Interesting LEO encounter while target shooting...

[Exmasonite]

I know it might be a hassle but i'd use incidents like this to help set an example of good, law-abiding gun owners to help give the LEOs a better impression of us. A little reminder that not every person with a gun is a thug and that they should hopefully keep an open mind.

 

[tipoc]

Most folks would like to believe that they live in a country where the authorities cannot or do not walk up to people and demand to see their papers or to search them. Fact is that we do live in that place and have for awhile and it's like that increasingly.

"They don't have a right to search you without probable cause". In many situations getting or haveing probable cause is a minor technicality. And as posters here have pointed out in practice, that is in real actual life they do and can stop folks, run their IDs and search their persons and vehicles. But hiring a lawyer is expensive so most folks allow the infringement of their rights to take place. This is a call people make based on the relationship of forces at the moment. They allow a search because the alternative could be a bigger hassle or worse.

In the wake of Sept. 11 folks were clamoring to give up their rights. "Let's have armed guards about every where and give them the right to stop anyone on general suspicion". "Walk into a factory and check everyones ID". Many people wanted that and still do and you can sometimes get what you want but it ain't always in the way you wanted it. "Be careful what you wish for", the old saying goes, "Cause you just might get it."

tipoc

 

[ilbob]

I'll try to remember how good I've got it here from now on.

Last night I happened to be channel surfing and ran across an old episode of COPS. It was cops from Texas. They all acted like normal decent human beings. I don't normally watch the show, and even then usually not for long, but often the cops seem otherwise. Even the lady cop last night that got rear ended by the drunk acted quite professional about it.

A few weeks ago I watched a few minutes of one and again it was Texas cops being well behaved. Maybe it is a regional thing.

 

[rocket lad]

I've been checked out on my own property after target shooting by a local deputy. He asked to see my weapons/papers, I politely declined, while forcefully requesting he remove his blinding flashlight from my face as I'm not a criminal. Eventually left, but I think few things have p#@$#d me off more than being treated like a felon for shooting on my own land.

 

[Conqueror]

That LEO's behavior would have irritated me, but then again I live in NC where most of the cops are a little more gun-friendly. Only time I've had an encounter like this was skeet shooting on my friend's property, the neighbors called the cops on us. The LEO approached, identified himself, said that he received a call but we weren't breaking any laws. We offered him a chance to shoot with us, which he declined, but he wished us a nice afternoon and departed. No ID checking, no frisking, etc.

 

[buck00]

I guess it comes down to people. You have good, professional LEOs and then have you insecure, ass---- LEOs who got beat up in high school and want to get payback on the world.

* A few years back my friends and I were shooting on private farmland in MD. We had enough firepower to retake the Bay of Pigs- AKs, ARs, M1As, and every pistol you can imagine. We were shooting all afternoon (it was the fall) and eventually some neighbor called the cops reporting "gunfire." An LEO drove by, looked down the hill and saw us shooting at targets- and moved on. He did his job- no need to come down and act tough and demand to see IDs. I respect that.

Then later, the same neighbor called and spiced up the story- claiming we were "shooting full auto guns at deer"- because of course, the steady fire attracted so many buck and doe and then we in turn sprayed them, right?

I don't think the cops even drove by for the second report, using common sense. This reflects a reasonable and responsible police department.

 

[TallPine]

Jeez, what's the big deal with having a LEO check your I.D. and inquire about your shooting activities?

I guess if you have to ask, you'll never understand.

I've gone hunting hundreds of times and occasionally a LEO (or game warden) will stop us and ask to check our license and I.D. just to see if we are legal. I see nothing wrong with that. The LEO is just doing his job. Lighten up!

Well, hunting and fishing are slightly different as you are required to have the appropriate license in most cases. Funny, though - one time I stopped at a F&G checkpoint at a NF boundary. The lone officer checked my license (and ID, since it has to match the license) and my deer, while all the while I was open-carrying a .357 revolver. He never blinked an eye or said anything about it.

 

[ilbob]

hunting and fishing are slightly different

Very true. Nothing in the federal constitution or any of the amendments specifically protects hunting and fishing.

I think at least a few state constitutions do though.

 

[Ed Ames]

One problem is that a bad cop interaction leaves a rotten taste in your mouth that half a dozen good cops can't totally eradicate.

90+% of my interaction with LEOs has been positive (and I haven't had a huge number of LEO interaction) ... but there was the time I was walking along a sidewalk near my house and a cop car agressively pulled across the driveway in front of me (to block the sidewalk so I couldn't keep walking) and demanded, first words out of his mouth, "What were you last arrested for?" At that point (which wasn't very long ago actually) I had never even had a speeding ticket. When he refused to give his badge number and only gave his last name I walked around his car and on without waiting for him to say we were done. I was seriously livid about that for days. It still pisses me off years later. How many positive interactions will it take to completely offset that one officer's moment of petty unprofessionalism?

