• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open carry experience at West Port in Kansas City, Missouri

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
I have no issues with answering questions by an law enforcement official. I have quite a few mutual friends who are police officers and people who I grew up with who are police officers. I treat them as if you as a opencarry member would ask me my opinion on why I'm carrying. Just because the person has a badge and asks the same question don't make it any different. Also I still had my firearm in the holster and he never asked for my ID, we just spoke and ask me one question why I was carrying and he just explained that some folks become paranoid. After that him and I spoke about holsters and some of the political matters that involves when you're open carrying. I would buy that officer a drink and play poker with him considering how he acted towards me.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
"...KCPD car with his lights on flashing me down..."
DWCook, according to the courts you were seized, which implicates your 4A right. OC4me is correct, you were "detained" then you turned the detainment into a consensual encounter.
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
I'll cut myself off right here, can't seem to point out the positives in these situations without someone spouting out legal code as to trying to up someone. Police officers are people just like us and I treat them as such, I don't look at the badge as a threat. Officer was just doing his job reacting to the public who is concerned with me carrying a firearm openly. After the encounter was done, the general public went back to do whatever they were doing.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,164
Location
here nc
I'll cut myself off right here, can't seem to point out the positives in these situations without someone spouting out legal code as to trying to up someone. Police officers are people just like us and I treat them as such, I don't look at the badge as a threat. Officer was just doing his job reacting to the public who is concerned with me carrying a firearm openly. After the encounter was done, the general public went back to do whatever they were doing.

always good to see someone who summarily dismisses another (find it interesting, it isn't just one forum member either giving you their perspective) who is attempting to clarify and quantify the good conversation situation you experienced. hopefully, the next time when you do not get officer friendly and you end up with power hungry savant(s) who aren't going to treat you so kindly because they feel as JQPublic...oh i'm concerned you have a firearm...

but you're right slide back to your comfort zone of being unable to explain the positives (hummm, again there seems to be a disagreement about your perception of positive and other members on the forum). so please hold your positive encounter high in the air so if you get swatted from a mother's MDA constitute you can continue to consider the nice LEs w/badges just like the citizens.

ipse
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Au contraire - there "should be" no encounter - none.

I am neither spouting, screaming, nor ranting- just going about business and daily routine in a normal, legal manner. Let me be unmolested.

Absolutely agreed there was no reasonable, articulable suspicion of any crime warranting Officer Friendly's 'flashy light' seizure of a member of the public.
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
I posted this to get positive as in...no need to scream out laws and say you were detained and if an officer asked me why I was carrying I'll stop him/her right there and walk away. Yes I understand that lights flashing does technically means detainment. But for sakes people it ended with me having a great conversation with the officer about other topics. I ain't arguing facts here, it's just it seems like half the time nobody looks at the positive outcome of the situation! The first thing people see when its a LEO interaction is half you guys scream different laws and "oh I would've told the officer it's none of your business if I carry". Look the officer is a person, yes there are power hungry officers out there. Just calm down on putting every single cop in the same "Corrupted LEO" category that people seem to scream half the time.
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
Au contraire - there "should be" no encounter - none.

I am neither spouting, screaming, nor ranting- just going about business and daily routine in a normal, legal manner. Let me be unmolested.

So anyone of law enforcement on or off duty if they were just curious why you carry you wouldn't answer. BUT if it's a "Good Citizen" then you would all for educating that person then?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,164
Location
here nc
sorry, the normal citizen wants to know information w/o qualification while the nice LE's have alternative motives which are completely unknown to you and based on their interpretation of how (body language/tone/tenor/tension/etc.) you respond,the information you supply could/might/will cause you to end up in judicial hot water. THEIR perception right then and there counts. period.

when you acknowledge officer friendly, by responding, they are now in control of the situation and at that point your spidy senses should be going off and you should be worried. officer friendly stated there was a citizen's call...do a freedom of information to see what the citizen actually stated or even if there was a citizen who called.

ipse
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Au contraire - there "should be" no encounter - none.

I am neither spouting, screaming, nor ranting- just going about business and daily routine in a normal, legal manner. Let me be unmolested.

So anyone of law enforcement on or off duty if they were just curious why you carry you wouldn't answer. BUT if it's a "Good Citizen" then you would all for educating that person then?
Just curious? Really?

I can't remember the last time I was stopped by a LEO who was "just curious" about some aspect of my private life. Do you think that they would be "just curious" why I wear a hat or drive a truck?

Such LEO non-consensual stops are generally intrusive and w/o redeeming merit. Anyone may attempt to engage me in conversation about my belief in our RKBA - my response will be governed by my perception of their intent. I seldom play silly games. OTOH - I do spend time educating people....a lot of time.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,040
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
So anyone of law enforcement on or off duty if they were just curious why you carry you wouldn't answer. BUT if it's a "Good Citizen" then you would all for educating that person then?
I applaud and agree with your decision not to start spouting constitutional/statute law or aggressively demand if you were being detained, but...

You should at least acknowledge that the encounter you had (flashing lights, anyone?) was something more than mere curiosity - and it there's a good (great?) possibility that it would have unfolded very differently had you not offered all the information you did.

