

Those who expect personal harm for simply and reasonably exercising a right are more likely to seek to hinder others from exercising that right.

MVpel expected no harm in open carry.
Shield expects harm in open carry.

Hence the difference in perception & opinion . That's fine - until someone holding Shield's view acts upon someone holding MVpel's view. Then we get long argumenative threads and lawsuits.

OF
August 7, 2004, 02:15 PM
Another meaningless post from FedDC asserting, as I predicted, that we don't know what we're talking about and stating that the disarm was proper. But yet again, also exactly as predicted, with nothing to back it up. Not one single shred of substantiating material.

Nothing except another "I'll do whatever I feel like doing until I feel secure or am satisfied" and "you people don't know the difference between X and Y".

Fine. Please explain how Terry applies here. Plenty of people have presented arguments how it does not, yet you insist it does. You must have some knowledge everyone else lacks, or at least you keep insisting you are the only one who gets it. Lets put this to rest: explain yourself. Provide anything to back up your assertion. ANYTHING AT ALL.for a Terry stop the officer just needs reasonable suspicionFine (see, FedDC how easy that was?). Just the same, there was no reasonable suspicion here of any wrongdoing. None.

- Gabe

OF
August 7, 2004, 02:26 PM
That is all irrelevant, ct. What is relevant is the law and the powers the law gives the police. The law is clear: open carry is legal in Manchester, NH. The personal opinions of those involved in this discussion are irrelevant.

If only we could get past that and address the issue: police authority and where it ends. This is a legal question, it does not matter if you despise or love open carry. The law is the law. Open carry is legal, the 911 caller was ignorant of this fact (maybe), there is no 'reasonable suspicion' or anything even remotely approaching it to suggest that a crime is being committed. Yet the man was treated as if he was under suspicion of having committed a crime: in clear violation of his rights.

The problem is that the cops defending the assault have dug themselves a hole: they want to have the power to disarm (or more generally to render any situation they come into safe from their perspective) but that power runs afoul of the law, and they want to be on the side of the law. This is the dilemma. Instead of coming to a conclusion on this topic by getting the legal line defined, we get arguments that pertain to how the officers feel about a certain situation and base the justifications for their actions on that instead of what they are allowed to do by law. This leads to all the discussions about 'officer safety' and 'you don't know how hard it is' and 'open carry invites this sort of thing' and on and on. An endless circle of tangetial and irrelevant discussions that miss the point.

The role of the police in this event should have been to protect the rights of the man falsely accused by the 911 whiner. If upon observing the man they came to believe he was reasonably suspected of breaking the law, then I would be more inclined to accept the disarm. In the absence of any suspicion at all, they assaulted him illegally.

If that is incorrect, legally incorrect, I wish someone would cite something concrete to refute it and put this to rest. Opinions are irrelevant.

- Gabe

DigitalWarrior
August 7, 2004, 02:53 PM
Also, PC is not required for a stop, only reasonable suspicion

What crime was he reasonably suspected of committing?

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 02:56 PM
GRD --

That about sums it up. Well stated.

DigitalWarrior
August 7, 2004, 03:14 PM
I was taught in school that you never ask two questions is a letter. You will only get one answer, and it is not to the question you thought most important.

It's Funnie wen mine sk00lin comes bak to I!

OF
August 7, 2004, 03:36 PM
Also, PC is not required for a stop, only reasonable suspicion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What crime was he reasonably suspected of committing?Finally, an advancement of the discussion! A clarification which led to a better question. Stop the presses.

- Gabe

PS: Don't hold your breath waiting for a clear answer, DW. I have another prediction: obfuscation mixed with skirting the issue. That or alot of "talkin' loud, saying nothing" on the way.

firearms_instructor
August 7, 2004, 04:31 PM
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a law-abiding citizen has more to fear from the police than from criminals.

I don't know what percentage of the police think like FedDC, tcsd1236, or lilysdad, but I dearly hope it's a very small minority. However, reading their posts has convinced me that the wise thing to do is suspect all police of putting their comfort, convenience, and safety above my rights and safety. What happened to the presumption of innocence in my country?! How about common manners and decency? How would you like it if the public at large automatically assumed you were a jackbooted scumbag just because you're a police officer?

I think the basic problem here is that our pesky Constitutional rights are just too inconvenient for some of the police. We must all adjust for their laziness.

firearms_instructor
August 7, 2004, 05:43 PM
"The man was then released no worse off.", and,
"After reading the thing again, Im gonna have to agree...they did NOTHING wrong..they received a call, they responded, the defused any threat, and they released...wheres the harm?"

NO. From MVPEL's letter to the Chief of Police:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74034&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

"Once my record came back clear, naturally, I was subjected to a condescending lecture about the carrying of arms, quizzed repeatedly as to why I carry a firearm..."

"After about 5-10 minutes of my polite endurance of various disrespectful and arrogant statements and questions by the officers and detectives..."

They detained him and LECTURED him for 5-10 as to why he SHOULDN'T be exercising his rights. That's right, they were trying to bully him into foregoing his right to carry openly. See "chilling effect". Maybe this is OK behavior for you, but I'd be FURIOUS if some a$$hat with a gun and a badge spent 5-10 minutes of my time, MY LIFE, lecturing me about perfectly legal activity while holding my property (gun) hostage. This is jackbooted thuggery in action, folks. The badge does entitle you to "re-educate" me or anyone else at gunpoint because my exercising my rights makes you uncomfortable. Having a badge does not give you the authority to impose your viewpoint on someone.

DigitalWarrior
August 7, 2004, 05:51 PM
Let me first say that I have never met a police officer that I didn't personally like.

That said... I will never again speak to one in the course of his duties unless I am legally obligated to do so. I am sure that I will never again recieve a verbal warning, but sometimes it goes like that.

A whole lot of their procedure is to trap you into inconsistencies by what appears to be "casual chat". So I will no longer casually chat with them.

Cop: May I see you license, registration, and POI?
Me: *Hands over my papers*
Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?
Me: Am I legally obligated to answer that question officer?
Cop: You don't want to make this difficult, do you?
Me: Am I legally obligated to answer that question officer?
And it just goes downhill from there...
And the whole time Shyster, Shyster, Shyster and son's (yes I have a good relationship with my lawyer) answering machine is taping (upto 7 hours with compression) because I left my cell phone open.

I learned that lesson from watching Martha Stewart get nailed, not for a crime, but for proclaiming her innocence. No good can come of talking to these people when they are acting in a professional capacity.

El Tejon
August 7, 2004, 07:48 PM
Well, the reasonable suspicion could be the fact that he's carrying the pistol. However, just because he has the pistol, can they stop him under Terry? That's the 64K question. With the recent Supreme Court rulings I would say no as there is no indicia that this is a crime.

You need a license to drive a car. If I call the police and say this guy in the purple shirt is driving a Ford and I'm uncomfortable with Fords (insert any car), can the police pull Mr. purple shirt over to check his license and lecture him on driving Fords.

I'm with firearms instructor, the "lecture" would have had me a little hot. Maybe a §1983 for false imprisonment just for that? How much is 10 minutes worth?:D

EricOKC
August 7, 2004, 08:22 PM
El Tejon,

Since open carry is legal in the state, the fact that he is carrying one should not be legal cause for suspicion.

Forget its a gun for a moment. Pretend this happened with, lets say, a pair of pliers he had sticking out of his pocket.

Just because it made some blissninny uncomfortable, it is not justification for the stop and damn sure not for the lecture.

Some of you have said that he shouldnt have been carrying openly because it makes people uncomfortable - even though it is his legal right. Perhaps blacks should have followed the same advice and stopped trying to move into white neighborhoods. After all, even though it was their legally protected right to do so, it made people uncomfortable.

Shield529
August 7, 2004, 09:38 PM
Since I stated this I hope this ends this.

I will go on record as saying the 5-10 minute lecture was out of line and worthy of the complaint.
If it is legal then it is not my place to lecture anyone just because I don't care for what it is they are doing.

Were the officers tactics poor, maybe. I was not there, no one here was and as many stated we have no idea what both sides of the story are.

And to everyone who has said "you took the job". Thats right I did, I thought I might be able the help some people, I am not an idealist who thinks one cop can change the world.
I do howeven try to do as much as I can to change a few peoples for the better, I take DWI's of the street, hopefully before they Kill, sometimes sadly not.
I have helped many addicted to drugs to get into rehab and not jail. (as I do not agree with current drug laws).
I have tried to change policy and procedures to help avoid confilcts like the one we are dicussing and idiotic Marijuana plant mishap in the other threads, (by the way there is no way I can even dream of to defend those officers).
I have tried to open door between the community and the police for the better of all involved.

I hope to have many more of these engaging conversations with everyone here. Even the people here I belive are very wrong have the intelligence to carry on a good debate.

Gray Peterson
August 7, 2004, 09:40 PM
"Once my record came back clear, naturally, I was subjected to a condescending lecture about the carrying of arms, quizzed repeatedly as to why I carry a firearm..."

"After about 5-10 minutes of my polite endurance of various disrespectful and arrogant statements and questions by the officers and detectives..."

This is where these officers started way crossing the line.

EricOKC
August 7, 2004, 09:47 PM
Perhaps if some of the LEO's here who are so busy defending the actions of the Manchester PD were just as quick to decry the actions of the cops in that hibiscus issue, it would go a long way towards defusing the citizen -v- LEO situation.

I note that thread has a painful lack of posts from LEOs...

Yes - MOST cops are good people who only want to do their job, just as MOST people are not criminals. If you're going to treat all people as criminals though due to the small percentage who actually are, expect John Q. Public to treat YOU as one of the bad cops.

tcsd1236
August 7, 2004, 10:33 PM
Well oh wait, everyone is a criminal until they are properly investigated.

Why not be intellectualy honest, and just come out and say that's how you feel.
Its fairly obvious at this point after all, don't you think?

Thats not the case at all. The facts surrounding a particular event are not assumed to be legal until they are investigated and the facts determined. That does not mean that everyone is automatically a criminal. But officers are not doing their jobs if they approach a situation assuming that soemone is a good guy. Bad guys come in all shapes, sizes, sexes, etc. Assuming otherwise gets officers killed.And at this point, it is YOU who is assuming what MY viewpoint is.

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 10:46 PM
This is where these officers started way crossing the line.
I disagree. By then they were already way over the line.

Since open carry is legal in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred, and the telephone complaint made no justifible assertion that a crime had been committed or was being committed, there was NO probable cause, and NOTHING to raise a "reasonable suspicion." Where the officers started crossing the line was the moment they laid hands on MVPel. In fact, now that we know the situation did not rise to the level of justifying a Terry Stop, they actually had no right to interrupt his reading and ask for indentification even if they had done so without laying a finger on him.

Deavis
August 7, 2004, 11:56 PM
Fine. Please explain how Terry applies here.

Hey! Wait a minute, I'm still waiting for my explanations. Get in line :)

DigitalWarrior
August 8, 2004, 12:30 AM
You took issue with everyone is a criminal until they are properly investigated

But you said The facts surrounding a particular event are not assumed to be legal until they are investigated and the facts determined

Now it might be my public school education showing, but I think that you said EXACTLY what he said. The opposite of what he said would have looked like "The facts surrounding a particular event are not assumed to be illegal until they are investigated and the facts determined"

The fact is that you feel that your job is to presume guilt until you are satisfied that no crime has been committed. I understand why you feel that way. But that is also why I have my lawyer on speed dial 13.

Deavis
August 8, 2004, 01:06 AM
tcsd1236...

The net is full of people who THINK they know what the proper law enforcement procedure should be, without having to do our job. Your post further down is additional proof of the armchair critic.

Is it really just armchair criticism? I think not…
He was a suspect as soon as someone called in a complaint against him
Explain to me how an anonymous tip about feeling uncomfortable makes him a suspect of a crime. Especially when the anonymous tip is describing a situation that is completely legal in that state. So, you are saying that if I call in and say, “Hey the guy across the street is making meth… <click>” then he is a suspect? He is considered guilty of a yet unproven crime, the definition of a suspect? Are you kidding me? Explain how that call made mvpel a suspect of something illegal. You can’t because what he was doing was completely legal.
You keep saying that a man is a suspect until your "investigation" proves otherwise. Wait a minute... doesn't there have to be a crime that he is a suspect of first? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty? You keep making some connection with a crime that may not exist. That is why people get upset because you are constantly trying to prove some crime. Is that really your job? Is it really your job as a beat officer to try and nail every single person for a crime? Isn't that what they pay detectives to do? Seriously, how can you expect people to treat you with courtesy when you come by if you are going to try to make them into a criminal before you even listen to them...
Get real! I have no problem with an officer coming out to check out the claim, but if we followed FedDC’s doctrine you would have a warrant and SWAT out there shooting up the place based on that phone call. Come on man, an anonymous tip makes me a suspect? What is this, 1984? Caution, yes. Go over the top, no. Answer my question and tell me why he was a suspect and I’ll consider myself a better educated “idiot” net-citizen.
He was a suspect as soon as someone called in a complaint against him. Until his actions are investigated and determined, he remains a suspect.
See, that is the disconnect. You see a suspect but I see someone who deserves to be treated as an innocent. Does that mean you should walk up like a total idiot and put yourself in danger? No. Does that mean that you should be cautious and maintain a civil attitude, i.e. not grabbing him from behind, of course. Your safety has nothing to do with treating him like a criminal. In this situation the officers could have secured the situation in a manner that was respectful of mvpels legal right to carry a handgun and their safety. They chose not to and that is what makes me upset. He wasn’t a suspect because he couldn’t be guilty of anything based on the circumstances.

