REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.

[HandyHamlet]

Ironic how in just a few days we have had two supposed LEOs join us. Both of their Threads are inflammatory. And both completely dismiss the Constitution. In one OP we have a "LEO" who thinks we need more excuses than "just" the 2A to exercise our rights. And here we are stupid for exercising our 5A rights.



Time to get ready for the Troll invasion gentlemen. I fear these two are just scouts.

 

[HandyHamlet]

They are going to run back to officer.com and post, "Officer down, need backup at OCDO!"

Hahahahahahaha! Most excellent Sir!

(I feel sorry for those foolish enough to answer the call. The carnage here will make the Marianas Turkey Shoot look "G" rated)

 

[Citizen]

SNIP If your goal is truely, as a OCer, is the educate others in the benefit of being an OCer, this should include the officers of the law and not be a part of the problem creating an US vs THEM aspect.

"I'm sorry, Officer. Literally over a million Americans have died obtaining and defending these rights. I'm not going spit on their graves by waiving them because some cop gets nosy."

 

[RetiredOC]

QilvinLEO, you just don't get it man. Sure, there are a few good cops, and if somehow we could KNOW 110% that all cops are law abiding police officers, then we could sit down and talk about guns and where we carry all day long. But, because many of you are criminals yourselves and treasonists to the U.S. constitution, we are safer not talking to ANY of you. You know that phrase police officers love to use on open carriers? "I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE, I NEED TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE." We don't know who YOU ARE. How do I know you aren't about to shred the bill of rights right in front of us? How do we know you're not going to shoot us when we reach for our wallet and just tell the courts we reached for a gun? This **** happens dude, don't you get it? You should fully understand why open carriers aren't talking to you. You may not like it or deserve it on an individual level, but you should understand.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP You know that phrase police officers love to use on open carriers? "I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE, I NEED TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE." We don't know who YOU ARE.

Excellent. Most excellent.

 

[Citizen]

I notice he went off on tangents to rebutt some arguments, but quietly did not address things like:

• Points in Prof Duane's video
• Ullmann vs US
• Ohio vs Reiner
• Miranda vs Arizona
• Not knowing whether the cop is a good cop until its too late
• The price paid to obtain rights

And he has been especially quiet about the:

• Blue Wall of Silence
• complete absence reform demands by so-called good cops

 

[Aknazer]

"I'm sorry, Officer. Literally over a million Americans have died obtaining and defending these rights. I'm not going spit on their graves by waiving them because some cop gets nosy."

When Oklahoma gets OC and I run into an issue with a cop I think I'm going to use this.

 

[William Fisher]

This is a follow up of the Professor's statements. An LEO who agrees with most of what was stated.

[video=youtube;08fZQWjDVKE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE[/video]

I, obvioulsy, know OCing is legal, but lets say I dont. If I stop to you and talk to you, And you give me the "Am I detained?" attitude, I inform you , no because I have no reasonable suspicion(Which by the way, is soooooo easy to have), so you walk away. Obviously, I have no power to stop you. However, guess what, i'm going to do it all over again when the next call comes.

You have "NO REASONABLE SUSPICION", But you're still stopping him? WOW!
You're going to do it all over again? WOW! That sounds like a threat and that Canton, Ohio stop where the LEO said (Paraphrasing here) "I'm going to stop you everytime I see you, EVERYTIME. I'm going to arrest you EVERYTIME. I'm going to tow your car EVERYTIME".

 

[Citizen]

SNIP An LEO who agrees with most of what was stated.

Oh, thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about the detective in the second half.

Actually, he agrees with more than most of what was stated. When he arrives at the podium, Detective Bruch says this about Prof. Duane's presentation,

"And, everything he said was true. And, it was right. And, it was correct."

Everything was true. And, it was right. And, it was correct.


So, apparently our OPer cop, who calls us stupid for refusing to talk to cops is even more knowledgeable than a 14 year veteran cop, current detective, and current law school student. So, lets just add up the very knowledgeable people with who our OPer cop disagrees, shall we?