And that, as many here will point out, was nothing compared to the people who are really abused by LEOs.

 

[Just Jim]

Some guys bring it on themselves. Guy moved up from Arizona and went to work for my company. He had short hair and a large number of tatoos that looked jailhouse in nature (no color other than blue). He had these tatoos even in his hair and on his hands. Facial hair that was always scrubby after he got hired.

Now a jailhouse tatoo doesn't make a man a criminal but they call them jailhouse cause they have the "time" to be very intricate but no color. Cops can spot these guys pretty easy.

Next he fails to get his tags changed on his vehicle so he gets stopped alot and hasseled when they see what the driver looks like. Then they impound the car because he waits too long. He was fired for not showing up for work.

What I am trying to say is some people just fit the profile of a criminal so they get hasseled. Some people piss the LEO of when they first encounter them and sometimes it's just a bad LEO. All in all that's life

jj

 

[Ed Ames]

So how about me? Average height white male. No tatoos. No distinguishing features. Professional job in the finance sector. My work dress is "high quality casual" (I was raised to believe that high quality clothes are a professional tool and an investment -- and that has served me very well in my career -- but we're a casual workplace so I have a lot of casual print silk shirts and the like) and that ends up being what I default to even on weekends and off hours.

 

[jwr_747]

a private gun club I belong to,on private property has had several "visits" from LEO's asking members questions on membership,machine gun shooting,if a milita or not,ect.we suggest to members,lock the gate behind you when you enter. jwr

 

[Just Jim]

Ed, I have no idea as I wasn't there. He could have been a bad LEO

Here in my area since it is a long way from here to there people who walk are considered possible problems when they fit a total profile of looks and the way they carry themselves.Add to it a suspicious way they are looking in peoples cars and they will get stopped.

Driving a car doesn't mean you are a good person and walking doesn't mean you are a bad person However since alot of drugies lose their Lic due to run ins with the law, if you fit the profile then you may get stopped while walking.

I walk my dog twice a day and have yet to be stopped by the LEOs, but then I have a really good looking dog so I couldn't be a criminal

jj

 

[princewally]

Not meaning any disrespect but what country do you live in? I have lived in Calif., N.Y., Mo., Minn., and Ala. and in all these states the cops can walk up and demand identification from you, pat you down, and run a check for warrants, etc. for no particular reason other than that they care to.

Not in Minnesota, they can't. If you are driving, you have 'implied consent' to cooperate with some of the BS. There is NOTHING in the law requiring you to carry ID if you're not driving and NOTHING outside of PC that requires you to sit still for a frisk or warrant check. Unless you are under arrest, you can walk away, and if you ARE under arrest, with no PC, it's unlawful arrest and a crime.

 

[Ed Ames]

He was a bad LEO. He swouped in and was rude before he had all the facts, and when he realized his mistake he wasn't about to continue things (which is why he didn't do anything when I just walked on without asking permission to leave) or admit his error.

And it doesn't happen all the time. In my life I've had two negative and two annoying contacts with LEOs. Beyond the aforementioned, when I was 15 I was walking down a street (literally barefoot and in shorts, it was a sunny summer afternoon and I was minding my own business) and had a cop grab me, march me (hands held behind my back) into an office to say "is this the guy wot robbed you?" (the receptionist looked at him like he was an idiot and said "no, he doesn't look anything like the description I gave you.") at which point he marched me back out to the sidewalk (hands still restrained) and told me to "leave now."

And yeah, I've had more positive interactions than negative... but I'll have forgotten every positive interaction before I forget those two negative interactions, and every single cop I have to deal with will be approached with suspicion and distrust, every request for extra power or funding will be met with negativity, every good a cop does will be colored by those contacts. Those two cops poisoned the well for a lot of good cops.

Which is something cops need to be aware of. When your coworkers act out of line or slip from professionalism for even a minute, they make your work harder for decades to come.

Which is drifting a bit far from the original topic of this post.

 

[princewally]

Yep, most folks comply. Of course you don't have to. But than what? Than if the Officer feels like it he/she can can say (and have to me) "Sir, I can hold you here until our K9 unit arrives. We have a sniffer dog and we will sniff the area of your vehicle and of your person. Should the dog indicate that he smells any possible narcotics or firearms we have the legal right to search you and your vehicle." At which point you have a decision to make. Wait an hour or two with the officer or comply. Most folks will comply. So yes they can search you. Of course you can always stand their and argue your rights with one or two cops on a dark street and possibly spend a bit more time in their company than you'd care to.

This is easy.

"Am I free to go?"

If yes then go.

If no, "I need my attorney."

Waiting around for the dog is WAY beyond the limits of a terry frisk, and you don't have to comply. Lock the doors and lawyer up, they'll let you go.

 

[rocket lad]

but then again I live in NC

as do I

 

[nplant]

To clarify my earlier point of getting more folks to go there to test the system, it was NOT with the end purpose of suing anyone, but to set up a case whereby people who understand and demand their rights are in that position.

