Interesting LEO encounter while target shooting...

[Wynder]

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?

My thing is that he didn't have to walk up on that -- two guys, doing nothing illegal. Drive on. Two people shopping in the mall... Walk on. The only reason they were stopped is because they were using firearms.

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?

He very well might've violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to travel by detaining/seizing them. Their Fourth Amendment rights when their property was seized and, depending on what state they live in, they may not have stop and identify statutes.

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

My dad sent me this great email about a guy that was explaining to someone how to catch wild pigs. You start off in the woods and put food out and let the pigs come to feed. After a while, you build once side of a fence... at first, the pig will be a bit deterred, but then they'll get used to it and come back to feed. Over the course of time, you continue to build the other walls until you have a gate so, when they enter to eat, you simply close the gate and you now have control of them.

The moral of the story being is that every day and every situation you have to fight for every single last right you have in order to preserve them. Because, over time, the "that didn't seem so bad or intrusive" stack up to the point where you will no longer have your freedoms.

 

[yenchisks]

wynder: my dad sent me this great :Well said!

 

[JWarren]

I am shocked at how many people are willing to make excuses for this behavior.


Terry Stops and it's OK with no cause? Hell, how long will it be before there are those rationalizing random home searches with no cause or warrant? After all-- its for the common good if they come up with something.

Time to Godwin this one: Germany circa 1939 anyone?



-- John

 

[rocket lad]

Time to Godwin this one: Germany circa 1939 anyone?

and bingo was his name-o

 

[Old Dog]

Arriving late at the party as usual ... and wow, I just knew this thread (with "LEO" in the title) would generate a post comparing where we are in this country today to Nazi Germany in 1939 ...

Time to Godwin this one: Germany circa 1939 anyone?

Activity legal for all citizens, and not inherently a danger to anyone else:

Two people shopping in the mall...

Activity (regrettably) NOT legal for all citizens, and possibly a danger to others:

The only reason they were stopped is because they were using firearms.

Well ... d'uh.

In 1780 or 1880, target shooting in the woods was perfectly natural. Those days are long gone.

 

[JesseL]

Activity legal for all citizens, and not inherently a danger to anyone else:
Quote:

Two people shopping in the mall...

Not true. Some sex offenders may not legally be able to visit the local shopping mall, ostensibly because they pose a risk to the minors that congregate there.

Should police be able to do random ID checks of folks at the mall to make sure they're not on any sex offender lists? Like it or not, this is a perfect parallel.

Well ... d'uh.

In 1780 or 1880, target shooting in the woods was perfectly natural. Those days are long gone.

Strike two. Target shooting in the woods around here is as normal and wholesome as it ever was; and police act like it. I'd like to keep it that way. If that starts to change, you can bet I'm gonna raise one hell of a stink.

 

[JWarren]

Old Dog wrote:

In 1780 or 1880, target shooting in the woods was perfectly natural. Those days are long gone.

Not really. Depends on where you live. I shoot high-power rifles every other day or so in my front lawn.

wow, I just knew this thread (with "LEO" in the title) would generate a post comparing where we are in this country today to Nazi Germany in 1939 ...

Since I was the one that brought up Germany circa 1939, I'l respond.


Perhaps there would not be so many threads where Nazi Germany is envoked if a certain percentage (a minority) would famiarize themselves with the BOR and the law. I know...it's a novel concept.

Considering the number of incidents where we see a lack of understanding-- or making the laws up as they go-- I think the amount of mention that occurs is merited.

Someone posted on this thread that we as gunowners should see the events of this thread as an indication that we need to brush up our image in the eyes of LEOs. Well, considering that the problems come from a small minority of gun-owners, I think it is fair to ask LEOs:

If we should improve our image, what are you going to do to improve yours? It seems we are both maligned by a SMALL percentage of "bad apples."

-- John

 

[TEDDY]

?????

having lived in Mass all my life and being a gun collector "any kind" I understand the posters that want freedom."the camel gets its nose in the tent syndrum".where you live makes a difference as restrictive states gradualy slip in the weakness.the south and west have a great freedom love.
as for LEOS the new training is on the style of military.not on good police work.also a certaian number of police should not be on force.they get asked to resign rather than fired which gives them the oportunity to go to another agency and abuse the public.my contact with locals has been positive I cant say as much for other places.my son left Cal because of gun laws.

 

[Owen Sparks]

May I see your papers?

 

[Wynder]

Activity legal for all citizens, and not inherently a danger to anyone else:
Quote:
Two people shopping in the mall...
Activity (regrettably) NOT legal for all citizens, and possibly a danger to others:

What about driving? If that's your reasoning, every driver should be stopped and spot checked for their legality. Maybe someone who looks like they have a cold? They should be stopped and blood tested to make sure they're not infectious.