The fact remains that open carry remains an unusual event that draws public notice, regardless of how much you wish it to be otherwise.
True, but what does that have to do with the officers’ actions? That does not change the fact that it is legal. It doesn’t make him a suspect anymore than exercising my right to protest. Does holding a protest sign automatically make me dangerous?

No one died because you chose not to act. The officers you dealt with gambled that you were a law-abiding citizen who would not harm them. They took a risk in making that gamble. Many officers are proactive in not ASSUMING that someone is law abiding and securing a weapon whose owner they are dealing with.
What? I chose not to act? I chose not to murder another human being in cold blood and that is why they are alive? You mean to say that there was a chance that I would just lose my mind and pull my piece out on that cop to shoot him for the hell of it? Are you kidding me?
I chose to follow the law and get a CHL. I chose to follow the law and purchase a gun through an FFL. I chose to pull over for the police officer. I chose to follow the law in a string of events that led him to believe I could be trusted. You think I don’t deserve that trust because you put yourself before me. That is what pisses me off. You act as if you cannot treat people with some shred of dignity because they are all suspects and are going to kill you. Hogwash. Learn to be flexible and careful.
I’ll go a little off subject here and tell you why it is important to be able to play both sides. Read a little Machiavelli, specifically about how to cleanse your country of brigands. You see, brigands are vile people and to catch them you need someone equally ruthless. So, you hire the meanest Sheriff you can, a wolf to catch a wolf, and turn him loose. After a while, he has taken care of the bad guys but will get bored and start abusing the sheep. Then, the sheep will get angry and you will be forced to kill your wolf to stop him. Of course, this will endear the politician to the people, it is good to be the King. Don’t think that when enough innocent people have been killed in no-knocks that a few LEOs won’t be on that chopping block because they could not adjust. Machiavelli doesn’t write philosophy, he writes about the eternal truth of human nature. However, I digress.
Anyhow, I understand being cautious in a situation where a man is armed. No problem, disarm me. “Hey, Deavis, I’m uncomfortable with you being armed, I’m going to go ahead and take your weapon for the duration of this traffic stop. “No problem officer, let me turn around to make you feel more comfortable.” However, they didn’t offer that courtesy to mvpel, they snuck up on him from behind and laid their hands on him for no reason. Is it so hard to understand why an honest man wants to be treated fairly? He wasn’t threatening anyone or breaking any laws, so where is the PC? What about me? I pulled over, presented my “papers,” and was respectful. Why can’t I be treated with dignity? Don’t I deserve it?

Being a CCW holder does not automatically make you a good guy. It makes you a guy who has not been caught committing a disqualifying offense.
Ah, so it makes me a criminal who just hasn’t acted yet. Great attitude. Since you guys are so into the odds, check out the CCW vs. average citizen for crimes. You will see that the CCW is far less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen, surprise to you? Not to me, criminals don’t follow the law. Hell, if your statement is true then being a cop is no different than being a CCW holder. You just haven’t gotten caught committing a crime yet. It isn’t like it takes much to pass a police background check, come on. I can qualify to be a Sheriff here, no problem.

Criminals do not go around with a neon sign on their forehead identifying them as bad guys.
Yeah, and they don’t shop in a B&N with a gun in plain view either. Give me a time you nailed a BG for open carry. You work on statistics right? So, tell me the statistic that made mvpel a suspect that would murder a cop if they approached him in a verbal fashion…
[/quote]Tactics have to be applied equally across the board. Doing otherwise leads to complacency, as in the cases of the officers you dealt with on the traffic stops. Turning their back on you while having stopped you? Bad. Bad. Bad.Bad tactics on any officers part.[/quote]
No, no, no. You don’t have to amputate a leg when there is a small cut on the toe, do you? You don’t have to assault a man posing no threat in a bookstore. Why can’t you adjust your tactics to fit a situation? Is it that hard or are you just too lazy to take another man’s rights into consideration? It was mvpel’s right to carry a gun, they treated him like a criminal. Why couldn’t they take that into consideration? Too concerned with their own “safety” to care about him, that is why. There is a difference between complacent when approaching a suspect and going over the top. You can be cautious and respectful of his right to open carry. You just choose not to and think that you should get away with it. I say, no!

Problem being that different people get offended over different things. We can't do our job worrying about who we might have offended today.
There is a difference between offending a man and violating his legal right to carry a gun. If you tell me I’m a fatass, that is offensive. Is it true, yes, so I can’t really have a case to get mad. You assault me while legally carrying a gun… That isn’t offensive it is violating his right to wear a gun openly. You have broken the law you are meant to enforce. Don’t you see a problem there?


If an officer is conducting an investigative detention, it is because they are trying to determine something about you, what you are doing, etc, for a reason. If people are offended by that, they need to grow a thicker skin. We don't know who you are or what your intentions are.You consider yourself agood guy; we don't know that about you.
An investigation was not conducted. An investigation is gathering facts. Why couldn’t they “investigate” by watching mvpel with the two plain clothes that went in first? Why couldn’t they investigate through passive surveillance? If he pulled it, take action. They didn’t investigate, they violated. You think an investigation must involve confrontation. That is not true, IMHO. You can investigate many situations without making it into a confrontation. Too many officers feel that it is their job to confront a man and make it an issue when simply talking would solve the problem. Why is that? Explain to me why passively investigating would not have worked in this situation? Remember, he wasn’t waving his piece around or acting in a threatening manner.
Why is it that when you point out the law to an officer who doesn’t know it, he has to get all big in the chest and threaten to arrest you? Why? It is hubris, plain and simple. The man can’t stand to be told he is wrong by a simple peasant. WE aren’t good enough to know the law. “WE can’t understand.” Or is it that you can’t stand to be corrected by the people you serve? Explain that to me.

let me ask you this: do people try to kill YOU simply because you are performing your job? I thought not.

Do people try to rob you at night? Do people try to steal from your house? Do people try to rape your wife? Do people try to kill you for your wallet? We all are victims in this life. Welcome to where we all live, people try to kill us (regular people) simply because we have something they want.

There are bad people out there and I try to avoid them at all costs. Your job involves confronting them, bringing them to justice, and that means risking your life. Don’t expect me to be sympathetic to you because you are forced to confront bad people. You knew it going in and now you want a cookie for it? You have taken a job where you are expected to hold yourself to a higher standard than most men and risk your life for the safety of the community you serve. I don’t want that job. I’m too talented at other things to do that at this point in my life. I commend you for taking that job, but I expect you to live up to the job description. Nobody pats me on the back for engineering a great solution to a problem. That is my job. That is what I get paid to do. Your job is to round up the bad guys, so… um… Explain to me why I should congratulate you for doing your job and why I shouldn’t get mad when you trample mvpel’s rights. Explain to me why I should be ok with you going over the line.

You are only human, right? Well, when I make a mistake it costs my company some money. When you make a mistake, it costs an innocent man his life. So yeah, I am holding you to a higher standard than other people because most people don’t have the power to harm as many innocent people as a LEO does. Explain to me why I shouldn’t hold you to that standard.

Art Eatman
August 8, 2004, 02:44 AM
The open carry was legal? If it's legal, don't the police know the law on this? If they know that under the law it's legal for open carry, why are they concerned at the fact of open carry?

Why do they do more than observe, if they do indeed feel that observation is somehow justified? Open carry is a legal activity!

Why would any policeman roust and lecture a person about a legal activity?

Now, after quiet observation by a policeman, I think it would be good advice from an adult to a young person--if done privately--that while the excercise of open carry is both a right and a lawful action, it is not the wisest course insofar as alarming the public at large. Purely my opinion, but I've always thought it pointless to disturb Ms. Average Soccer Maw. One observes community mores, no matter how foolish they seem. If one does not like the mores of a community, leave the danged place! But that's just my own opinion about how to get along with the neighbors, and certainly not binding on anybody else...

Art

Justin Moore
August 8, 2004, 03:04 AM
The fact is that you feel that your job is to presume guilt until you are satisfied that no crime has been committed

Exacta-MUNDO ;)

Stand_Watie
August 8, 2004, 04:10 AM
The open carry was legal? If it's legal, don't the police know the law on this? If they know that under the law it's legal for open carry, why are they concerned at the fact of open carry?


That's a good point. I wonder what the police would have done if the complainant had said he was reading a particular tome that offended them? Can we anonomously call the police and get readers of Stupid White Men slammed against the wall and lectured?

I do think the police had some responsibilty to at least answer the call and witness for themselves what was occurring at the store, but I don't think they had pc to go any further than a look to confirm that he wasn't waving the weapon around.

tcsd1236
August 8, 2004, 10:25 AM
Is it really just armchair criticism? I think not…
I believe it is.

Explain to me how an anonymous tip about feeling uncomfortable makes him a suspect of a crime.Especially when the anonymous tip is describing a situation that is completely legal in that state.

For one thing, what I have read about the incident, I recall that the initial call came from an employee at the store, not anonymously.
For another thing, every call we get involves a complaint from someone, unless it is something the officer personally witnesses and initiates action on.

It goes beyond someone simply being uncomfortable. Regardless of how gunnies feel about it, open carry is still uncommon enough in this country that the average person does not perceive it as being something that your average person does.

So, you are saying that if I call in and say, “Hey the guy across the street is making meth… <click>” then he is a suspect? He is considered guilty of a yet unproven crime, the definition of a suspect? Are you kidding me?......You keep saying that a man is a suspect until your "investigation" proves otherwise. Wait a minute... doesn't there have to be a crime that he is a suspect of first?

Yes, the individual reported would be a suspect, at least initially, because he was the person reported to be doing whatever illegal activity was reported, in your example the manufacture of illegal narcotics.

That is why people get upset because you are constantly trying to prove some crime. Is that really your job? Is it really your job as a beat officer to try and nail every single person for a crime? Isn't that what they pay detectives to do?

Street officers deal with reports of on-going criminal activity. Investigators, Detectives , etc usually deal with felony-level crimes AFTER the crime has occured. For instance, we as a street level officer respond to a report of a burglary in progress. If the burglary is not in progress,we take the report of the burglary and turn it over to the Investigators for follow up. They will take the initial investigation we conduct and try to solve it.

In the current case, we have a report of a man with a gun in a public place. Investigators would not respond to that unless they happened to be in the immediate are and available to respond, much as they would do if, say, there was a bank robbery.There have been cases where that has occured. There was a bank robbery a while ago and the Sheriff himself was getting a haircut across the street, so he responded. You wouldn't normally see that, being the big guy in the corner office, but the timing was fortuitous for him. In the current case being discussed, an investigator responding would, after the initial contact, turn MVpel over to the responding street officers to wrap up the report. Thats one less report the Investigator would have to deal with, if they turn the case over to the uniformed officer. They might have to do a supplemental report describing their actions at the scene, but since it was determined to not be a felony case, it would go to the uniformed officer for documentation.

What I have described above is how it would be handled at TCSD; in my part time agency, the uniformed officer does ALL investigations, felony and misdemeanor, because the agency is small and has no Investigations staff.Every agency has its own SOP.

See, that is the disconnect. You see a suspect but I see someone who deserves to be treated as an innocent. Does that mean you should walk up like a total idiot and put yourself in danger? No. Does that mean that you should be cautious and maintain a civil attitude, i.e. not grabbing him from behind, of course. Your safety has nothing to do with treating him like a criminal. In this situation the officers could have secured the situation in a manner that was respectful of mvpels legal right to carry a handgun and their safety. They chose not to and that is what makes me upset. He wasn’t a suspect because he couldn’t be guilty of anything based on the circumstances.

You are starting out assuming that the suspect person is innocent, and that no crime has occured. That assumption belongs in the courtroom, but on the street, it gets officers killed.

The bottom line is that responding oficers must id the individual identified in the complaint, secure the weapon, interview and determine the facts of the complaint. That is what happened. I would not have given the lecture, but thats me.

Does holding a protest sign automatically make me dangerous?

Depends. Are you a normal Joe or a professional protester bent on civil disorder , waving your sign outside the Republican National Convention? A lot of that depends on the circumstances.

What? I chose not to act? I chose not to murder another human being in cold blood and that is why they are alive? You mean to say that there was a chance that I would just lose my mind and pull my piece out on that cop to shoot him for the hell of it? Are you kidding me?

An officer who does not control a situation lives or dies because the offender chooses not to act on an opportunity to kill or maim the officer. Plenty of criminal activity has been prevented because a responding officer acted proactively, took control of a situation/ individual and did not give them the opportunity to act criminally. An officer who does NOT do that is letting the offender distate whether they will assault/ injure the officer or a by-stander.Plenty of officers have died or been hurt because they let the offender take control.

No offense, but this part of the conversation and your mindset is where your lack of LE training and what we mean when we discuss something is glaringly apparent.It is this type of conversation that we officers are referring to when we discuss the armchair QB types who MMQB an incident. You don't undesrstand what is being discussed, and I don't feel like taking my Sunday morning to spell out officer survival techniques with you on a public net that any offender could read and learn from and possibly use against the next officer they have to deal with.

I chose to follow the law and get a CHL. I chose to follow the law and purchase a gun through an FFL. I chose to pull over for the police officer. I chose to follow the law in a string of events that led him to believe I could be trusted. You think I don’t deserve that trust because you put yourself before me. That is what pisses me off. You act as if you cannot treat people with some shred of dignity because they are all suspects and are going to kill you. Hogwash. Learn to be flexible and careful.