• Prof James Duane, former criminal defense attorney and current law professor
• Detective Bruch
• Justice Jackson
• The US Supreme Court in Ullmann vs US
• The US Supreme Court in Ohio vs Reiner
• The US Supreme Court in Miranda vs Arizona

My goodness. We have a legal, political, and sociological genius for an OPer!

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I'm confuzzled; he has a shiny badge... doesn't that automatically make him right?

 

[Badger Johnson]

What surprises me is that some people in power fail to see that the abuse of power directly affects them, their families and their children and spouses.

A culture of abuse of rights doesn't stop at their front door, but it can be used against any LEO that steps off of the thin blue line. (see CopLand, with Sly Stallone).

It's also in the police's best interest to have law-abiding, trained handgun carriers in and around the community. It could and does make their job much easier - think of neighborhood watches and other self-policing efforts.

But it's not all the cop's fault that there is needless drama associated with OC-ing. A large part of the problem lies with reactionary citizens who fail to see they are looking a gift horse in the mouth, they are biting the hand that would protect them to mix a metaphor.

Maybe someday...

 

[oak1971]

Giving up your Constitutional Rights because some guy on the internet said so is so far beyond stupid there is no term for it.

"Anything you say can and WILL be used against you." I don't need my degree in Criminal Justice to know that silence is golden.

 

[DocWalker]

I had a mixed day this morning, a older gentleman came up to me and quized my about carring a firearm. He was polite but not for it. I tild him not to worry if I see him being mugged, stabbed, or beated I wouldn't step in if that is what he wished, I would call 911 for him. He agreed that that would be silly as they would take to long to get there to help him. A LIGHT BULB CAME ON ABOVE HIS HEAD...lol

But what relates to this thread is the second guy; he was a ADA County Sheriff Deputy (off duty) and he actually gave me a thumbs up. We chatted for a while and he was very very pro OC. He did say some of his fellow officers didn't like it but he was working on changing their minds. He suggested a OC-PD picnic or something and he gave me his name and number. We both live in the same small town and work in Boise about 30 minutes away. We even gave them a discount on the freshly made cinnimon rolls my wife made at the bakery, like we do for all OC or CC carring.

 

[JoeSparky]

I'm confuzzled; he has a shiny badge... doesn't that automatically make him right?

Why am I reminded of a Rat in the old movie "The Secrets of NIMH" and the collection of "shiny baubbles"?

 

[William Fisher]

Oh, thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about the detective in the second half.

Actually, he agrees with more than most of what was stated. When he arrives at the podium, Detective Bruch says this about Prof. Duane's presentation,

"And, everything he said was true. And, it was right. And, it was correct."
Everything was true. And, it was right. And, it was correct.


So, apparently our OPer cop, who calls us stupid for refusing to talk to cops is even more knowledgeable than a 14 year veteran cop, current detective, and current law school student. So, lets just add up the very knowledgeable people with who our OPer cop disagrees, shall we?

• Prof James Duane, former criminal defense attorney and current law professor
• Detective Bruch
• Justice Jackson
• The US Supreme Court in Ullmann vs US
• The US Supreme Court in Ohio vs Reiner
• The US Supreme Court in Miranda vs Arizona

My goodness. We have a legal, political, and sociological genius for an OPer!

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!

Just trying to be diplomatic. But Detective Bruch did state (paraphrasing here) "Except I try not to arrest anyone who is innocent". lol

 

[FTG-05]

Excellent thread!

Incredibly stupid of the OP to post here as he has, for both professional and personal, reasons.

I'm damn glad he's in MO and not Alabama.

 

[REALteach4u]

Why is it that LEOs often tell the citizen that ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet if they're ignorant of the law it's perfectly acceptable in their eyes because the law "is ever changing"?

I'm calling BS on that straight out of the gate. Sorry OP, you've made yourself out to be one of those LEOs that refuses to educate oneself on law changes which is unacceptable. Part of the LEO's oath: To uphold the law.... You cannot uphold that which you know nothing of. Ignorance of the law IS NOT an excuse for a LEO!

It's a LEOs duty to KNOW the law or be FULLY CAPABLE of quickly finding an UP TO DATE reference or manual if they don't know it. When civilians know the law better than their LEOs we have a huge problem, especially when it comes to law updates.

