oldfool
Member
when in doubt... tell the truth
Okay, one more spin-off... If cop asks whether you are armed?
- Thread starter ArmedBear
- Start date
- Status
brboyer
Member
Actually, there never should be a doubt.
Know the law. Understand your rights. Follow the law, nothing more, nothing less.
Deanimator
Member
When in doubt, keep your mouth shut until your lawyer gets there.
BlisteringSilence
Member
I feel sorry for you when you come up against an informed citizen.
I deal with "informed citizens" all the time. And, thankfully, unlike the members of this board, they're largely polite and accommodating. They take the extra time and mental effort to distinguish between following the law to the letter and no further, and being polite while protecting their rights.
Around here, we call them lawyers. Lawyers are good because they know the difference between what they think the law says and how a judge will interpret it.
See, in the years that I've been doing this, I've yet to have anyone who wasn't (1) smuggling drugs, (2) possessing active warrants, or (3) a child pornographer respond to my questions at a traffic stop this way.
SO, using your previous assertions (implied not stated) that the plural of anecdote actually is data, if I am to pull you over for your license place being out, I am assume that you are a member of at least one of the three classes above?
You want to win respect from the law enforcement community regarding a cause you so deeply believe in? Try acting like a normal human being, not some sort of paranoid nutjob who believes the government is out to get him.
Put your tinfoil hats away and just be honest and polite. That way, everyone's day turns out brighter.
What he said.
General Geoff
Member
The government is out to get every single one of us. Make no mistake. They have no power over a law abiding citizen, so they seek to make everyone a criminal and thus subject to punishment and/or coercion via plea bargains or informant work.
Speaking of lawyers, how does that work? Do you keep a lawyer on demand? I'm asking because I don't have experience in this regard, so I don't know how things work if you're actually arrested and need one. Is it worth talking to one in advance? How does that work / how should I approach this?
Straight Shooter
Member
I agree that there is no reason to not be civil.
I however see absolutely no reason to start volunteering information that I am not required to give. Anything that I say cannot be used to help me and could possibly be a detriment.
If I do not consent to answer an officer's questions or do not consent to a search the officer may not like this but I am not being hostile or rude nor do I have anything to hide, I am simply asserting my rights.
I will not kowtow to an officer hoping that he is gracious enough to let me go with a warning. If an officer is offended by this or considers this a challenge to their authority they simply lack maturity.
@BlisteringSilence:
From what you have written you seem to be a reasonable man and a stand-up officer. Many others are not, they abuse their authority.
Many hate the fact that there are armed citizens like myself on the street and use traffic stops as an opportunity to assert their personal beliefs. I am not interested in their personal beliefs and I do not wish to be harassed, therefore, I assert my rights.
I however see absolutely no reason to start volunteering information that I am not required to give. Anything that I say cannot be used to help me and could possibly be a detriment.
If I do not consent to answer an officer's questions or do not consent to a search the officer may not like this but I am not being hostile or rude nor do I have anything to hide, I am simply asserting my rights.
I will not kowtow to an officer hoping that he is gracious enough to let me go with a warning. If an officer is offended by this or considers this a challenge to their authority they simply lack maturity.
@BlisteringSilence:
From what you have written you seem to be a reasonable man and a stand-up officer. Many others are not, they abuse their authority.
Many hate the fact that there are armed citizens like myself on the street and use traffic stops as an opportunity to assert their personal beliefs. I am not interested in their personal beliefs and I do not wish to be harassed, therefore, I assert my rights.
Deanimator
Member
So then it's your assertion that only drug smugglers, fleeing felons and child pornographers protect their rights?
Whether it is or not, I'm still not going to be hoodwinked into giving my rights up. This isn't "Law & Order".
You can assume whatever you want. I couldn't care less.
What matters is that you obey the law. If you don't, there will be consequences.
And I have no idea why you REALLY pulled me over. I certainly can't trust your word on it, since the law even SAYS you're allowed to lie during an investigation. The cop SAID that my friend's wife was "weaving". She wasn't of course. But then her husband's a very experienced criminal defense attorney. Things could have gone downhill for the cop VERY quickly had he kept up the pretense and I'd missed my train. Of course these days, they'd have gone subterranean at the speed of light, now that I carry a voice recorder everywhere I go.
People prepare to defend themselves legally from the police for a reason. My own experiences and observations of those of others tell me that not to do so is foolish. As I said, there's NO benefit to me trusting a strange cop, and an infinity of possible downsides.