You are assuming that I should automatically trust you because you have a CCW. Guess what: lots of people have permits. It doesn't automatically make them a good guy. Lots of criminals were good guys til they commited their first crime, or were CAUGHT for the first time, should I say.

I respect people, don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean that I trust them.

Ah, so it makes me a criminal who just hasn’t acted yet. Great attitude. Since you guys are so into the odds, check out the CCW vs. average citizen for crimes. You will see that the CCW is far less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen, surprise to you? Not to me, criminals don’t follow the law. Hell, if your statement is true then being a cop is no different than being a CCW holder. You just haven’t gotten caught committing a crime yet. It isn’t like it takes much to pass a police background check, come on. I can qualify to be a Sheriff here, no problem.

Already addressed. My response is already above.

As far as officers, we are screened pretty heavily. much more than your average CCW holder in most states. Do some officers go bad? Yeah. I have known of three such officers in my aea. Thats far less than the number of CCW holders around here who have lost their permits due to criminal behavior.

Yeah, and they don’t shop in a B&N with a gun in plain view either. Give me a time you nailed a BG for open carry. You work on statistics right? So, tell me the statistic that made mvpel a suspect that would murder a cop if they approached him in a verbal fashion…

There is no accounting for the stupid things that criminals would do. You assume that a criminal would never do such a thing. Once again,thats an assumption. Criminals do all sorts of things that leave you scratching your head going "why did they do THAT?"

An investigation was not conducted. An investigation is gathering facts.

I don't see how you can say that. They secured the gun, escorted him out and interviewed him regarding his carrying. That was the investigation.

Why is it that when you point out the law to an officer who doesn’t know it, he has to get all big in the chest and threaten to arrest you? Why? It is hubris, plain and simple. The man can’t stand to be told he is wrong by a simple peasant. WE aren’t good enough to know the law. “WE can’t understand.” Or is it that you can’t stand to be corrected by the people you serve? Explain that to me.

Largely because we deal daily with people who say "I know my rights..blah blah blah" as they are being arrested, when their knowledge of their rights largely comes from fellow jailhouse lawyers and watching TV. The reality is that the average person who says that DOESN'T know the law.

You have taken a job where you are expected to hold yourself to a higher standard than most men and risk your life for the safety of the community you serve.

And we do the job quite well, on a daily basis. Simply because there is risk (as you point out ) does not mean that we should not take steps to lessen the risk and attempt to ensure everyones safety simply because someone might be offended at how we do our job or what steps we take.The reality is that someone is offended at almost everything we do as officers. If we restricted ourselves to things that didn't offend anyone, we wouldn't be doing our jobs.

insidious_calm
August 8, 2004, 11:40 AM
Posted by TCSD;For one thing, what I have read about the incident, I recall that the initial call came from an employee at the store, not anonymously. For another thing, every call we get involves a complaint from someone, unless it is something the officer personally witnesses and initiates action on.

According to the 911 call it was anonymous. I contend, however, that it does not matter whether or not the caller is identifiable. While the caselaw I posted deals specifically with anonymous tips, an identified caller stating that someone is obeying the law still does not rise to the reasonable suspicion required by Terry to make the stop. You can not get around that. There simply was no legal justification for the seizure. ZILCH! Under Terry, you must be able to articulate clear FACTS that a CRIME is, has been, or will be committed.


It goes beyond someone simply being uncomfortable. Regardless of how gunnies feel about it, open carry is still uncommon enough in this country that the average person does not perceive it as being something that your average person does.


No, it doesn't go beyond that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse whether for us lowly serfs or you mighty LEO's. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that I believe the caller knew it was legal and chose not to give identifying information to avoid civil liability. That is based upon hearing the complaintant in the 911 call.


The bottom line is that responding oficers must id the individual identified in the complaint, secure the weapon, interview and determine the facts of the complaint. That is what happened. I would not have given the lecture, but thats me.


None of that applies w/o reasonable suspicion. You simply do not have the authority to disarm every Joe, Jane, and Jack you meet unless you have legal justification for a seizure. Without reasonable suspicion under Terry officer safety BS does not apply. Period. You can go talk to/ ask questions of anyone you meet. Those people, however, absent any reasonable suspicion, can simply give you the finger and ignore you. That's how it is in America.


I.C.

Hawkmoon
August 8, 2004, 11:52 AM
For one thing, what I have read about the incident, I recall that the initial call came from an employee at the store, not anonymously.
I believe your recollection is faulty. I believe the caller did not identify herself. Irrespective of whether or not the caller was identified as a store employee, however, the call (the "complaint" if you will) did NOT allege any illegal activity. It alleged that the caller was uncomfortable.

Yes, the individual reported would be a suspect, at least initially, because he was the person reported to be doing whatever illegal activity was reported
But in the case of MVPel there was NO allegation of illegal activity. Further, the reported activity was in fact legal, a fact known to the responding officers, hence even had it been reported as illegal the responding officers should have immediately discerned that the "complaint" was unfounded. The "suspect" here was "suspected of engaging in legal activity," which does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a Terry Stop.

pax
August 8, 2004, 12:01 PM
For one thing, what I have read about the incident, I recall that the initial call came from an employee at the store, not anonymously.
tcsd1236,

You're just flat wrong. Here is a copy of the 911 transcript:

MANCHESTER PD 911: Emergency.
CELLULAR 911: 91, Agent 134, cell caller on the line reporting a suspicious person carrying a handgun, Manchester, on South Willow inside the Barnes & Noble.
MPD: Inside Barnes & Noble?
CELL: Mm-hmm.
MPD: Okay.
CELL: Caller is on the line.
MPD: Hello, caller, are you there?
FEMALE CALLER: Yes, I am.
MPD: What’s going on?
CALLER: I was just in the barnes and noble on South Willow Street,
MPD: Yep...
CALLER: ...and I walked by a gentleman, he’s wearing a purple dress shirt and khaki pants, and he has a black handgun sticking out of the back of his pants.
MPD: Out of the back of his pants?
CALLER: Yes.
MPD: Wh.. where… One more time, what was he wearing? Khaki pants?
CALLER: Khaki pants and a purple dress shirt. He had dirty blonde hair, and he was with a woman, who was a heavyset woman wearing a white sweatshirt... And I did alert the manager...
MPD: Yeah...
CALLER: ... of the store...
MPD: Yeah...
CALLER: ... and waited for a few minutes to see what was going to happen, and he said he would walk by him, and he did walk by him, but I ... I don’t believe he made a phone call to the police. And I...
MPD: Where was that person in the store, when…
CALLER: He was...
MPD: ...when you noticed him?
CALLER: He was leaning on one of the chairs, they have like, um ... recliner chairs in the middle of the store...
MPD: Uh huh...
CALLER: …and the wife or the girlfriend was sitting in the chair, and he was sitting on the arm of the chair, and it’s right... um... right in front of like the baby & maternity care books, it’s close to the bathroom section of the store.
MPD: Okay... And wh... you’re not there now, are you?
CALLER: No, we just left.
MPD: Okay. Are you uh... what’s your cellphone number?
CALLER: I’d rather not give any of my own information.
MPD: No?
CALLER: No. [pause] I just feel like someone should know about it, because I felt very uncomfortable with him, you know...
MPD: How old was he about?
CALLER: Uh, I’d say he was in his late thirties, mid- to late-thirties.
MPD: And the lady he was with, was she uhh, a white female?
CALLER: She was a white female, she had very thinning hair.
MPD: All right, we’ll send somebody over there and check it out.
CALLER: Okay, thank you!
[caller hangs up]


And here's a transcript of the dispatch tapes, of which mvpel wrote: "Due to the echoes present in the brick, glass, and concrete front entrance of the store you can hear some of their comments to me in the background of a couple of the transmissions. I haven't found a decent audio analysis software package to go over those background voices in detail, if anyone has any suggestions I'd be glad to hear them."


Dispatcher: Belanger, Kathleen E - 447556
Unit 33C: Officer DuPont, David N - 705023
Unit 31C: Officer Biron, Christopher R - 741982
Unit Z15: Sergeant Bartlett, Peter J - 542472
Unit D12: Detective Leighton, Sean - 668778
Unit D21: Detective Patti, John C - 645810
Unit 32C: Officer Murphy, Brandon M - 826750

Call received: 21:03:06
Dispatch: 21:04:18
Arrival: 21:04:58
Cleared: 21:28:59

DISPATCHER: Any one of our units that are off the area of Barnes & Nobles on South Willow?
UNKNOWN UNIT: What was the area?
DISP: Barnes & Noble.
UNIT 33: 33 can head over there if you’ve got something you need to tell me.
DISP: Stand by, I’m getting the information, we’re getting a call for a subject in the area with a gun in his waistband.
UNIT 33: Alrighty, we’ll head over there [overlapping transmission]
UNIT 31: [overlapping transmission] … 31.
DISP: Copy that, 33 and 31.
UNIT 33: [engine revving in background] Whereabouts in Barnes & Noble, on the South Willow street side, or behind it…?
DISP: Gonna' be inside Barnes & Nobles.
UNIT Z15: Zebra-15.
DISP: 10-3.
UNIT Z15: I’m at the mall as well, I’ll head over there.
DISP: Subject is going to be in the child section, got a handgun tucked in the waistband of his pants in the back. He’s a white male, and it’s a black handgun.
UNIT 33: You got the caller on the phone, watchin' him?
DISP: It was a refused caller, that hung up on us.
UNIT 33: Okay.
UNIT 44: 44 clear.
DISP: Copy. [pause] 31 and 33, it’s a white male wearing a purple shirt, and khaki pants, blond hair.
UNIT 33: 33 I’m going off.
DISP: And he’s supposed to be with a heavyset white female.
UNK: He didn’t display it or anything, they just saw it in his waistband?
DISP: No they did not display it, they just saw it hanging out of the back of his pants. [pause] And 31, 33, would you like a Code 7?
UNIT 31 or 33: Yes.
DISP: [tone] All units, Code 7 on 1 for Barnes & Noble. All units, Code 7 on 1. [long pause] … There are zero available to head over to Barnes & Noble?
UNIT Z15: Z15 arriving.
DISP: Copy.
UNIT 34: Z14 can.
DISP: 10-3
UNIT Z14: I can head over to Barnes & Noble.
DISP: Z15 just said he was heading there already.
UNIT Z14: Okay.
UNK: Lincoln 5, Patti & Leighton are going to head over there as well, so in the event he’s in there you can have a couple of plainclothes guys go in first.
DISP: I’ll… let them know that, they might have gone in. 33?
UNIT 33: Yes, we’re inside [indistinct]
DISP: 10-3
UNIT 33: Yeah we’re in the store lookin’. … purple shirt, khaki jacket?
DISP: Purple shirt, khaki pants. He’s supposed to be with a heavyset woman, he was last seen in the child’s uhh, section.
UNIT 33: [indistinct] Who’s the caller?
DISP: Female caller on the cellphone, left, and did not give us any further. Uh, she said he was near the bathroom, blond hair, possibly in his thirties.
[pause]
UNIT 33: I got him.
DISP: 33 you got the party?
UNIT 31: We got him, we got ‘im. [time 21:06:16]
DISP: Copy, units have their party.
UNK: [static, indistinct]
UNK: [static, indistinct]
DISP: 33, where are you?
UNIT 33: We got him … [indistinct]
UNIT D21 or D12: Delta 21 and 12 arrive.
DISP: Copy.
[radio squeal]
UNIT 33: 33.
DISP: 10-3.
UNIT 33: Check 1.
DISP: Go ahead with it.
UNIT 33: Pelletier, P-E-L-L-E-T-I-E-R, first name Michael V–Victor middle, 10-31-70.
DISP: Stand by.
UNIT 31: 31, Can you check a serial number on the firearm?
DISP: Go ahead with it.
UNIT 31: Echo Victor Papa 583, Glock Model 30.
DISP: That’s five [i]eight three?
[long pause]
UNK: Kathy, is your Code 7 clear?
DISP: They’re off with the party with the gun.
[long pause]
DISP: 33?
UNIT 33: Go ahead
DISP: Party’s got a valid operator motorcycle, temporary license. I’m not showing any type of permit in house, but he does show a Merrimack address, would you like us to check?
UNIT 33: Uh, we’ve got one in hand. [background voice “…why were you…”]
DISP: Copy. [long pause] And the Serial number on the gun is negative. [long pause] 33 did you copy that?
UNIT 33: [to someone else] No, go with the last … [to DISP] I copied that he was valid and stuff. [background voices]
DISP: The weapon’s negative in CIC.
UNIT 33: Okay, thank you.
UNK:[static, indistinct]
DISP: Copy 89 you trying to call?
UNK: [static, indistinct] … [static, indistinct]
DISP: Copy 89 you trying to call?
UNK: [static, indistinct]
DISP: I have a code 7 and I can’t copy you. [pause] 31, all set to clear the code 7?
UNIT 31: Yeah. [background voice: “…you’re all set…”]
DISP: [tone] All units, code 7 on 1 is clear again. Code 7 on 1 is clear.
UNIT Z15: 15, I’m clear.
DISP: Copy 15.


Both transcripts make it clear that it was an anonymous caller, not a store employee -- and that everyone involved knew that it was not a store employee. The 911 operator also knew that a store employee had declined to call in.

pax

The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom. -- Justice William O. Douglas

Justin Moore
August 8, 2004, 12:04 PM
It goes beyond someone simply being uncomfortable. Regardless of how gunnies feel about it, open carry is still uncommon enough in this country that the average person does not perceive it as being something that your average person does.