Rights are rights only so long as you exercise them and demand them. If they're violated and you make no stink about it, sorry, you lost 'em.

 

[Chris B]

So, assuming one is following the four rules and is an appropriate distance from any occupied structures, it is ok to go out to some BLM land and blast away? I couldn't find any regulations regarding shooting on the BLM website. Sorry this is just a new concept to me.

And yeah, I've had more positive interactions than negative... but I'll have forgotten every positive interaction before I forget those two negative interactions, and every single cop I have to deal with will be approached with suspicion and distrust, every request for extra power or funding will be met with negativity, every good a cop does will be colored by those contacts. Those two cops poisoned the well for a lot of good cops.

I feel you on this. I've met some Officers who were extremely corteous and professional. I've met others who were on serious power trips. I am friendly with a three deputies who work for the Hillsborough County (FL) Sherrifs office. Two of them are very friendly gentlemen who genuinely like helping others and desire to keep people safe. The third is just looking for an excuse to shoot someone IMO. I try not to let the bad experiences prejudice me against all LEO's.

 

[JesseL]

Chris B:

There isn't much BLM land right around Prescott that is open to shooting, but there is a lot of National Forest. If you like, PM me and I'll give you directions to a few of the good spots in the PNF.

 

[Ed Ames]

The general BLM policy is to enforce state and local laws and then add additional restrictions for special needs (e.g. an area designated for recreational vehicles or as an ultralight aircraft landing area might be designated no-shooting).

In the area I was shooting on BLM land, the county had established four types of land for shooting.

1) No recreational shooting.
2) Shot (maximum 1/4th of barrel diameter or something like that) during daylight only
3) shot and solid projectiles (handgun/rifle) during daylight only
4) shot and solid projectiles 24 hours a day (this is where you could hunt night game)

They then zoned the whole county in broad strokes so that about 10% was #1 (the cities), 40% was #2, 30% was #3, and 20% was #4 with the zones set by population density more than anything.

Of course the state adds a bunch of "occupied dwelling" "near road" and similar restrictions.

If you went to BLM land in a shotgun only zone it was OK to shoot clay targets. Move another mile up the road and it might be anything goes.

It also applied to private land: If you owned land in a shot only zone you chould shoot shot without any problem but rifles would require getting a zoning varience (which is what shooting ranges did).

It'll be different in other counties/states of course.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

It really sounds like to me that this id not rise to the level of a "search". This is a "Terry" stop. The deputy hears something somewhat out of the ordinary (you said you usually shoot somewhere else that was locked) so he investigates. Maybe it's poachers, the officer doesn't know. Okay, he finds you guys target shooting. Okay, no poachers. Good. But, officer safety doesn't take a back seat. Please set the guns down and step away. While I'm here, might as well run the numbers and see if anything comes back stolen. Guns do get stolen. Just like stopping a suspicious vehicle and running the VIN. Standard operating procedure. It's called "Looking Beyond the Traffic Ticket." Lighten up! They weren't rude, that is what they get paid to do. Are you going to be upset if a clerk checks your ID when you pay with a credit card to make sure that it's yours? Guilty to proven innocent? Come on, that is just pro-active police work.

 

[Wynder]

It really sounds like to me that this id not rise to the level of a "search". This is a "Terry" stop.

In order to perform a Terry stop, the officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that they had committed or are committing a crime. Two guys target shooting -- no one screaming, running, hurt or anyone else around for that matter. There is absolutely NOTHING the officer can articulate, other than they had guns, to show they were committing a crime.

A Terry Stop allows for an over-the-clothes pat down. If he took your property, even for a moment to run the numbers and you did not consent, it was seized and is in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Officer safety shouldn't be an excuse as he shouldn't have detained you in the first place.

Just like stopping a suspicious vehicle and running the VIN. Standard operating procedure. Lighten up! They weren't rude, that is what they get paid to do. Come on, that is just pro-active police work.

No, this is more like an officer stopping you on the street and demanding to see your driver's license to see if it's expired and to see if the license you have is really yours, because they get stolen and all.

 

[cpttango30]

Two guys in the woods shooting multiple firearms vs. one man with one pistol. What is wrong with someone looking out for themselves? You can honestly say you would not be the least bit worried about walking up on that?

Was he rude? Did he break the law? Did he injure you in any way? Or was he just being cautious in a situation where it would be tactical right to be that way? Could he have had a bit of a better attitude? I am sure he could have. But I myself would have done the same thing upon walking up on two men with multiple firearms shooting in the woods.

I am in no way condoning what he did. I am just saying that it does not sounds all that bad to me.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"In order to perform a Terry stop, the officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that they had committed or are committing a crime."

Yes, you are correct. My mistake. This is merely an investigative stop. Still, I don't see anything unreasonable about it. Uncomfortable, maybe. But I think that it was just a conscientious officer being proactive which is a rare thing nowadays. From the description, it didn't sound like "badge fever" to me.