Fighting over the magazines

[DoubleTapDrew]

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

 

[Sean Dempsey]

I think most of your are over-reacting.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sindawe]

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

Hmmmm... I think I may resemble those remarks.

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

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

 

[beerslurpy]

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

 

[xd9fan]

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

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

 

[BullfrogKen]

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

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


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

 

[cropcirclewalker]

The behaviour and attitude of the cop is the same as I witnessed last week at the Airport at the Loo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jerkface11]

I wonder exactly how far the cops have to go before some members of THR will admit they were wrong. I've seen take the cops side in wrongful shootings too.

 

[chas_martel]

Cropcircle,

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

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

 

[ProguninTN]

Brad

Is there a probable cause requirement, something like if you're printing or if someone else says they thought they saw a gun?

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

First, I'd Start With That Poke In The Kidney.

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

Woody

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

 

[DirtyBrad]

That seems hard to believe.

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

"Sir, can I see your waistband?"

"No."

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

That's a viable scenario?

 

[Art Eatman]

My take on threads like this is that people sit around and work at dreaming up unrealistic responses to casual events. That's why so many threads get closed; they reflect poorly on the mission statement of THR.

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

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

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

Art

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

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

I agree but I think most are arguing about the cop's method of going about it. There are some stupid criminals but I've yet to see one open carrying (mags or otherwise). I would think seeing mags carried openly that you'd assume LEO or CCW holder (or possibly a punk kid that wants to LOOK armed and knows it's not against the law) and ask them to step aside and have a word with you instead of jabbing you in the back with his finger (which in itself sounds like a stupid move tactically if you think the person might be a threat). Was he hoping to hit steel with that prod? I'm not trying to take sides, that's just my view of the situation.

 

[glummer]

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

 

[cropcirclewalker]

It's the poke.

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

a poke in the kidney.

Utterly reeks of disrespect.

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

Leo needs some training on dealing with the public.

 

[roo_ster]

To poke or not to poke?

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

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

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

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

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Medula,

if you were carrying and someone were able to get that close and poke you in the kidneys, he's definately close enough to shank you and take your gun.

So much for being "situationally aware."

Please do not construe this post to mean that I am ragging on you or your fellow leo.

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

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

There could be at least 2 reasons for the bulge.

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

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

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

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

Conclusion? Mr. EK was not packing.

For that he should get a poke?

 

[ProguninTN]

Brad

It may or may not go like that. Informant tips do carry some weight. See Alabama v. White or Illinois v. Gates

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

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

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

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

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


Other information comes from my course work.

 

[Wastemore]

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

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

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

inch-by-inch.

 

[gezzer]

In NH tell him no badge who cares. Another scardy cat cop state thread. Too bad your cops are such.

 

[buck00]

Was it right for the LEO to threaten to cuff him and arrest him if he refused to go put the (legal) magazines in the car? Absolutely not.

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

Now the cop wants to save face

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

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

Might not be right, but it's reality.

 

[glummer]

M.O.

Nobody was hurt, nobody went to jail. All is good, IMHO

Nobody went to jail, only because the citizen backed down.

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

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

How do you spell "Yowzah?"

 

[glummer]

M.O.

FOR THE LAST TIME, why would One wear loaded magazines around without having a weapon???

So you're saying the cop truly thought he had a citizen ILLEGALLY carrying?
And he let him walk?

 

[roo_ster]

Just because a person is carrying illegally, in a state where it is curryently illegal to carry concealed, doesn't make him a "bad guy," No sir, not at all.

I think you're starting to get it...

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

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

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

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