What does 'uncommon' have to do with legal or illegal? Is making someone feel 'uncomfortable' a 'crime'? Does that mean every time I see a Liberal, that I can call 911 and have an investigation initiated? What you are in effect saying is, tha t since open carry is 'uncommon' and makes people feel 'uncomfortable' that the tyranny of the majority must rule, and let's forget about the law entirely.

That's the difference between a 'deomcracy' and a 'constitutional republic' right there in a nutshell. One is the arbitrary wishes of the 'majority' and the other is based upon the 'rule of law'.

And lest we forget, our government is a Constitutional Republic.

sendec
August 8, 2004, 12:17 PM
You simply cannot issue a blanket declaration that any given activity is or is not sufficient to ignite reasonable suspicion or probable cause. These are legal constructs that have to be individually articulated for any specific instance in court, based on the actions of a reasonable actor with knowledge that they can be reasonable assumed to known in the moment of action. You cannot base an argument on the fact that no illegal activity was afoot negating PC after the investigation concluded the same.

For example let's modify the same scenario, without a visible weapon, but with the suspect asleep. An employee might very well call the police to check this out. I doubt very much that there is a statute making sleeping in public illegal, but officers may still respond to check the welfare of the person or to move them along. If an officer can immediately determine that a crime has been commited and that the person they are confronting did it, they automatically have probable cause to arrest. Clearly this is relatively rare. How about a business owner reporting that the same person has walked by their store 5 times in the last 5 minutes and that they find this "uncomfortable"? This is obstensibly legal, but for many officers (and civilians) will seem suspicious based on their training and knowledge of patterns of robbery. To follow the logic in this thread, officers should not investigate or attempt to develop RS or PC, but should have the dispatcher politely inform the caller that no law has been broken, the police will not respond, and to wait until an offense occurs, then make a report. Clearly the public will not accept this, nor should they.

Art Eatman
August 8, 2004, 01:00 PM
sendec, I don't think folks object to an officer's checking out MVPell. "Different" behavior is worth a check. It's the physical nature of the handling of Pell which most here feel was way overblown--since the officers should have known the law about handgun carry.

My own views are influenced by my own involvements with LEOs. E.g., a buddy of mine and I drove from hunt camp into town to restock on various supplies. I parked by a deputy's car. The deputy noticed the totally-forgotten revolver my buddy commonly wore while hunting. Totally illegal under Texas law, when not on the ranch. The deputy's comment was, "I reckon you should have left that in camp," with a grin. Oops! Pistol quickly put into trunk of car. End of involvement.

And, my age and mileage, I'm sorta underwhelmed by young folks' fears of harmless inactions...

:), Art

insidious_calm
August 8, 2004, 01:23 PM
Mr. Sendec,


You simply cannot issue a blanket declaration that any given activity is or is not sufficient to ignite reasonable suspicion or probable cause. These are legal constructs that have to be individually articulated for any specific instance in court, based on the actions of a reasonable actor with knowledge that they can be reasonable assumed to known in the moment of action. You cannot base an argument on the fact that no illegal activity was afoot negating PC after the investigation concluded the same.


But in this case, there was no reasonable suspicion. You know as well as I do that you are bound by legal restraints in what you can and can't do. YOU KNOW as well as I do that there are legal definitions established by courts as to what constitutes "reasonable suspicion". Specifically, "clear articulable facts based upon REASONABLE inferences that a CRIME is, has been, or will be committed". I can say that there was no reasonable suspicion because the officers knew up front that the activity reported was legal. The officers chose not to observe the "suspect" to try to determine if reasonable suspicion could be formulated. Instead, they chose to rush in with a reckless display of bravado to get their rocks off by roughing up some serf.


For example let's modify the same scenario, without a visible weapon, but with the suspect asleep. An employee might very well call the police to check this out. I doubt very much that there is a statute making sleeping in public illegal, but officers may still respond to check the welfare of the person or to move them along.


Again in the scenario you suggest there is no reasonable suspicion of CRIME. The person, once awake, may simply refuse to speak to you and go on about their business. Are you suggesting that a REASONABLE person would lay hands on the "suspect" in that instance?


If an officer can immediately determine that a crime has been commited and that the person they are confronting did it, they automatically have probable cause to arrest.


What CRIME did MVPEEL commit. Specifically, what facts can be articulated that a REASONABLE person would believe a CRIME is afoot?



Clearly this is relatively rare. How about a business owner reporting that the same person has walked by their store 5 times in the last 5 minutes and that they find this "uncomfortable"? This is obstensibly legal, but for many officers (and civilians) will seem suspicious based on their training and knowledge of patterns of robbery. To follow the logic in this thread, officers should not investigate or attempt to develop RS or PC, but should have the dispatcher politely inform the caller that no law has been broken, the police will not respond, and to wait until an offense occurs, then make a report. Clearly the public will not accept this, nor should they.


Quite to the contrary Mr. Sendec, we are complaining because the officers DID NOT formulate reasonable suspicion. Noone is upset that they responded(to my knowledge), but the officers upon arrival and finding NO IMMEDIATE THREAT chose not to observe the "suspect" at all. Rather, as I stated above, they rushed in with a reckless display of bravado that easily could have resulted in serious injury or death to them or Mr. Pellitier. You are simply trying to cloud the issue.

Had the officers, and I use that term loosely because JBT is more appropriate, had they actually OBSERVED Mr. Pellitier they would have seen he was in condition white completely engrossed in a book and not acting in a manner that would be indicative of criminal activity. Had they done that, they would have known that they didn't have reasonable suspicion to seize him. Then, if they felt the need, they could have simply approached him CIVILLY to continue their inquiry. That is how it should have went down.

This ever widening divide between law enforcement and us normal everyday citizens will only continue its widening until you and others like you PUBLICLY denounce this kind of stuff. When cops begin arresting cops for this kind of criminal behavior without slight or favoritism then and only then will the wounds begin to heal. Things are rapidly heading downhill though as evidenced by the "wanted posters" mentioned elsewhere. I certainly would never support such activity, but if you are so blind as to not see that the day is rapidly approaching when all out war between cops and citizens is approaching then it's likely you will be one of the wanted. Never forget that the reason we have a 2A is precisely so we WILL ALWAYS be more heavily armed than those who might choose tyranny over representation.



I.C.

Penforhire
August 8, 2004, 01:25 PM
Before the 911 transcript was published I gave the LEO's more slack. Afterwards it is apparent they are sent to investigate a non-crime. "Man with gun in waistband" is a non-event if the area allows open carry. I understand their need to visit to location as a hedge against liability but I don't see their need to do anything other than observe.

Any other response implies unjust harassment against open carry. As in an effort to restrict such behavior. Seems fairly clear-cut now. The department should suffer some legal penalty (say a fine) to encourage their officers to stick to law enforcement.

insidious_calm
August 8, 2004, 02:10 PM
As a follow up question to the LEO's on here, are ANY of you as concerned as I am about the continued escalation of violence from BOTH sides(LEO and civillian)? If you truly are, then why not do something on your side to stop the escalation? I for one really don't want to see more blood on american streets but the outlook is bleek right now. Only solution I see is for those in authority to de-escalate in a manner that shows respect AND prudence.


I.C.

gunsmith
August 8, 2004, 02:32 PM
People in AZ carry open all the time yet we don't get these threads from AZ residents.

Are AZ lew enforcement/peace officers just smarter or better then the LE in the rest of the country?:D

Hawkmoon
August 8, 2004, 06:12 PM
Sendec:
For example let's modify the same scenario, without a visible weapon, but with the suspect asleep.
And precisely WHY should we modify the situation? So you can create a fictional situation in which an officer might be justified in contacting the subject (note that I did not say "suspect," because no crime has been alleged and thus there can be no "suspect"), and then try to make the illogical association that it's okay in your fictional situation so it must therefore be okay in the real-world instance of MVPel?

Thank you, but I do not wish to play that game. We have a real-world instance before us, complete with the "suspect's" narrative and the police transcripts. Let's confine the discussion to the case in point rather than drag in red herrings. Everything contained in both MVPel's narrative and the transcripts suggests that not only was no illegal or potentially illegal activity taking place, the anonymous complainant did not state that anything illegal was taking place.

Therefore, the ONLY thing the so-called "suspect" could possibly have been a suspect for was "suspected of engaging in legal behavior." This certainly does not appear to meet the requirements set forth by the courts to justify a Terry Stop, yet it seems the LEOs on this forum have circled their wagons and unanimously aver that a Terry Stop was justified. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but for me ... I am genuinely trying to understand. I am not a lawyer, but I work with lawyers, my great-grandfather was a professor of law and my grandfather was his student, and I can read English. So would one of you LEOs who seems convinced that this physical accosting of a man who was engaged in a completely legal activity, in the absence of any allegation of illegal activity, kindly explain to the rest of us exactly WHY you feel it was legally justified for the officers to lay hands on MVPel even though the circumstances do not rise to any of the court-established criteria for justifying a Terry Stop?

Help us to understand.

No "officer safety" stuff, please. That's been covered, but the fact is, all the officers involved (as well as all the patrons in the store) would have been much safer if the responding officer had called in a report saying "Yes, we see the man with a gun, he's reading a book and not bothering anyone, no illegal activity taking place. I'm out'a here." So, given that the legal solution would also have been the safest, please explain your rational for continuing to claim that, contrary to all available evidence, a Terry Stop was justified and that the BEST way to accomplish this was a sneak attack on an innocent man engaged in legal activity.

alan
August 8, 2004, 06:33 PM
Liliysdad:

It is NOT a question concerning any aspect of open carry v. concealed carry, as you seem to infer. Rather, the problem is that some individual, the person who called the police, and the police themselves, to use a polite phrase, went of half cocked.

So the man's pistol "showed". It was in a holster, it was not in his hand, nor was it pointed at anyone. Would this same caller have been upset at the sight of a police officer's sidearm?

I do not really blame the police for answering a call, however they should have drawn the obvious conclusion, assuming that they knew what the law said, which perhaps they didn't.

Perhaps the individual who called the polce, should be treated the same way that one who turns in a false fire alarm is treated.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
August 8, 2004, 06:42 PM
Are AZ lew enforcement/peace officers just smarter or better then the LE in the rest of the country

Good question. The New London, CT Police Dept. had a policy of turning down job applicants who scored too highly on thier IQ tests. New London PD's theory was that "smart people" would "get bored" with the job. This was admitted in court when they were sued by a rejected applicant.

The LEO opposition to open carry is an ego thing. They think that only *special* people (themselves) should be allowed to carry. When they see another civilian who is open carrying it's apparently so threatening to them that any flimsy, unlawfull excuse to assault, harrass, and lecture the peaceable gun owner will work.

Kilrain
August 8, 2004, 07:38 PM
This thread is really good if you can sort and sift through all the name calling, posturing, “us vs. them” spewing and the other associated factors that minimize it’s actual educational value. Being that I am a cop and detention law is something of “hobby” of mine, I thought I’d throw in a few facts to help clarify what a detention is and when a detention may occur, at least as it relates to California.

A temporary “detention” or “stop” is an exertion of authority that is something less than a full blown arrest, but more substantial than a simple “contact” or “consensual encounter.” (Ayarza (9th Cir.1989) 874 F.2d 647) A detention occurs whenever a reasonable–and innocent– person would believe he is not free to leave or otherwise disregard the police and go about his business. (Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 627-628) Such a belief may result from physical restraint, unequivocal verbal commands, or words or conduct by the police which clearly relate to the investigation of specific criminal acts. (Brueckner (1990) 223 Cal.App. 3d 1500, 1505)

In addition, before a detention exists in law, it is also necessary that the person actually submits to the assertion of authority by the police. If a person runs away or fights, for example, there has been no detention and none occurs until and unless the person stops and submits or is forced to submit. In other words, “a person is not ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless he or she is somehow physically restrained or voluntarily submits to a peace officers’ authority.” (Arangure (1991) 230 Cal.App 3d 1302, 1307)

The general purpose of a detention is to resolve whether or not suspicious behavior is “innocent” or relates to a crime. Therefore, “the possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” (Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 891) Detention law “accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people.” However, if, during the detention, “the officer does not learn facts rising to the level of probably cause, the individual must be allowed to go on his way.” (Wardlow (2000) 120 S.Ct. 673, 677)

In order for an investigative stop or detention to be valid, you must have a “reasonable suspicion” that: (1) Criminal activity MAY be afoot; and (2) the person you are about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity. (Wardlow (2000) 120 S.Ct. 673, 675) “The determination of reasonable suspicion must be base on common sense judgement and inferences about human behavior.” (Wardlow (2000) 120 S.Ct. 673, 676) “The quantum of proof needed for reasonable suspicion is less than a preponderance of evidence, and less than probably cause. It is merely a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.” (Tiong (9th Cir. 2000) 224 F.3d 1136, 1140) Remember, however, that even though the court will consider the “totality of the circumstances,” there must be specific facts which can be articulated to a court. The court will then decide if these facts–together with a peace officers’ training and experience– were enough to make the suspicion objectively reasonable. (Wright (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1107) A valid detention cannot be based solely on a hunch, rumor, intuition, instinct or other curiosity. (Wardlow (2000) 120 S.Ct. 673, 675)

Whether someone is being detained to (1) investigate a “reasonable suspicion” or (2) to issue a cite and release citation, the suspect has an obligation to stop. A suspect has “no right to resist” a lawful detention. (Lloyd (1989) 216 Cal.App. 3d 1425, 1429) If the suspect doesn’t stop or submit to a peace officers’ authority, the suspect has violated section 148 of the Penal Code(Obstructing or delaying a peace officer in the performance of his duties) and is then subject to arrest. A peace officer may use all that force which is necessary but only that force which is necessary to make the suspect stop or submit(Johnson (1991) 231 Cal.App3d 1, 12-13 also see California Penal Code sections 835 and 835a)

Just to throw a monkey wrench in the gears, review this case: People v. Foranyic (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 186, 189.