OP's probably one of those LEOs that thinks that anyone invoking their right to remain silent or to have a lawyer present during questioning is automatically a criminal or they wouldn't need either of those. Those rights are there to help protect INNOCENT people from the corruption of a broken system fully willing and capable of convicting an innocent person of crimes he/she did not commit; it just so happens that it applies to real criminals as well.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP It's a LEOs duty to KNOW the law or be FULLY CAPABLE of quickly finding an UP TO DATE reference or manual if they don't know it. When civilians know the law better than their LEOs we have a huge problem, especially when it comes to law updates.

Not contradicting. Just adding.

Knowing the law is only part of the issue. It goes much deeper.

Take for example the issue of video-ing cops by citizens. Nobody, but nobody, but cops (and a few prosecutors and judges) doubts for two seconds that wiretapping laws do not apply to video-ing cops.

Yet, 1) people have been arrested, assaulted, and had their camera's seized by cops for video-ing cops, and 2) we hear a profound silence from so-called good cops who should be publicly decrying the actions of their colleagues, demanding reforms, sounding the call for stiff penalties to help them remove the bad cops from their ranks, and so forth.

And, bear in mind that a cop does not have to know the law in order to avoid violating someone's rights. All he has to do is recognize that he doesn't know the law with total certainty. If he doesn't know the applicable law with total certainty, he can't possibly know whether he has authority to detain the citizen. I say this because the whole "cops don't know the law" thing is a red-herring, an excuse for an illegal detention. They don't have to know the law. All they have to do is not detain someone unless they are certain they know the law, meaning after they've looked it up again. If they have any doubt, if they think it might have changed, if they're a little foggy on the fine points, whatever, then they can't possibly be certain they have authority to detain the person.

Which begs the question, what is the underlying attitude that makes for all the illegal seizures? It surely is not respect for rights. So, what is it? (rhetorical question, I don't want to actually get into a discussion on it).

Edited to Add: Correct that wiretapping laws do not apply to video-ing cops. Thanks to Wrightme for catching the error.

 

[wrightme]

I think you meant to say "that wiretapping laws DO NOT apply to video-ing cops," right?

Not contradicting. Just adding.

Knowing the law is only part of the issue. It goes much deeper.

Take for example the issue of video-ing cops by citizens. Nobody, but nobody, but cops (and a few prosecutors and judges) doubts for two seconds that wiretapping laws apply to video-ing cops.Yet, 1) people have been arrested, assaulted, and had their camera's seized by cops for video-ing cops, and 2) we hear a profound silence from so-called good cops who should be publicly decrying the actions of their colleagues, demanding reforms, sounding the call for stiff penalties to help them remove the bad cops from their ranks, and so forth.

And, bear in mind that a cop does not have to know the law in order to avoid violating someone's rights. All he has to do is recognize that he doesn't know the law with total certainty. If he doesn't know the applicable law with total certainty, he can't possibly know whether he has authority to detain the citizen. I say this because the whole "cops don't know the law" thing is a red-herring, an excuse for an illegal detention. They don't have to know the law. All they have to do is not detain someone unless they are certain they know the law, meaning after they've looked it up again. If they have any doubt, if they think it might have changed, if they're a little foggy on the fine points, whatever, then they can't possibly be certain they have authority to detain the person.

Which begs the question, what is the underlying attitude that makes for all the illegal seizures? It surely is not respect for rights. So, what is it? (rhetorical question, I don't want to actually get into a discussion on it).

 

[eye95]

...BUT WE STILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS...

And you make the same STUPID (to use YOUR word) mistake that many other officers do. "Responding" and "stopping" are two very different things. YES! Respond! Observe, and then make the entirely separate choice to stop or not--based on those observations. If you arrive on the scene and see a person going about his business carrying, leave him the ____ alone! If you see him doing something illegal or dangerous or threatening, by all means, take official action. Use your brain before using your official mouth.

If you stop me, no matter how much you don't like it, I will force you to either comply with the law or (on tape) openly flaunt it--at your legal peril.

Since I choose to OC and since some officers will violate my rights in response, I see "not talking to the police" as SMART, as a way of protecting my rights and, more importantly, the rights of others.