And the thing here, walking around sick and driving AREN'T EVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, yet the people engaging in the activity that is have their rights violated. Just because something COULD BE dangerous or COULD BE illegal for some people doesn't give cops blanket reason to detain them, seize their property and run their papers.

 

[tipoc]

What rights you may have are subject to the direct relationship of forces at any given time in any given area. They have little to do with what is written on a piece of paper under glass in Wash. D.C. or the state capital.

When a cop stops you the only rights you have are the ones he recognizes. That's it. If there are plenty of witnesses around you have more rights, the relationship of forces is a bit more in your favor. Failure to understand this simple, basic, everyday thing, things 12 year olds in my neighborhood understand, is a matter of life and death.

No offense meant but some folks here, of limited experience apparently, do not accept this as fact.

In mid April of this year over 100 agents of ICE invaded a well known Latino neighbor hood of Chicago. They were all in riot gear and heavily armed. It was in the afternoon. At gunpoint they went into stores, workplaces, etc. and demanded to see everyones ID, citizen and non citizen. Video cameras caught them holding store owners at gunpoint, citizens. They were making a sweep for Illegal aliens. They stopped every one. Hauled away folks without their papers, including citizens.

When armed representatives of the state demand your ID and search you it is your word against theirs that they had no just cause to take you in. Who will the courts believe? Unless of course you have a few reputable witnesses.

The answer to the outrage in Chicago was that on May 1, 15,000 protested in the streets of Chicago the tactics employed by ICE. But of course some applauded what occured. But that type of sweep has not been repeated. It was stopped cold. All this was well covered in the Chicago press of the time.

I've carried my ID on me since I was a teenager.

The only rights you have are those you fight for and win. But you must use some sense about when to fight and how. "Back talking" a couple of cops about your rights on a dark street when you're alone ain't the right time if you want to stay healthy and out of jail.

"Interfering with a police Officer while peforming his duty" A good all purpose one.
"Failure to comply with the direct order of a police officer during the performance of his duty" Another all purpose one.
"Suspicious activity while under observation by a police officer" a good excuse for a roust.
"Throw away gun" or knive a phrase invented by cops for when things go wrong.
"I felt my life and safety were at risk" The standard reply by officers who shoot or Taze someone.

I ain't anti-cop. I just know them.

tipoc

 

[Liko81]

Lot of Fourth Amendment Constitution-thumping going on here. The facts are, you are openly displaying and firing a weapon on public land, regardless of how remote that land is or how many others are around you. There can be no expectation of privacy, and as such the SD had every right to make sure you were the legal owners of those firearms and, as a corollary, outnumbered by gun-toting guys, she had every right to assume she was safe in doing so. If you happened to be BGs, anything more friendly than a "cease fire and put the gun down" could have gotten her killed; BGs being accosted for weapons they may or may not have papers for would likely shoot it out.

Having said that, if me and a couple of buddies wanted to go out and do some "outlaw" range shooting out in the sticks of East Texas, and happened across an LEO, the only grief he'd give us is if we were on private property other than our own without permission, or shooting unsafely (no backstop or insufficient runoff). It's area-specific and depends on how tight the gun laws are in your jurisdiction.

 

[Wynder]

The facts are, you are openly displaying and firing a weapon on public land, regardless of how remote that land is or how many others are around you. There can be no expectation of privacy, and as such the SD had every right to make sure you were the legal owners of those firearms and, as a corollary, outnumbered by gun-toting guys, she had every right to assume she was safe in doing so.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The Fourth Amendment doesn't go away when you're on public property -- you have the right not to be seized, searched or your property taken unless a police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that you've committed a crime.

Expectation of privacy only enters the mix on the recording of conversations and has no bearing on this topic.

With your argument, a police officer could stop anyone, anywhere on 'public' land and make sure anything they had in their possession belonged to them which is just plain ignorant to believe.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Hauled away folks without their papers, including citizens.

Umm...am I missing something? Where was the good ole militia when this was going on?

 

[ilbob]

Lot of Fourth Amendment Constitution-thumping going on here. The facts are, you are openly displaying and firing a weapon on public land, regardless of how remote that land is or how many others are around you. There can be no expectation of privacy, and as such the SD had every right to make sure you were the legal owners of those firearms

So if you are openly wearing clothes they can force you to prove you did not steal them?

 

[ilbob]

Hauled away folks without their papers, including citizens.

Umm...am I missing something? Where was the good ole militia when this was going on?

Didn't happen quite the way it was portrayed by the OP. The sweep was badly handled by the ICE people though from a PR standpoint. From what I read later, most of tho non-illegals taken away where people actively helping illegals, but once again the government decided to use force and bluster rather than honesty to explain what happened, so it made them look much worse than it had to and lost them support they really need if they want to get rid of all illegals. the government is often its own worst enemy in these kind of things.

sort of like the raid they did a few months ago where they locked up a bunch of illegals that had children but forgot that they were going to have to take care of the kids some how, and ended up with a lot of egg on their face when they ended up with a whole bunch of parentless children to deal with. one would hope next time they do it they plan for the little urchins.