Clear as mud???!!!:neener:

Zak Smith
August 8, 2004, 07:51 PM
Kilrain,

Thanks for the citations and summary.

In order for an investigative stop or detention to be valid, you must have a “reasonable suspicion” that: (1) Criminal activity MAY be afoot; and (2) the person you are about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity.

The obvious question in this case is Was there reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may have been afoot?

A person does have the right to resist illegal arrest, see John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529
"Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."

Does a person have a right to resist invalid detention?

It may be possible that a detention is valid, but a subsequent arrest is illegal. When does the subject know when the detention (valid in the hypothetical) is over and he is-- "free"-- to resist the unlawful arrest?

-z

tcsd1236
August 8, 2004, 09:01 PM
all the officers involved (as well as all the patrons in the store) would have been much safer if the responding officer had called in a report saying "Yes, we see the man with a gun, he's reading a book and not bothering anyone, no illegal activity taking place. I'm out'a here."

Thats an improper investigation, and if an officer tried to do that around here, he'd be out of a job. How did he determine that it was ok without conducting an investigation? Can he even identify the person in his report? No. So...improper investigation, and s/he could find him/herself up on a suspension pretty quick. No thanks.

tcsd1236, you're just ...wrong.."

I actually had not seen the transcript til I was surfing TFL earlier today. I recalled from a thread on this topic on one or another board that the call came from an employee. I stand corrected on that point.

I have only read the written transcript, but the text appears to reflect fairly routine LEO radio traffic.

The open carry was legal? If it's legal, don't the police know the law on this? If they know that under the law it's legal for open carry, why are they concerned at the fact of open carry?

I am not familiar with the area in question, but apparently being an urban area, I will assume the following: just about any urban officer can most likely testify in court that in their experience as an officer of "x" years, most of the "open", unlicensed carry they have encountered has been in their interaction with the criminal element, that it is a practice that is not routinely encountered by them amongst the law abiding population, etc. That also gives them the RS that someone asked about earlier in the thread.

As a follow up question to the LEO's on here, are ANY of you as concerned as I am about the continued escalation of violence from BOTH sides(LEO and civillian)? If you truly are, then why not do something on your side to stop the escalation? I for one really don't want to see more blood on american streets but the outlook is bleek right now. Only solution I see is for those in authority to de-escalate in a manner that shows respect AND prudence.

You make it sound as if the violence is law-enforcement initiated. I have news for you. As a profession, we are reactive in this regard. Our tactics have had to change based on the threats we encounter. These threats existed BEFORE the tactics you complain about. Our "deescalation" will not make the criminal behavior go away, it will not make society all better, in spite of your wishes otherwise.

Zak Smith
August 8, 2004, 09:35 PM
I am not familiar with the area in question, but apparently being an urban area, I will assume the following: just about any urban officer can most likely testify in court that in their experience as an officer of "x" years, most of the "open", unlicensed carry they have encountered has been in their interaction with the criminal element, that it is a practice that is not routinely encountered by them amongst the law abiding population, etc. That also gives them the RS that someone asked about earlier in the thread.

Dude, open carry is explicitly legal in the locale. Exercise of a legal right, absent other evidence, ought not imply RS!

You make it sound as if the violence is law-enforcement initiated.
Newsflash-- in this case, it was!

-z

Hawkmoon
August 8, 2004, 10:37 PM
Thats an improper investigation, and if an officer tried to do that around here, he'd be out of a job. How did he determine that it was ok without conducting an investigation? Can he even identify the person in his report? No. So...improper investigation, and s/he could find him/herself up on a suspension pretty quick. No thanks.
The transcripts clearly indicate that the officers did quickly identify the subject. How many guys in purple shirts with a gun stuck in the waistband would you expect to find in one Barnes & Noble? The point is, having verified that the complainant was correct in reporting a man with a gun, the officer should also have observed that the subject was NOT VIOLATING ANY LAW AND WAS GIVING NO INDICATION OF INTENT TO VIOLATE ANY LAW.

How does this justify the next action of the officers, which goes beyond a simple Terry Stop to physically accosting and restraining the "subject."

What do you mean by "identify the person"? Do you mean get name and d.o.b.? Let's remember, this individual is not breaking any law and not engaged in any suspicious activity. What gives the officer any right to ask for identification, absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion?

tcsd1236
August 8, 2004, 11:07 PM
What do you mean by "identify the person"? Do you mean get name and d.o.b.? Let's remember, this individual is not breaking any law and not engaged in any suspicious activity. What gives the officer any right to ask for identification, absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion?

A complaint has been made in the case indicated. In my agency, every call for service with very few exceptions ( ex: one car accidents with no property damage) requires a report. Even those reports require thatw e complete a computerized run sheet identfying who we had contact with on that call. The written report details the facts of the case, including complainant information, people interviewed, findings of the case, etc. A report showing that I ( for instance ) responded on a similar call, did not make contact with the suspect, nor did I interview him and obtain pedigree information to include at a minimum: Name, DOB, residential address and home phone number would be considered a substandard report and I would be told to redo teh report; should such substandard report writing be documented as a continuing problem, I would face the prospect of being brought up on disciplinary charges and potentially even dismissed.

In case you haven't heard about the Hibbel case, I am sure that you can review the archives here.That case covers officers identifying individuals.

Justin Moore
August 8, 2004, 11:14 PM
A complaint has been made in the case indicated

A complaint about lawful activity?

Look, I understand the position that your department seems to be putting you in, but frankly it seems to be joke. Are you saying if you got a call about me flying my kite, and somebody didn't like it, you'd have to come out, make contact with me, and file a report?

EricOKC
August 8, 2004, 11:31 PM
tcsd1236,

So what you're basically saying is, in order to satisfy your internal paperwork requirements and keep your job, the public at large is subject to detainment and investigation for any report of legal activity which is called in?

Do you ever stop and think about this kind of thing?

Consider this: When the policy gets in the way of doing what you know to be the right thing, the policy MUST be changed.

sendec
August 8, 2004, 11:43 PM
Might I suggest that you all put your monies where your mouths are and see if you could fund a suit for this guy. You and I cannot decide these points of law, that's for a judge and jury. If you really, truly think that there is a lawyer alive who could convince a jury that these officers were wrong for answering a call for service and conducting a field interview, take it to court. The plaintiff could recover fees if he prevails, so you'll get your money back and prove your point. For all of our tough talk, how many contributors to this thread are lawyers? Judges? Law professors?

Go ahead, make his day, put up or shut up. Let me know hearing dates and docket numbers, cause this'll be the best free entertainment in town.

Hawkmoon
August 8, 2004, 11:46 PM
In case you haven't heard about the Hibbel case, I am sure that you can review the archives here.That case covers officers identifying individuals.
I am quite familiar with the Hibbel case, and it's a particularly poor analogy here.

In Hibbel, there was a report (a "complaint") alleging possible illegal activity. If I remember correctly, the report was that a man was beating a woman in a truck parked by the side of the road. When officers responded, Hibbel attempted to walk away. Officers ASKED him for identification, which he declined to provide. He was arrested for refusing to identify himself.

How does that case apply to the MVPel case? First, in the MVPel case the complaint contained no "articulable" (the court's word, not mine) allegation of illegal or potentially illegal activity. Second, MVPel didn't refuse to identify himself -- he was physically attacked BEFORE the officers had announced their presence or identified themselves as police officers. He was not asked to identify himself until AFTER he had been physically attacked.

Which still comes back to why the responding officer should have to identify the subject of the ANONYMOUS report when it was obvious that no illegal activity was taking place? Suppose MVPel had departed the scene before the first officer arrived? His report would have been pretty short. I guess I'm stupid, but I still don't see how engaging in legal activity gives an officer a right to "investigate" the subject.

And let's remember that in Hibbel, the subject was asked to identify himself BEFORE he was detained. Even if one concedes that a proper report required asking MVPel for identification (which point I am not yet prepared to concede, but for discussion ...), how might that in any way justify physically attacking him BEFORE ASKING FOR IDENTIFICATION, AND BEFORE ANNOUNCING THE PRESENCE OF A POLICE OFFICER?

sendec
August 8, 2004, 11:57 PM
I have never, ever seen a report form that did'nt list "unfounded" as a disposition. I used to have an "unfounded" stamp, for gosh' sake.

What's that you say, "I guess I'm stupid." Well...........I'm guessing you were'nt top of your class in Criminal Procedure.:uhoh:

tcsd1236
August 9, 2004, 12:12 AM
Look, I understand the position that your department seems to be putting you in, but frankly it seems to be joke. Are you saying if you got a call about me flying my kite, and somebody didn't like it, you'd have to come out, make contact with me, and file a report?

Yes. Its a call for service, a report gets written.

I have never, ever seen a report form that did'nt list "unfounded" as a disposition. I used to have an "unfounded" stamp, for gosh' sake.

don't know who you are directing that at. "Unfounded" IS a valid disposition..well, I should say WAS; technically that disposition code is still in the computer system, but we are not allowed to use it..... but even if it were authorized, the report would have to indicate how the officer arrived at that determination and who s/he spoke to to arrive at that decision.

How does that case apply to the MVPel case? First, in the MVPel case the complaint contained no "articulable" (the court's word, not mine) allegation of illegal or potentially illegal activity

Ahhh..but you have a complaint of a man with a gun. True, circumstances are unknown at the time of the initial call, but only your unwavering desire to declare all gun use as valid and legitimate bars you from seeing that many officers, particularly urban officers, deal with mostly illegal weapons use. They don't know who they are dealing with, and quite frankly, we keep going over the same ground here. As has been said, if you guys want to believe MVPel was so grossly mistreated, then cough up his court fees. Even Mas with his years of court time said MV needs to let it go and move on.Maybe the rest of you need to do the same.

liliysdad
August 9, 2004, 12:37 AM
The fact remains..a complaint was made, and it must be investigated. To ensure there was no crime commited, one must ascertain the individuals name, DOB, etc...subject might be a felon, thus a crime might have been commited. Subject might be named in a protective order, thus a crime might have been commited. Simply saying "open carry is legal"...does not mean it is legal for everyone.

For an oficer to arrive..look at the guy without making contact, and leave "because open carry is legal" is wrong and ignorant, and would lead to severe reprisal at work at best.

Honestly, anyone who thinks the police should have blown it off is absolutely insane at best. The presence of a gun calls for the utmost in caution, and even moreso when a complaint is made. Everyone is a non-offender until their first crime. Before you get all pissed at the guilty till proven innocent stab, let me clarify. Just because you are doing something legal, that does not remove you from the chance that you may be doing something illegal soon, and it is our job to prevent this.

Like i said before, the only thing I see that was done differently than any other officer whould have done it is that they approached and disarmed the man without announcing their presence, and that they felt the need to express their political views, which I m not sure they did. Id tell you its simply not a good idea to practice open carry in an urban area, as most any law enforcement officer would. The whol incident could have been avoided if he had been concealed.....thei is whatI would imagine was told to him.

Hawkmoon
August 9, 2004, 01:01 AM
Ahhh..but you have a complaint of a man with a gun. True, circumstances are unknown at the time of the initial call, but only your unwavering desire to declare all gun use as valid and legitimate bars you from seeing that many officers, particularly urban officers, deal with mostly illegal weapons use. They don't know who they are dealing with, and quite frankly, we keep going over the same ground here.
Whose unwavering desire to declare all gun use as valid and legitimate? Not mine, mate.

The reason we seem to keep going over the same ground is that none of you LEO types (except Sendec) are willing to address the question straight on. It doesn't matter if some people who carry guns are (or might be) felons. It doesn't matter that a felon might even carry a gun openly (if he was really stupid). I concede that a felon does not have a right to carry a gun -- open or concealed. The question is what gives a police officer any right to physically attack a person who is NOT engaged in illegal or even suspicous behavior, and about whom there has not even been an allegation of potentially illegal activity.

Supposedly in this country people are innocent until proven guilty, and supposedly we have a Constitutional protection against "unreasonable search and seizure." Among other cases, Hibbel has established some guidelines as to what the courts feel is a threshold for "reasonable," and this case doesn't appear to rise to the level the courts have established for the necessary components of "reasonable suspicion." You as an LEO do not have a right to walk up to every person you see wearing a gun IN AN APPARENTLY LEGAL MANNER to ask if that person just might happen to be a felon. C'mon -- I know you know this. MVPel was not engaged in any illegal activity -- can we agree on that? If so, then please explain how you can LEGALLY justify attacking him, or even asking him for identification? Don't trot out the "urban officers experience overwhelmingly indicates ..." stuff. This is Manchester, New Hampshire we're talking about, not Detroit or Chicago. And once again, please remember that regardless of whether you think it's stupid, OPEN CARRY IS LEGAL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. Therefore, you CANNOT make any claim that IN THIS INSTANCE the fact he was carrying was in itself suspicious.

liliysdad
August 9, 2004, 01:08 AM
There was a complaint against the man...contact MUST be made in order to make a report. A report MUST be made in response to a complaint.