Not committing a crime is no guarantee that you won't have an encounter with police. Neither is it a guarantee that you won't have a negative encounter with them. I would no more deal with police outside of the strict confines of the law, than a cop would pull someone over at 2:00am and walk up to a strange car without his gun and vest.
brboyer
Member
Did I ever suggest not being polite? Don't think so. A simple "No" to the question about lawfully possessed firearms is not in any way disrespectful.
Nope. I demand that law enforcement community to obey the law...to the letter!
Fixed it for you.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
I'm always fascinated when that simple demand produces such rage.
As somebody with an Ohio CHL, I'm expected to know and obey the laws regarding firearms and their lawful use and carry, as well as laws regarding identification, search, seizure and the like. There are no excuses or do-overs if I don't. Therefore, I'm puzzled by the attitude of some LEOs and their supporters that they don't need to either know or adhere to those same laws.
We can all either obey the laws currently in effect, knowing more or less what is expected from everyone, OR we can strike out on our own, making up our own rules. I choose to obey the letter of the law. If any LEO doesn't like that, then I can't, on the side of the road, make him obey the law if he doesn't want to. Once we leave the side of the road, things change... drastically, sometimes in dire fashion for him. We'd both be better off if we both knew and obeyed the law.
Yes. A reasoned response, instead of paranoia (My Rights!!!)
Thank you, Mr. LEO. Here, also, in my town, if you just answer naturally, and you're not up to no good, you won't be hassled. If you're carrying a gun, and you were to get stopped, and asked if there's a weapon, to answer honestly, and tell him where it is, and then listen for instructions. Usually they tell us to keep our hands on the wheel, or move slowly when getting ID.
They don't demand it of us.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
That really has nothing to do with it. Police or any LE are going to be held to a higher performance as far as obeying the law than the rest of us. They should be, since they have authority over others than can easily be misused.
If an LEO cannot maintain a HIGHER obedience to the law than the general citizenry then he's in the wrong profession, specifically in the area of understanding the rights of people he deals with, and not violating those.
I hear what most LEO's say, just cooperate and be nice and it will all be OK, and most of the time that's probably true.
However, there are places in this country and there are LEO's in this country where that is absolutely NOT true, especially as it relates to firearms. This thread started from one of those, there's another thread from an incident in PA a few years ago being discussed, so it really does happen. Several times a year someone on this board alone comes along with a story about it. Clearly it's not always just "be nice and it will all be OK".
So, people need to be educated on their rights and how to assert them if they believe they are dealing with one of those situations. And for an LEO to say that people should give up those rights at all times in exchange for not being "hassled" is exactly the type of attitude that people should worry about.
danez71
Member
You've made this same basic statement a few times in these related threads.
Please provide examples of these "sharp legal mind(s)" and Supreme Court justices that have recommended that IN THE CONTEXT OF A SIMPLE TRAFFIC STOP with NO OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITY going on.
Frankly, Ive never heard a cop, lawyer, or SCJ recommend to people in a simple traffic stop with no other illegal activity tell/ask the officer any thing such as "I'm not answering any questions.... Am I free to go or are you detaining me".
With supossedly "every sharp legal mind in the country, including Supreme Court justices" recommending this.... I trust that it should be easy to provide data to support your statement. Remember in the context of a simple traffic stop with no other illegal activities going on because that is what is being discussed here.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
That's sort of the point you miss. These legal advisors do not make a distinction between minor traffic stops or anything else. That is where you are making a mistake.
Justice Robert Jackson said this, and he clearly doesn't care whether it's a traffic stop or anything else:
If you are actually interested, this video is worth watching. You do what you want but don't accuse me of just making stuff up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related
Here is a video where a VA police officer responds to the above attorney's speech:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&q=&hl=en#
You will notice in these that no one is talking about specific circumstances in their relation to police, they say repeatedly ANY and ALL interactions. If you think you are not a "suspect" even when stopped for simple speeding then you are sadly mistaken. The second video actually starts with this example. When LEO pulls you over and asks "Do you know why I stopped you" and you say you were speeding, you just confessed and quite possibly you confessed on video tape. Why would someone do that? Because they have been taught and told that if they will just cooperate that it will all be OK. And sometimes it is, but sometimes it's not.
Call any lawyer you know and ask him if you should talk to police and see what answer you get, even in a traffic stop.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
In Ohio, carry into a Chipotle or touch your firearm during a stop without explicit instructions to do so and see what happens to you.
A guy in Beachwood, Ohio was falsely arrested, indicted and TRIED for not "promptly informing" for ***51*** seconds AFTER being ORDERED NOT TO SPEAK. Yeah, I guess if it's not the law AT ALL, it's not the "letter of the law".
