Entertainment for the night...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm glad you're perfect. Perhaps you could teach me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I respected folks who avoided a confrontation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can't let your guard down. You'll get killed.
 
Hmmm, I wonder if he can carry three concealed, maybe I can manage to carry my ONE 500 Magnum concealed.

Problem is, I'll need to start wearing suspenders (or have my pants down around my knees).
LOL :eek:
 
I couldn't understand people who sought confrontation and then complained when they got one.


we call em drama queens/kings
 
Honestly, I think that's a little out of line.

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

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

Exactly the plan. ;)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer? Yes.

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

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

Think about what you are suggesting. :what:

/

/
 
ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they ordered/asked was complied with and answered. I simply didn't start running my mouth off - no need to.

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

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

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

Mike
 
I happen to live in a state where we don't need a license or anything to carry (the person only needs to be legal as far as not a convicted felon, child rapist, etc).

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

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

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

I know when I'm traveling with my piece, if I were to get pulled over, I would immediately let the officer know where he or she could expect to see my hand cannon.
 
Respectfully, there is nothing more absurd than the proposition that a police officer made a remark that "was absolutely true"...

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

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

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

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

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

Is it true?

Mike
 
Are you sure?

I guess I've never registered here, so hello. I absolutly have to chime in though...........................
PTK said:
Here in CO, a CCW means I can OC or CC.

For some reason, the police forgot that.

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

City of Golden: 8.04.940 Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a cop and member of the jackbooted oppressor class,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back-ups, or off-duty?

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

And this is a Good Thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military service effectively erases any individual rights.

Use a debit card?

Yeah, all the time - over the phone, online, or to buy gasoline. Funny how I don't need a photo ID, govt-issued or not, to do so.
 
City of Golden: 8.04.940 Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited

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

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

Odd how the police here all state point-blank that OC is legal. I OC fairly often here in Golden without a problem. :)
 
Sometimes I wonder how many of the police actually know most or all of the laws in comparison to how many laws they DON'T know.
 
That too. THAT, or they're under orders to keep the law on the books and not get it challenged... ;)
 
Police officers are not permitted to make true statements? Huh? Is there some article of Constitution that skipped my notice.---RPCVYemen

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

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

Is it true?---RPCVYemen

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

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



/
 
You could try making this call until they get the picture:

911: 911, what is your emergency?

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

911: Can you describe the suspect?

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

911: We'll send someone immediately.

Maybe the cop at the Dairy Queen will cuff himself for his own safety.
 
Blackbeard, now that's concise!

Or, how about this call:

CALLER: "Help! 911!"

OPERATOR: "How can I help you?"

CALLER: "I'm frightened!"

OPERATOR: "What are you frightened of Maam?"

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

This bears remembering. :)
 
Something else I thought of; it cost the City of Denver plenty in legal fees to keep their ban on open carry. The suburbs don't want to fight that fight over again (they don't have the "home rule" claim Denver used).

The suburbs probably only have those ordinances on the books because they haven't been challenged yet.
 
PTK said:
Odd how the police here all state point-blank that OC is legal. I OC fairly often here in Golden without a problem.

As a looooong time Golden resident, I can assure you this is the municipal code. I did preclude by stating it was probably outdated & unchallenged, but do you want to be the test? Knowldege is power. You have the knowledge, from here 'yu're gona do what yur gona do'. :cool:
 
Surat said:
There was no rights violation on the OP. Period dot.
Sorry, but are you actually trying to convince us that “officer safety” is a crime? That’s what they claim to have detained him for, and it isn’t a crime. Since they MUST be able to articulate reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to detain him, using the bogus reason of "officer safety" is most certainly a violation of his rights.

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

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

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

RPCVYemen said:

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


The point of my post is that actions have consequences - the older I have gotten, the more I have learned to accept the consequences of my actions. As the old blues line goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
The difference being that here, the only crime commited was by the officers who illegally detained the OP.
RPCVYemen said:
…Constitutional issues are resolved in courts, not on the street.
Absolutely correct. That is why it is best to just get the pertinent information from the officer, and conclude the encounter as quickly as possible. That means get his RS, and ask if your free to go (when appropriate). Once the office gives his RS (not doing so can be seen as an act of bad faith since he is required to have it in order to detain someone), then let him continue his investigation without your assistance (generalized term “your”). That means, say nothing except, “am I free to go?”. If the officer decides to arrest you for that, then definitely don’t talk until you speak with legal counsel.
RPCVYemen said:
  • Being a police officer can be a very dangerous line of work. When they stopped me, they didn't know - at first - if I was some wandering stoned hippie or an escaped con who looked like a wandering stoned hippie.
  • I really, really, wanted them to find the aforementioned escaped con before I stumbled on him under a bridge abutment at 3:00 AM. So it was in my interest that they do their jobs.
  • I really just wanted to be on my way. I was hitchhiking because I wanted to be somewhere else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, thank you for your service.
 
Last edited:
i think someone forgot to read the post about their call originating with a citizen call. and has confused the word reasonable with articuable
 
PTK said:
Also, I'm not allowed in WalMart, company-wide, now. Not that I'm planning to ever go back anyway!

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