EricOKC
August 9, 2004, 01:10 AM
Lillysdad:

Which is more important? Protecting the rights of the law abiding or satisfying an internal paperwork policy of the department?

tcsd1236
August 9, 2004, 01:33 AM
The reason we seem to keep going over the same ground is that none of you LEO types (except Sendec) are willing to address the question straight on.

Uh, no. We have addressed the question, over and over. We simply are not giving you the answer that you want to hear.The fact that almost every officer is giving you the same answer should tell you something about how officers work, should reinforce the idea that maybe these officers were not engaged in some roughshod lone wolf tactics but were in fact engaged in a lawful LEO activity in accordance with accepted LEO procedures.

And as I have already said, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a concept for the courtroom , not the street.

insidious_calm
August 9, 2004, 01:34 AM
..that what the cops did was illegal. I posted the caselaw that CLEARLY GOVERNS THIS SITUATION. Funny, you LEO types can't get enough caselaw till it doesn't support the JBT approach. THERE IS NO GUN EXCEPTION TO TERRY.


Let me state this again for you;


THERE IS NO GUN EXCEPTION TO TERRY!


The officers should have observed the subject to try to formulate reasonable suspicion. No REASONABLE person could stretch MVPEL's actions into reasonable suspicion. Your refusal to admit this simply proves you're not reasonable.

As for put your money where your mouth is, some of us have. I fowarded the caselaw in the beginning. As I understand it it is being used. The more I read what the LEO's post on here the more sick I feel to my stomach. How about you LEO's on here put your money where your mouth is and call for a grand jury investigation of the officers in this case. No? I didn't think so.


I.C.

Hawkmoon
August 9, 2004, 02:03 AM
There was a complaint against the man...contact MUST be made in order to make a report. A report MUST be made in response to a complaint.
Correction: There was a report about the man. Why must "contact" be made? The transcripts clearly indicate that the caller did NOT state that MVPel was doing anything illegal. All she was able to quantify was that she felt "uncomfortable." Heck, she even admitted that the store personnel blew her off. If the store personnel wouldn't call it in, there couldn't have been much of a threat.

Sendec commented that most report forms include a category for "unfounded." Dang! This sure seems like the time whan that should have been used. No "articulable" allegation of illegal activity, no ID on the complainant, and upon observation no illegal or even suspicious activity in progress. I understand that a report must be filed -- what I do not understand is why MVPel's Constitutional right to NOT be subject to unreasonable search and seizure should be ignored in favor of making out a report that should have just said "Unfounded."

Sorry, guys, but it sure seems to me that checking "unfounded" on the report form instead of tackling an armed man sure might have been a lot smarter and a whole bunch safer.

Shield529
August 9, 2004, 02:19 AM
Orginal post by Gunsmith
"How do cops in AZ stay so calm?
People in AZ carry open all the time yet we don't get these threads from AZ residents.

Are AZ lew enforcement/peace officers just smarter or better then the LE in the rest of the country?

Not sure about smarter, but the entire way police function is diffrent in the South - Southwest then it is on the Upper east coast- New England.

I had a friend from NYPD visit and ride with me, the look on his face when I stopped a vehicle with an AR-15 and two deer rifles showing through the back window in a rack was priceless, and he was dumbfounded when never brought the subject up with driver.

Alot of it is just mentality, in the area I work, I believe about 85% of households have weapons, its just how life has always been there.

A call I took yesterday shows this mentality:

New family moved into expensive new subdivision from Maryland, this was thier first weekend in thier new home.
The famliy 1/4 mile south on an old famliy owned street has thier own outdoor shooting range, nothing nice but it is safe.
The sheer terror and screaming in the first 911 call told me alot about the wife in this new family, finding them in thier basement hiding told me more.
The verbal abuse and threats of complaints and lawsuits, when I told them that this was normal and would not be stopped told me the whole story.
I was screamed at by the nice new family untill I agreed to have a long talk with the old family.
I went over there had iced tea and a long talk, about thier collection:)

The mentality also varies between officers in densely populated areas and rural areas. Where I work is populated but quite spread out, I know about 30% on the people in my area by first name, see how many officers in major cities get to know the people that live there.

Thats what matters

EricOKC
August 9, 2004, 02:55 AM
Shield529,

Question:

How would you have handled a call from a blissninny about open carry?

As an aside, wherebouts in AR are you?

Shield529
August 9, 2004, 03:29 AM
To EricOKC

Your the first person in all this to ask the officers on the board what they would have done.

I would have responded and observed first. If everything appeared normal I would have approched the subject with the other officer approching from a diffrent angle, out of the subjects line of sight. I would have indentifed myself and extented my hand for a handshake,
(most people don't think about it but it gives control of the suspects gun hand without giving up control of mine),
I would have asked him to come outside and talk and walked a few steps behind him with one officer on each side (not touching him). Once outside I would have told him why I was making contact with him, confirmed his status as legal to possess that firearm and carry, given him his contact card and stated words to the effect of, you know how nervous people get just be careful, and cleared the scene.

South-Central AR

pax
August 9, 2004, 03:50 AM
The fact remains..a complaint was made, and it must be investigated. To ensure there was no crime commited, one must ascertain the individuals name, DOB, etc...
Here's another real-life situation -- which shows that things are different here.

A week or so ago, my husband and boys were out in the yard shooting off model rockets. This is a perfectly legal activity, and they were completely upon our own property. However, our neighbor (for whatever reason) called in a complaint to the local cop shop. :rolleyes:

Officer pulled up about 20 minutes after the boys had put away their stuff. We saw him pull into the drive, and I went out to meet him as he got out of his car.

Me: "Officer, what can I do for you?"

LEO: "Sorry to bother you, ma'am, but we got a call about some illegal fireworks at this address."

Me: "Fireworks??! Um, no. No fireworks. My husband and the boys were shooting off some of the kids' model rockets."

LEO: "Bottle rockets?"

Me: "No, no -- model rockets. You know, paint 'em, put an engine in 'em, and fly 'em."

LEO: "Those aren't illegal."

Me: "I know. We wouldn't have been shooting 'em off if they were."

LEO: "There is a burn ban on, though, because it's so dry. You be careful with those."

Me: "Oh, we're careful. We had the hose and a bucket nearby too -- you can still see the wet spot in the driveway."

LEO: "All right. Thanks for your time, ma'am."

And that was it. He didn't take my name, he didn't take my husband's name, he didn't ask for a tour of the house (I'd have turned him down if he had). He asked a few questions, ascertained that nothing illegal had transpired, and went away.

Are you saying he'd have been fired for that if he worked for your agency? Because I'd say that's probable cause to fire your top cop and put in someone with more community-friendly ideas.

pax

A policeman's job is only easy in a police state. -- Orson Welles

Kilrain
August 9, 2004, 04:16 AM
Before I get into the knee deep legalese about this detention, let me preface it with a few comments. Firstly, I am addressing this issue based on what mvpel is telling us in this and various other threads that I have read about the incident. I have no reason to doubt mvpel’s description of the events nor do they appear to be challenged by the officers involved or their department. What is being challenged is the lawfulness of the detention based on what is explicitly legal activity as defined by that states constitution. Sound about right? If not, please correct me.

Secondly, let me say that although I am a cop, having about 11 years in, I can definitely see both sides of this argument. I’ll address this by answering the question that EricOKC asked Shield539, ie how would I have handled it. I’d like to think I would have observed mvpel for a short time before acting and, after determining that he was not a raving lunatic or acting in some other criminal manner, contacted him in a low key way, asked him to step outside and talk with him about it. I would not have lectured him about the law or his choice to carry openly but I may have advised him that when he does so, it makes the sheeple scared and draws attention to himself. I probably would have made small talk about what he carried and why and then got on down the road. I’d like to the think that’s what I’d do however that response is from a cop who works in a very rural county where armed people, ranchers and farmers, aren’t uncommon. Hell, I’ve responded to a burglar alarm calls where the RPs have already cleared the building and are standing by, clearly armed……….but I digress.

In my previous post about detention clarification, I mentioned the Foranyic case at the very end. It is very unique, but could be applied to this situation. I’ll try to give you the highlights.

In 1998, a Huntington Beach patrolman approached Robert Francis Foranyic when he saw him standing astride his bicycle, to which was attached a large ax, at three in the morning. The officer ordered him to dismount, explaining that he “wanted to put some distance between him(Foranyic) and the ax.” Foranyic had difficulty following this direction and showed classic symptoms of intoxication. In fact, the officer found him to be highly intoxicated (Foranyic was reasonably sure he was either in Long Beach or Bakersfield, but unable to narrow it down more than that, and he could hardly stand without the support of his bicycle). Another officer evaluated Foranyic’s symptoms and arrested him for a violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f). During booking, methamphetamine was found in a baggie taped to Foranyic’s belt.

Having pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, Robert Francis Foranyic contends the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence against him. He argues there were not suspicious circumstances justifying his detention, and that the methamphetamine subsequently found on his person should have been suppressed. Thus are we called upon to decide whether police may detain a man with an ax riding a bicycle at three a.m.

The court addressed the issue thusly:

To our minds, it(the detention) was perfectly appropriate. The touchstone of analyzing a detention, or for that matter any Fourth Amendment issue, is reasonableness. “The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution is ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ (Terry v. Ohio [(1968) 392 U.S. 1, 19].)” (In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 892.)

It is particularly important to bear this in mind with regard to detentions, since the concept of “reasonable suspicion,” which governs them, does not lend itself to ready definition. Our approach is perhaps best described by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S. 1, 7-8: “The concept of reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is not ‘readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.’ ([Illinois v.] Gates, [(1983) 462 U.S.] at 232.) We think the Court of Appeals’ effort to refine and elaborate the requirements of ‘reasonable suspicion’ in this case creates unnecessary difficulty in dealing with one of the relatively simple concepts embodied in the Fourth Amendment. In evaluating the validity of a stop such as this, we must consider ‘the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.’ (United States v. Cortez [1981] 449 U.S. 411, 417.) As we said in Cortez: ‘The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common-sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as fact-finders are permitted to do the same—and so are law enforcement officers.’ (Id., at 418.)” (Ibid.)

We conclude that a reasonable police officer, considering the totality of the circumstances, would reasonably suspect criminal activity might be afoot upon viewing someone on a bicycle, with an ax, at three in the morning. Certainly we would expect a diligent officer to investigate such unusual behavior through the relatively unintrusive means of a detention. This is so even though no recent “ax crime” had been reported.

For while Foranyic insists there was nothing about him which suggested criminal activity, he is unable to suggest, and we cannot conceive of, much in the way of non-criminal activity which is accomplished with an ax in the dead of night. The officer could reasonably eliminate firefighting and lumberjacking from the list of possible pursuits Foranyic might have been engaged in. And while there are doubtless some reasonable explanations which might be conjured up, “The possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.” (In re Tony C. , supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 894.)

Thus, while it is true no “ax crime” had been reported, and while it is true the officer was not asked what specific crime he might have thought he was investigating when he ordered Foranyic to dismount, it was nonetheless reasonable, logical and legal for the officer to require Foranyic to spend a few minutes explaining himself and these circumstances, which were not only unusual, but unique in the annals of reported California decisions. Some things cannot be ignored. The judgment is affirmed.

(Emphasis in bold and underlined added by me)

Foranyic is a great case, but a California case. Now before you guys jump all over me, I know that a California state case is not controlling over Massachusetts law. That is not the point. The point is that similar circumstances have occurred in the past, ie legal activity that resulted in a detention, that was ruled legal and justifiable. I believe that a Massachusetts court would probably see it the same way……..but hey, it’s just my opinion.

carebear
August 9, 2004, 05:10 AM
Kilrain,

Nice case. You KNOW the justices were chuckling when they wrote this line. :p

"The officer could reasonably eliminate firefighting and lumberjacking from the list of possible pursuits Foranyic might have been engaged in."


I'd say that it emphasizes even more the importance of taking the time to consider the totality of the circumstances and would thus support those of us who object to the rough way the officers decided to handle a fairly clear case of "legally carrying a gun in a bookstore".

My gripe isn't that they contacted him, it's the assaultive and just plain arrogant way they chose to do it.

"We conclude that a reasonable police officer, considering the totality of the circumstances, would reasonably suspect criminal activity might be afoot upon viewing someone on a bicycle, with an ax, at three in the morning....

...This is so even though no recent “ax crime” had been reported."

God I'd like to write judicial opinions some day. :D

Kilrain
August 9, 2004, 05:45 AM
It is, in fact, one of my favorite opinions, at least from the standpoint of how it is written. I'm glad I am not the only one who can appreciate the humor in it.

That being said, I think it makes a valid point about the need to contact and detain someone who is doing something totally legal. Not trying to pick a fight with you or anyone else but I think the real problem is this, as you so eloquently state:

it's the assaultive and just plain arrogant way they chose to do it.

The real problem is perception. The officers perception of what is and what is not a threat and the public's perception of what is and what is not "assaultive" and, more importantly, "arrogant" behavior. Basically, and correct me if I'm wrong, you don't disagree with what the officer did, but how he did it. Perception.

Us "gunnies"(people who are familiar and comfortable with guns) are not necessarily alarmed by someone carrying a firearm openly in a place or state where it is legal. The average person, not familiar with the laws or with firearms is not and therefore may alert the police. The police have a duty to investigate. They investigated through a detention and released mvpel. Do I like the way did it? Not from what I've read however I don't think that it will go anywhere. Just my opinion.

And for the record, I'd like to write judicial opinons also. Lastly, whether I was a cop or not, I agree with the Foranyic decision.

stevelyn
August 9, 2004, 09:32 AM
Just because you are doing something legal, that does not remove you from the chance you MAY be doing something illegal soon, and it's our job to PREVENT this.