Actions have consequences. When the police act in ways which make it dangerous to trust them, people will stop trusting them.
danez71
Member
I'm not accusing you of anything so please dont accuse me of doing so.
IMO, you're taking it out of context.
Following your logic of "AND and ALL interactions"... it seems that you would apply the same reaction to an officer approaching you and asking "Did you see that traffic collision?"
IMO, you're taking it to the extreme.
Point is, a single memorized response to all interactions with people is less than ideal.
So I'll take it to the other extreme.
You pull up to a donut shop in your sweet 69 Camero as a cop walks out side and he says " WOW... nice car you got. BTW, your tail light is out. How did you get such a nice car?"
And your response will be "I'm not comfortable discussing anything like that with you, am I free to go or are you detaining me?". ?!?!?!?!
You're saying all these sharp legal minds and supreme court justices are recommending that should be your response?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I never said a single memorized response to all LE questions was a good idea, I said it was a proper response when police ask questions that are outside of what they should be asking.
People have to be smart enough to know the difference. But they have to be willing to do it, and most people seem to think that it is rude to assert your rights. That's silly.
Did you read my entire response to the OP or did you stop halfway through?
http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6428207&postcount=4
I never suggested that the response above should always be given, no matter what. I simply said that if you feel like the questions are getting to a place they shouldn't, that it is an acceptable response.
Deanimator
Member
And if that LEO's question seems "off" or out of place, there may be a good reason, one which would make talking to him without benefit of counsel VERY ill-advised.
The benefits to talking to the police without benefit of counsel on substantive matters are too vanishingly small and the risks too enormous to do so when there's any doubt at all.
A lot of the "arguments" in favor of recklessly talking to police don't seem to rise above those in favor of teenage smoking. Making people with no direct interest in my welfare happy by putting my own interests at risk hasn't been a priority for me since grammar school.
Deanimator
Member
How'd that work out for Richard Jewell and the Duke lacross team?
In my experience, you don't have the slightest idea of the real motivations of any particular LEO.
They might be benign. They might be malicious. I have absolutely nothing to gain by assuming without proof that they're the former.
It's funny really. Just yesterday, I was reading the current issue of "2600", the hacker magazine. A Scottish gentleman was discussing the techniques of "social engineering", by which people extract information from others, for reasons fair or foul. Many of the "arguments" in favor of talking to the police without benefit of counsel read like classical "social engineering" come-ons.
No thanks.
I've seen that vid trotted out on gun boards time and time again. You know what? It was made by lawyers. They tell you that advice so they can line their pockets. Don't talk to a cop; call a lawyer. You just spent $500 minimum. There's SO many examples of times you want to be open with police, instead of lawyering up. It's just bad advice to give. "Don't talk to cops" can lead to a ride straight to jail. And you'd respond, "Better that than to make a statement that can be used against me." And I reply, "Yes, but the report will show you being arrested in connection with whatever happened; that certainly will take some explaining and/or money to fix."
But some people who say things like this seem to have a problem with authority. One can keep a chip on their shoulder about it, and try to show how tough you are, or one can accept how things are, and NOT alienate law enforcement with ridiculous little 'stand my ground' actions.
Wow. A couple of extreme exceptions. There's exceptions to almost every rule.
Deanimator
Member
And it's cops who want information any way they can get it trying to get you to waive your rights.
I'll lose money and keep my freedom and rights EVERY time.
"Talk to cops" can lead straight to prison... for a LONG time.
It's easier to stay out of prison than to get out once you're there.
It's one hell of a lot easier to "fix" than a wrongful indictment or conviction.
Some people who advise you to throw away your rights seem to worship authority. They're called nihilists.
Having a chip on your shoulder about authority will be immediately evident to all but the greenest of cops. Good luck with that stance. I've never had cooperation with cops go wrong.
But maybe where you live there is a cop who just lurks, waiting for Little Susie Homemaker to make an unsignaled turn so he can pin Saturday nights drive-by on her. I'm glad I don't live there.
But maybe where you live there is a cop who just lurks, waiting for Little Susie Homemaker to make an unsignaled turn so he can pin Saturday nights drive-by on her. I'm glad I don't live there.
Deanimator
Member
Nobody I know who've tried LSD have torn their eyes out or jumped out of fifth floor windows. I still don't use drugs.
There's NO benefit to me from either using LSD or talking to the police without benefit of counsel, certainly nothing that could come within lightyears of equaling the dangers. Being "liked" by people with no concern for my welfare doesn't count.
Deanimator
Member
So what?
He doesn't have to like me.
He doesn't even have to like the law.
He HAS to OBEY it.
When he doesn't there are consequences.
- Status