That said, every encounter can become a balancing act.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
... Look the officer is a person, yes there are power hungry officers out there. Just calm down on putting every single cop in the same "Corrupted LEO" category that people seem to scream half the time.
During the course of your conversation did the cop provide you with a list of the bad cops in the area so that you be prepared if a different encounter emerges?
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
Sometimes I just don't understand you guys! There was MORE positive in this outcome/situation and yet we're here arguing that some how I got violated.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,164
Location
here nc
Sometimes I just don't understand you guys! There was MORE positive in this outcome/situation and yet we're here arguing that some how I got violated.

you have the soapbox DW...

positives you perceived, were?

negatives, if any, as you perceive them please

sometimes the violation if proffered with a smile doesn't feel like you were violated, yet at the end of the day...yepper, you can't call yourself a virgin any longer.

ipse
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,040
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Sometimes I just don't understand you guys! There was MORE positive in this outcome/situation and yet we're here arguing that some how I got violated.
IMHO you're putting things in too stark of terms.

NO, you weren't violated, but also NO, it wasn't a wholly consensual conversation.

A cop asked you questions, which you answered, and neither side resorted to "force" (verbal or physical) - those things are good.

On the other hand, did you willingly answer his questions because that's just how you are, or because you felt that if you didn't, the tenor of the encounter would change toward the negative? That is what people are being negative about.

"Violated" is a bit strong, but wouldn't you go so far, in the absence of your willingness to answer questions, to call it a "forced" consensual conversation?

You handled yourself in a way that various jerks wouldn't want to show on YouTube, but if your encounters with LEOs continue, there may come a time that you will tire of explaining yourself or justifying your OC. On the other hand, that may not happen.

I think most people here want to have a good relationship with LE, but they also feel that the exercise of rights ought not have to be explained or justified - partially because it creates an expectation that OCers *must* do so. Some make that point by being jerks, some are polite but firm, and others, like you did, politely answer all questions.

You spoke of law enforcement being accustomed to seeing people OC, but won't you acknowledge that if everyone was continually accommodating by answering any and all questions that LE would come to expect such behavior? Would you view that as okay or not?

Will you at least acknowledge that there is a middle ground (whether it's the way you would act or not) between acting as you did, and acting like a "It's my right!!" or statute-citing jerk? I think that middle ground is where many people here like to be, some or all of the time.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,164
Location
here nc
IMHO snippp...

You handled yourself in a way that various jerks wouldn't want to show on YouTube, but if your encounters with LEOs continue, there may come a time that you will tire of explaining yourself or justifying your OC. On the other hand, that may not happen.

snippp...

well said BB62,

only caveat...if your encounters continue...you should immediately look at yourself to see what is drawing the interest citizens to notify the nice LEs to your characteristics of OC/CC mannerisms...

ipse
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Once an encounter is "forced" it ceases to be "consensual". Agreeing to talk to a LEO just gives them an out to claim it was consensual. By refusing to talk to them, it forces them to make a choice. They can cite you for some crime (that you haven't committed), assault you, detain you (illegally) or just leave you alone (which is what we want, unless you just enjoy being stopped to talk to LEO's). If you talk to them, you will probably get other opportunities to do it again, soon. Those conversations will continue until you tire of it, like some of us have. A lot of LEO's like to show the public how they are "taking charge of things" and "investigating". They think it makes them look good. Well, it does not look good or feel good to me and I refuse to participate. Your participation just emboldens them to do it to you again and to do it to others and expect compliance from everyone. If we all refuse to participate, they will tire of the effort and not want to look impotent in the eyes of the public again. I have had people crowd around to see me not talking to LEO. Some of them end up laughing at the LEO and even mocking them. Who would want to repeat that experience? You don't have to draw a crowd or make a big deal of it, unless you want to. Just turn and slowly walk away and, of course, you don't tell them that you are not going to talk to them, just don't. Always use a voice recorder.
From the voice of experience comes sage advice.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,706
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Sometimes I just don't understand you guys! There was MORE positive in this outcome/situation and yet we're here arguing that some how I got violated.
After taking the time to read this thread I come to but one conclusion. DWCook, you must understand, there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant. Simply put, once those lights were activated you were detained.
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
I never really had any issues with answering simple minded questions to law enforcement. I was around a bunch of people in the down town area and considering it was slightly rare to see anyone open carry in West Port, I am not surprised I got contacted. Considering I understood the situation of why I was being contacted, I had no problem with being so called "detained" and asked questions. Since the officer didn't ask for my I.D./Drivers License and didn't detain my weapon, I considered the situation a good encounter. I consider 99% of law enforcement friends of the community and the protectors, some of you may have a different opinion. I have no issues with having conversation with law enforcement or even answering some questions. It's not like I'm being arrested or my weapon is being taken away due to a special circumstance. Police officers are people too, so I con't consider them any different than us. Also if some of you didn't realize, the officer has to respond to the the radio call from dispatch. When people make phone calls with concern of this type of matter, the officer has to response to the call issued out by dispatch.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,164
Location
here nc
snippp...Also if some of you didn't realize, the officer has to respond to the the radio call from dispatch. When people make phone calls with concern of this type of matter, the officer has to response to the call issued out by dispatch.

WRONG, therefore, please cease spreading the myth the nice LEs have to respond to citizen's emergencies, quote: They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981), quoting the trial court decision.)

The general rule of law in the United States is that government owes a duty to protect the public in general, but owes no legal duty to protect any particular person from criminal attack. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime. As a federal appeals court bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have “no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” (Bowers v. DeVito, 686F. 2nd 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)) unquote. http://fee.org/articles/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/

ipse
 
Top