I think this is the attitude that has brought us to the point we're at now.
First of all our job is not to prevent crime. There is no way we can do this. Yes, crimes probably are prevented by patrols, visibility and contact with suspicious persons. However the level of prevention cannot be quantified because you can't predict what didn't happen. Our job is to respond to calls for service, gather evidence and write reports detailing events. Police respond after the fact.
Unless someone is talented in forward thought tracing, how can anyone determine what illegal activity one is going to engage in in the future?
I take offense to the above statement because it is precisely the attitude that drives the wedge between police and the rest of the citizenry and affirms the us vs. them mentality.

Now on to the original subject of this thread.

When the officers were able to identifiy mvpell there was nothing to indicate he was doing anything suspicious other than reading a book casually sitting on the arm of a chair with a handgun exposed in his waistband.
We've also determined from those who live there, open carry IS legal and practiced in NH.
We've also determined from the information provided, neither the store manager or employees were alarmed about the handgun.
Given there was no articulable and observable threat, the officers tactics were way out of line for the totality of the circumstances and borders on an assault under the color of law. This could have and should have been handled differently. Starting with a call from the dispatcher to the B&N to if nothing else, confirm what was happening inside the store and the relay info to the responding units.
Finally the most arrogant and offensive part was the further detention subjecting him to the condesending "lecture" of what's good for the sheep and why they shouldn't have guns. Guess what fellow officers, it's not our business to "lecture" citizens. :barf:
In my mind I cannot see how the other LEOs in this discussion could possibly defend what the MPD officers did in this case.

Justin Moore
August 9, 2004, 09:47 AM
stevelyn, thanks for you perspective :)

Just because you are doing something legal, that does not remove you from the chance you MAY be doing something illegal soon, and it's our job to PREVENT this.

Boy I just don't understand that. If I was a cop and had that mindset, I could easily see myself going insane rather rapidly, seeing everyone as a potential criminal that's out to kill me. Its almost like a self induced form of schizophrenia
in a way.

ojibweindian
August 9, 2004, 10:19 AM
In reading LEO responses to this thread, I believe we need many more Shield529 and Stevelyn in order to replace the FedDC's and lilysdad's.

FedDC
August 9, 2004, 11:20 AM
Ok, I'm going to make a prediction...so here goes-

6 months to one year from now, this complaint will be dismissed by the PD. Any civil suit will also be dismissed and the Officers involved will counter sue for a massive amount of cash. The PD will counter sue for all of the expenses they had from attys and time away from the street... That is the way we do it and I know it is big among the locals.

At the end of the day, it will come down to one thing: Did the officers have a right to be there?

Everything that was done after that can be justified if they had a right to be present bc if they had the right to be there on official business, then they had the legal right to make that area safe for investigation which includes disarming an interviewee.

The answer to the first question is yes bc they were responding to a 911 call, as they are duty bound to do. So, since the officer had to be there, they then had to make the area safe and that lead to the disarming of the potential suspect.

He was not arrested and none of his property was taken, no search and no seizure in the eyes of the law.

Like it or not, this is the law.

ojibweindian
August 9, 2004, 11:27 AM
Fed

:rolleyes:

EricOKC
August 9, 2004, 12:08 PM
So, since the officer had to be there, they then had to make the area safe and that lead to the disarming of the potential suspect.
This is the point which you still seem to have a problem with. Of what crime was he suspected? What crime had been committed?

It is sad that you have the outlook that everyone is simply a criminal who has not yet been caught, but then again, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Justin Moore
August 9, 2004, 12:16 PM
Of what crime was he suspected? What crime had been committed?

The question we will never get an answer to ;)

FedDC
August 9, 2004, 12:26 PM
The reason that I didn't answer it is bc an officer does not know exactly what crime is being committed before reporting to a scene... We aren't psychic. That is why we show up and investigate. Non LEOs are not trained to make an assessment of the exact crime in progress which is why a "Man with a Gun" call can be everything from a good guy open carrying to a bank robbery in progress. Was the suspect threatening anyone with the gun? Was he waving it around? It is in a holster or in his hand? Where was the gun before th officers showed up? These are all questions that have to be answered AFTER the officer gets on scene and to answer those questions, the ofc must INVESTIGATE which he can not do while the suspect is walking around armed.

How's that...

EricOKC
August 9, 2004, 12:44 PM
The reason that I didn't answer it is bc an officer does not know exactly what crime is being committed before reporting to a scene...

Try to understand this. Open carry is LEGAL in NH.
Non LEOs are not trained to make an assessment of the exact crime in progress which is why a "Man with a Gun" call can be everything from a good guy open carrying to a bank robbery in progress.

In this case, according to the 911 transcript, it was a man with a gun in a holster on his person, not using it in a threatening manner, in a B&N bookstore. It appears all non-LEO's here are able to comprehend that open carry is legal in NH. Apparently we all need LEO training though to recognize that all citizens are nothing more than criminals who have not yet been caught.

Was the suspect threatening anyone with the gun?

No. Admitted in the 911 call and easily observed by the officers on the scene.

Was he waving it around?

No. Admitted in the 911 call and easily observed by the officers on the scene.

It is in a holster or in his hand?

In a holster, on his person according to the 911 can and again easily observed by the officers on the scene.

Where was the gun before th officers showed up?

In a holster, on his person according to the 911 call.

These are all questions that have to be answered AFTER the officer gets on scene and to answer those questions, the ofc must INVESTIGATE which he can not do while the suspect is walking around armed.

These questions were all answered BEFORE the officer was dispatched for pete's sake. These questions could have been answered with a 10 second observation by the officers on the scene. The answer to these questions did NOT require placing hands upon MVPEL, disarming him, detaining him and lecturing him. The fact that carrying a firearm is illegal in your area (assuming you are in DC or MD) is irrelevant. In NH it is legal. Do try to comprehend this.

FedDC
August 9, 2004, 12:59 PM
As I said, if the person was concerned enough to call 911, we have to go and we can't just take someone's word that the potential suspect is a good guy... That is why we investigate.

If we just ignored potential crimes when someone on the 911 call says it is ok, we would not end up going to about 50% of DV calls where the wife...or husband is bleeding on the couch. Once the 911 call happens, we must go and see for ourselves.

EricOKC
August 9, 2004, 01:58 PM
As I said, if the person was concerned enough to call 911, we have to go and we can't just take someone's word that the potential suspect is a good guy... That is why we investigate.

Of course you also said that the police had to investigate things which were already known. Guess i'll call into 911 and report the fact that the sky is blue so you can go file a report on it sometime. Just because someone is "concerned" doesnt mean a law has been broken. I am "concerned" that there are so many LEO's out there with an attitude such as yours. Does this mean you'll investigate this for me?

As many have pointed out, the issue is not so much with the fact that the police went out, but with the way it was handled. A simple quiet observation, a polite professional conversation, and treating the man with respect would have been more than adequate. It seems the officers who responded were of the opinion, like yourself, that everyone is nothing more than a criminal who has not yet been caught.

KMKeller
August 9, 2004, 02:14 PM
I can't help but feel that, if the dispatcher had informed the paranoid soccer mommy blissninny that open carry was legal, the call would have been terminated at that point and no other action taken.

Dispatcher: "Ma'am, you do know that carrying a firearm is legal, correct?

Paranoidsoccermommyblissninny: "Ummm, no I didn't... You mean he can carry his gun like that legally?

Dispatcher: "Yes ma'am, it's not against the law."

Paranoidsoccermommyblissninny: "Umm... Okay, never mind...*click*.""


I believe the fundamental issue we're seeing here is the general locale from which each participants experience and expertise is generated. View the locations from whence each of us hails and you'll get a good view into why folks here believe the way they do. FedDC is in DC... one of the highest crime rate areas in the planet, where no one is legally allowed to carry a handgun except him. Similar scenario with other posters as well.

That, however does not change the fact that no law had been broken, and that the police response was heavy handed. I personally have no grump with the PD coming by to check things out, but I do have an issue with them laying on hands.

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 02:24 PM
Lilysdad:
Just because you are doing something legal, that does not remove you from the chance that you may be doing something illegal soon, and it is our job to prevent this.
You personally scare the hell out of me. The only way to stop me from maybe possibly doing something unspecified bad in the unspecified future is to stop me from breathing. You personally scare the hell out of me.

Are you sure that you are not just a civil libertarian masquerading as my worst nightmare of a cop in order to get me to send even more money to the ACLU?

TCSD:
don't know who you are directing that at. "Unfounded" IS a valid disposition..well, I should say WAS; technically that disposition code is still in the computer system, but we are not allowed to use it.....
That policy scares the hell out of me. How the hell do you prove the absence of illegal activity other than from it's apparent lack of existence? Unfounded is the state of "No founding" If the complaint has no foundation or basis for action, then it is unfounded. That Policy scares the hell out of me.

FedDC
As I said, if the person was concerned enough to call 911, we have to go and we can't just take someone's word that the potential suspect is a good guy... That is why we investigate.

This is going to be a direct question. Do not try to weasel out of it. Yes or No will do. If I called 911 because I saw a big black man around in my wealthy community, would you come investigate and detain him, even though I report that he is not doing anything illegal, and I refuse to identify myself? Yes/No

liliysdad
August 9, 2004, 02:29 PM
If you made tha call to 911 for the man , yes, we would respond and make contact.

EricOKC
August 9, 2004, 02:29 PM
This is going to be a direct question. Do not try to weasel out of it. Yes or No will do. If I called 911 because I saw a big black man around in my wealthy community, would you come investigate and detain him, even though I report that he is not doing anything illegal, and I refuse to identify myself? Yes/No

You dont seriously expect a straight answer on that do you?

Andrew Rothman
August 9, 2004, 02:32 PM
And as I have already said, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a concept for the courtroom, not the street.

That may be the single most disturbing thing I've ever heard a cop say.

It sure the #@%@ is a concept for the street. Cops need to obey the law, and respect people's rights.

With cops like this, who needs criminals?

I am utterly disgusted.

EricOKC
August 9, 2004, 02:34 PM
If you made tha call to 911 for the man , yes, we would respond and make contact.

The civil suit which would come down upon your department would be unreal.

You honestly expect us to believe if a 911 call came in from someone who refused to identify themselves and said "There's a black guy in my neighborhood doing nothing illegal, but I am concerned", that you would investigate and detain him? What are you going to say to the man?

"Um sir, we are sorry to grab you, neutralize the potential threat (since everyone is a potential criminal), detain you and question your presence in a public area while you are not breaking the law, but you see, we had an anonymous 911 call that there was a black man in this neighborhood and we had to check it out".

If you would really do something like that, you're a sad excuse for a peace officer. The fact that you are in Oklahoma positively disgusts me. Dont ever let me find out who you are. I will make it my personal quest to have you removed from whatever department you are currently infesting with your disgusting attitude.

JPL
August 9, 2004, 02:39 PM
And people wonder why I hate, loathe, and despise police.

There aren't pejoratives strong enough to convey how I feel about police.

To "protect and serve."

Don't make me laugh.

KMKeller
August 9, 2004, 02:39 PM
Eric, I believe he's already there...

liliysdad
Senior Member

Registered: Jan 2004
Location: OK
Posts: 320

Congrats FedDC and liliysdad. You two have proven and verified the existence of a bona fide police state. How utterly pathetic. Do you have any idea how disgusting an example you paint for the rest of the LEO community? Can you possibly comprehend the negative light you have brought to honest cops everywhere?

EricOKC
August 9, 2004, 02:43 PM
KMKEller,

I noticed that after i I wrote it, and edited it to reflect my subsequent disgust.



I think i need to call the NAACP and arrange and investigation of the institutional racism in Oklahoma police departments, and ensure that they find their way to his post. I do sincerely hope his IP is logged, and that it is discovered he is using state property to submit his vile opinion.

ojibweindian
August 9, 2004, 02:53 PM
FedDC and lilysdad

You both have no clue, do you? If either of you have any sort of intelligence, you would do well to lay low for awhile. The damage you two do to the already battered reputation of modern LEOs borders on the incalculable.

liliysdad
August 9, 2004, 02:53 PM
Where did I say detain, or even question? I simply said make contact...his color holds no weight. It is of my opinion, an department policy most everywhere I know, that if it is important enough to call 911, it is important enough to at least look into. If it is found to be a bogus call, as this would be, then the caller would be charged with abuse of the 911 system, plain and simple.

Most of you people are too quick to jump to the LEO bashing, and thats fine, just make sure you realize that if the police "make contact" with an individual, it means nothing, they are simply doing their job.

KMKeller
August 9, 2004, 02:55 PM
Just because you are doing something legal, that does not remove you from the chance that you may be doing something illegal soon, and it is our job to prevent this.

Wow. Profound statement here, we're all criminals until they tell us otherwise. You need to turn in your badge because you're a danger to all those around you. You're going to get one of your fellow officers shot, probably with your own gun as well.

ojibweindian
August 9, 2004, 03:00 PM
If "making contact" means just a friendly little chat to ensure nothing is wrong, fine. However, the cops who "made contact" with mpvel were wrong. And, if the kind of "contact" that many minorities, and mpvel, continues, LEOs may find their jobs more difficult to perform.

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 03:03 PM
I am more convinced than ever that Lilysdad cant be who he says he is. He is a distorted bad parody of a JBT. I think that he is part of the fundraising division of the ACLU or NAACP. I bet that he says that when he talks to suspects, he turns his head and spits periodically. Maybe chews on straw. Has a beat up chevy pickup.