 

[Knucklehead2]

Well Tipoc sounds like we grew up in similar neighborhoods. The arresting officer probably won’t even show up for your court case but you will spend 72 hours in hell and have to post bond to boot. Reality is not in the BOR.

 

[Knucklehead2]

How did that happen, double post, I did not do it, I promise.

 

[Liko81]

The Fourth Amendment doesn't go away when you're on public property -- you have the right not to be seized, searched or your property taken unless a police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that you've committed a crime.

And the crime of which the deputy could articulate suspicion very reasonably is open carry (which BECOMES a crime BECAUSE they were on public land), which is illegal in the People's Democratic Republic of California. Further, if OP or his buddies were carrying any weapon IWB such that it could be concealed if they were wearing a jacket or untucked shirt, that's concealed carry without a permit whether the weapon is truly hidden or not. "Open wearing of clothes" and "posession of a wallet", on the other hand, are not crimes, even in California.

I'm not saying what she did was right, I'm saying she was within the law, and you'll never get a judge in that jurisdiction to decide she violated OP's rights by making sure you legally owned those weapons, whether 2A or 4A. In fact, if OP was within any city limit when firing (no matter which city or how remote) and tried to argue this point the judge would tell him to thank the deputy on bended knee that she didn't run him in for unlawful discharge.

If you don't like it, be thankful you don't live in California, or MOVE and pay your income/property/sales taxes to a state that protects your rights. California, Illinois and New York make the rules because they have the population and the big city problems, and when they make a rule that "works", other cities take notice.

 

[JesseL]

And the crime of which the deputy could articulate suspicion very reasonably is open carry (which BECOMES a crime BECAUSE they were on public land), which is illegal in the People's Democratic Republic of California.

From my reading on the subject (People v. Knight), open carry in unincorporated areas is legal in California, unless the county in question has legislated otherwise.

I'm not saying what she did was right, I'm saying she was within the law, and you'll never get a judge in that jurisdiction to decide she violated OP's rights by making sure you legally owned those weapons, whether 2A or 4A. In fact, if OP was within any city limit when firing (no matter which city or how remote) and tried to argue this point the judge would tell him to thank the deputy on bended knee that she didn't run him in for unlawful discharge.

I think you are quite wrong here. Read the case cited above.

 

[Ed Ames]

Open carry is legal in more of California than Texas by many many miles.

Anyway... the question of rights in this case is a real pickle. Yeah, the two armed men faced with a single LEO could have refused to cooperate. But pat-downs are legal if the officer articulates a safety concern and the officer knew they were armed and uncooperative and what judge is going to say that wasn't a time to be concerned? ID can be demanded when the officer has a specific reason to see it (e.g. if there was a complaint about noise) and an officer doesn't have to tell you whether they have a reason. The officer might reasonably argue "two men with guns shooting in a quarry..." was enough of a potential reason and, again, what judge is going to side with the outsider when they must work with the LEOs?

As for checking the guns, LEOs in California have been given authority to inspect firearms in some circumstances. If these weren't those circumstances the officer could have turned it into those circumstances pretty easily.

Turn it into a court battle and you'd better race it to the supreme court because no lower court is going to side with you ... and don't count on the SC being your friend either.

So try to make it seem positive... maybe the officer just wanted to feel up and talk to a couple guys? Didja think of that???

 

[RPCVYemen]

What about driving? If that's your reasoning, every driver should be stopped and spot checked for their legality.

In fact, the Supreme Court has given permission to do this - within guidelines that the stop has to be quick, and everyone has to be stopped, etc. They do DWI roadblocks and drug roadblocks around here every so often. I don't think that being asked for ID or licenses constitutes - in the mind of the Supreme Court - illegal search and seizure.

The guidelines are pretty strict about how they have to do it, but I'm pretty sure that random roadblocks have survived a number of challenges.

Mike

 

[Reyn]

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

If an officer detains someone for an hour waiting on a K9 without any other reason other than they refuse to consent it would be an unlawful detention.

 

[Wynder]

In fact, the Supreme Court has given permission to do this - within guidelines that the stop has to be quick, and everyone has to be stopped, etc.

No, this is not accurate -- there must be a 'neutral formula', every X amount of cars, made at a supervisory level. In addition, the area selected has to be known for a high level of DWI activity and advance publicity of the checkpoint is needed. That's maybe HALF of the requirements that the SCOTUS setup to offset the admitted infringement by the Justices.

This is an outright Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment infringement.

 

[Wynder]

If an officer detains someone for an hour waiting on a K9 without any other reason other than they refuse to consent it would be an unlawful detention.

Yeah, there's a 'reasonable' amount of time limit on detentions -- somewhere between 1-2 hours depending on the state.