But my question was directed at FedDC. I am hoping that he (FedDC)answers the direct question.

liliysdad
August 9, 2004, 03:10 PM
I wil admit that what I said sounds terrible, and given the opp I would rephrase, but its too late.

I do not mean to say everyone is a felon in the waiting, not even remotely. All that was implied is that one must never let their guard down.....criminals run the gamut from turds to blue haired grandmothers, and everything in between.

On cannot assume since something is legal, it is beeing done legally. Open carry might be legal in NH, but open carry by a felon would not be, for example.

Since its been asked, I will now bow out, and let the libs have it back now.

BTW, I drive a beat up Ford, not a chevy.

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 03:11 PM
Where did I say detain, or even question? I simply said make contact...his color holds no weight. It is of my opinion, an department policy most everywhere I know, that if it is important enough to call 911, it is important enough to at least look into. If it is found to be a bogus call, as this would be, then the caller would be charged with abuse of the 911 system, plain and simple.

Are you insane? Is making contact a synonym for initiating physical confrontation, searching a guy, detaining him for ten minutes, et?

If the police in Manchester had made polite contact, then prosecuted the scared citizen for "abuse of the 911 system",
WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited to add: I believe that maybe Lilysdad is on the road to recovery after his last statement. I wish him the best of luck, and if he wants I can send him a couple of really neat texts about the relationship between police officers and the citiens that they protect.

I guess i was giving you too much credit, assuming you had a chevy :neener:

KMKeller
August 9, 2004, 03:13 PM
What I find truly amazing is that, out of all the officers I've spoken with about this scenario, not a single one of them agrees with FedDC and liliysdad. Every one, bar none, states that the PD overreacted and that the laying on of hands was wrong. And yes FedDC, some of them are in environments as hostile if not more hostile to their health than yours is. They range from old war-horse officers to young newbies, and they are unanimous in their disdain for what these two are supporting as "Law Enforcement".

JPL
August 9, 2004, 03:13 PM
"Just because you are doing something legal, that does not remove you from the chance that you may be doing something illegal soon, and it is our job to prevent this."

Given the number of "police officers" who engage in illegal activities while armed, it would seem to be a good idea that you run around "making contact" with each other instead of the general public.

It's been pretty well proven, to, that police are absolutely useless when it comes to preventing crime, so to claim that's your primary duty is a farce.

Now do people have a better understanding of why I hate the police?

With "police officers" like this, who needs a dictator at the head of the nation?

KMKeller
August 9, 2004, 03:18 PM
JPL - I can speak with some authority to the fact that these two yahoos bear little resemblance to most of the LEO's that I've know throughout my life. FedDC and Liliysdad are grotesque, distorted caricatures of the majority of LEO's out there.

Edited to add that I just saw liliysdad's "retraction" and agree that there is hope for him :). The jury is still out on FedDC.

FedDC
August 9, 2004, 03:27 PM
Now see, that whole personal attack thing just went right out the window. Nice...

Anyway, as to that "Direct" question... I don't patrol, so I wouldn't be responding to a 911 call about a suspicious person. In my experience, the patrol guys respond to a 911 call about a person that may not belong in that area. It has very little to do with race. If for example, a homeless person starts pushing his cart around an upsacale mall, they may call in and report a suspicious person which would lead to the PD driving by and maybe talking to him...but his race is not the deciding factor...thank god, since I am not exactly caucasian;) So much for that racism thing.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. The level of ignorance is beyond belief. If you don't want to hear the truth, don't ask and don't tell me how to do a job that you neiter care to do yourself, nor take the time to educate yourself about.

KMKeller
August 9, 2004, 03:29 PM
The ignorance unfortunately is coming from you.

If for example, a homeless person starts pushing his cart around an upsacale mall, they may call in and report a suspicious person which would lead to the PD driving by and maybe talking to him

You keep throwing out analogies that no person here would object to. What happened to MPVel, would be roughly equivalent to the PD responding to your scenario by grabbing the homeless person, and shoving them against the wall, frisking them and taking their canopener from them. I can only assume that you would agree with this treatment, since it's what you've supported all along.

If you don't want to hear the truth, don't ask and don't tell me how to do a job that you neiter care to do yourself, nor take the time to educate yourself about.

More ignorance on your part. What you're not getting is that other officers on this board and elsewhere overwhelmingly disagree with your take on this whole issue. Are you insinuating that you are more qualified than all other officers who disagree with you? That makes you sound even more foolish than you already do, and that's a feat unto itself. Especially considering this jewel... Anyway, as to that "Direct" question... I don't patrol, so I wouldn't be responding to a 911 call about a suspicious person. So by your own standard, don't tell me how to do a job that you neiter care to do yourself you've disqualified your own perspective.

Good bye and good riddance.

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 03:33 PM
I PMed him to see if that was a "yes"

[update 1] He replied "As I said, the race of a person is not a deciding factor. To view race as a reason for a stop is a gross oversimplification of the reasons for police contact."

I am going to PM him with a repeat of the question.
"This is going to be a direct question. Do not try to weasel out of it. Yes or No will do. If I called 911 because I saw a big black man around in my wealthy community, would you come investigate and detain him, even though I report that he is not doing anything illegal, and I refuse to identify myself? Yes/No"

[update 2] He replied "As I said, I don't patrol, so I can't way what I would do. What I have seen is that if someone called the dispatcher and gave the information you just provided, they would most likely have a patrol unit drive by and take a look...maybe talk to the guy and see what it going on. I see where you are going with this and No, we don't go around arresting people bc of their race. The only place that crap happens is in the world of the NAACP propaganda."

I will PM him "Is it true then that you do not believe that it is appropriate to detain and search the guy because someone reported nothing illegal?(Yes/No)"

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 03:45 PM
Anyway, as to that "Direct" question... I don't patrol, so I wouldn't be responding to a 911 call about a suspicious person.

So by your own standard,

don't tell me how to do a job that you neiter care to do yourself

you've disqualified your own perspective.

OMG that is priceless! +2 points for KMKeller

KMKeller
August 9, 2004, 03:46 PM
Remember DigitalWarrior, for their to be equivalency, he needs to shove the black man against his cruiser, frisk him and take something from him that he perceives as a threat. A pocket knife perhaps... And there needs to be multiple cruisers and multiple officers involved.

FedDC
August 9, 2004, 03:47 PM
The point you missed is that I DON'T patrol, I never said that I couldn't. You on the other hand could not bc you do not have the knowledge, skill, or ability. That is a big difference.

Second, why PM me if you just want to post it on an open forum? That is just pathetic.

Mods, what was that stuff about personal attacks?

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 03:58 PM
I PMed you because you said you were not coming back and I thought that there were still unanswered questions, and I posted it because I thought that the subject was still of interest to the people on this forum. I had no idea that you were ashamed of your opinions. If I had, then I wouldn't have quoted you. If you need me to protect you from your own words, I will delete them.

I am attacking the belief that you can ignore my civil rights without consequence. You are the first JBT I have actually conversed with and I find it fascinating. It would be like talking to a cop who broke up civil rights protests with dogs. I try to be polite so that I can understand you, but then my frustration breaks through. I try to reel it in quickly, but I do not think that I have radically departed from the high road.

If I am wrong, I apologize. Mods, just tell me what I did wrong so I can delete it. I figured if I would say it in front of my pastor and my Grammaw, then it was still OK.

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 03:58 PM
Deleted Double tap again - need to drink less coffee

ojibweindian
August 9, 2004, 04:00 PM
I don't see any personal attacks. Maybe you're having an attack on conscience.

The last few posts are reasonably asking you whether or not you would, to some poor hapless sap walking around a residential area after sundown,
shove the black man against his cruiser, frisk him and take something from him that he perceives as a threat

KMKeller
August 9, 2004, 04:06 PM
The point you missed is that I DON'T patrol, I never said that I couldn't. You on the other hand could not bc you do not have the knowledge, skill, or ability. That is a big difference.

BZZZZZZT. Wrong answer and thank you for playing. I have the knowledge, skill and ability. I choose to do something that pays loads more. Buh bye.

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 04:10 PM
If you don't want to hear the truth, don't ask and don't tell me how to do a job that you neiter care to do yourself, nor take the time to educate yourself about.

Does talking with real LEOs about some difficult issues related to civil rights (like I am right now) and reading textbooks from police acadamies count as taking time to educate myself? (yes/no)

If no, then what do I have to do to be worthy of discussing the subject with you?

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 04:20 PM
I declare the good guys to be the victors of this rather one sided intellectual tromping! The bad guys have resorted to such things as "Well you just don't know what it is like" and "how dare you quote me completely in context" and "fine, then I am leaving" and "Well I shouldn't have said that"

Unfortunately, the bad guys still have the riot sticks.

sendec
August 9, 2004, 05:33 PM
I learned quickly that sometimes People Just Don't Get It. The last couple pages have been the forum equivalent of a bad "COPS at the trailer park episode".

So, I concur - you win

You're still wrong, and the only thing you have proven is that some people have terminal cases of rectal-cranial inversion. But, you win. Based on your years of experience in the field, your illustrious legal career, your sterling academic achievements, the thousands of hours of research, you have applied such a high level of cognition that us mere mortals will never understand the jewel-like brilliance of your thesis. You are still wrong, but you are wrong in such a creative, brilliant, artistic, and intellectually rigourous way that we have no choice but to award you the laurels.

I am in awe of just how wrong you are, and the convolutions and missaplications of logic you artfully applied in arriving at your erroneous and totally fallacious conclusions. Furthermore, you have won in such a juvenile and puerile fashion that you have set a new standard in debate.

Congratulations on your hard earned victory.

PS: You are still wrong.

Shield529
August 9, 2004, 05:57 PM
Ok Lilyisdad (sic) and FedDC are scaring the life out of me here.

I am getting the feeling, just a feeling mind you, that these are not really police officers.
Stating the concept of innocent until proven guily is a concept for the courtroom just about did it for me.
Everything they are saying paints us in a worse light.
Thier thoughts and concepts are so outlandish and far removed from the feeling of myself and any officers I know, that I get the feeling someone is just trying to make us look bad, (and doing a fine job)

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 06:00 PM
Exactly how am I wrong? What Convolution and misapplication of logic are you pointing to?

Based on your years of experience in the field, your illustrious legal career, your sterling academic achievements, the thousands of hours of research, you have applied such a high level of cognition that us mere mortals will never understand the jewel-like brilliance of your thesis. You are still wrong, but you are wrong in such a creative, brilliant, artistic, and intellectually rigourous way that we have no choice but to award you the laurels.

None of that says why I and others who love civil right are wrong. I don't have years of experience and my career in law does not relate to this. I never claimed to have a rediculously high cognition. And I don't believe I need one to see the truth of the matter. If I am wrong, please educate me.

I have been wrong many times in other threads, and I have always exhibited proper humility when someone can explain why I am wrong. Every time I am corrected I walk away smarter than I was when I was wrong. Would you help me learn what I did wrong?

Sarcasm and clever insults do not mean I am wrong. Instead present facts and logical extensions of facts.

I was not aware that what I said was juvenile. If I was, please tell me so I can refrain from doing it in the future. I would have thought that issueing baseless assertions and insults was juvenile. Not naming names of course *cough caugh* sendec *caugh*. <-- OK that was juvenile, but I think it was kind of funny.:p

Edited to add: Oops, I guess those are two questions...:o

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2004, 06:16 PM
Shield, I think I said something about you scaring me earlier (I am pretty sure that I at least thought it), and I was wrong. You are a good guy. If you have the misfortune to be in SoCal in the next year or so, I'd like to buy you a beer as an apology.

And I'd love to have you in NH (when I go) helping to keep me safe from real criminals.

Penforhire
August 9, 2004, 06:21 PM
Guys, I see some personal attacks here. I don't agree with some of our LEO members but I don't want them to exit the discussion because you can't be civil. I'm not a moderator but please stick to describing behavior as reprehensible, not members. If you ever want to understand the "other side" you need to not run them out on a rail.

I want their behavior to change too and I am fearful based on some of their statements. But this is a neutral forum where we can't really be hurt (as long as we don't admit any illegal behavior) so why not use it to explore the reasons rather than strictly poke at them?

Shield529
August 9, 2004, 06:25 PM
Thanks DigitalWarrior, I will stop by if a ever get to the Zoo there:D

sendec
August 9, 2004, 07:02 PM
I an not playing your game. You have no interest in any viewpoint but your own. You and your ilk have made up your minds, now live with it.

And you are still wrong. Keep on keepin' on and you will continue to be wrong. Read a book, take a class, return to Earth, but you've wasted enough of my time.

Oh, and ratting a guy out to his employer as was alluded to in an earlier post by whomever is a demonstration of the depths to which this has sunk, and is the summit of poultry feces.

You're still wrong, go forth and be wrong, plenty of people will follow, and you can all be wrong together. Kum-By-Wrong, My Lord, Kum-By-Wrong..........

sumpnz
August 9, 2004, 07:18 PM
You have no interest in any viewpoint but your own. "My you are black Mr Kettle," said Mr Pot.

Art Eatman
August 9, 2004, 07:25 PM
I tell ya what, gang, this thread has more folks talking past each other, or not understanding what's being said, or on-the-edge insults and slanging and banging than I've seen in a long time.

I'm gettin' where I'm even tempered: Always mad.

'Nuff.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "UPDATE:Seized By Manchester PD For Carry - 911 & Dispatch Transcript" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!