REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.

[okboomer]

I appreciate the invitation. However, that will probably not happen anytime soon based upon the amount of hate some individuals already have for me. If it does, You will not know I am QilvinLEO, that is for sure.

Well, I have just re-read this entire thread and I don't see any hate directed at you or what you have to say. Where is there any hate directed at you? Or, is that just your excuse for not engaging?

 

[user]

...Alot of individuals on this website have stated "Am I being detained" factor in and get mad at the police. Sure, it might be a bad move on the police the first time, because they were unaware of the ever changing law. But after being made to feel stupid once, it wont happen again. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS.

Think about it if we didnt. Example following:

Dispatch- Dispatch, 23
Officer- Go for 23.
Dispatch- 23, Respond to 123 Hippy Street, a suspicous individual was reported by passerby's to be carrying a firearm openly on his side
Officer- Dispatch, go ahead and clear that call. It is legal to open carry.
Dispatch- Copy, 23 Dispatch out.


5 PM News

Three 18 year old kids murdered at 125 Hippie Street. The police were even called and an officer was dispatched to the perosn walking down the street with a gun. Officer FAILED to investigate. Officer was fired for neglect of duty and is being criminally charged for neglect of duty resulting in a homicide.

Come on people, TALK TO THE POLICE.

I was with you up to the point of the example of how things can go wrong; and I agree with you about how that would make one crazy. However, the problem is a political problem, not the problem of those who openly carry firearms. In my opinion, the dispatchers should be able to use a bit more discretion in determining whether or not there's a report of a crime (much less an actual emergency, which is what 911 is really for).

I think the dispatchers should be required to ask some "what's going on" questions - "What's that person doing that makes you suspicious?", "Does he have the gun in his hand, or is it in a holster?", and "What, exactly, is he doing with the gun?" If there's no suggestion that a crime is "afoot", then sending a cop out to check on it is not just a waste of money, it's interfering with his ability to do something productive. Writing speeding tickets, for example - if we wanted to be more "secure", we'd have law enforcement capable of actually enforcing the traffic laws - that's where the really serious threat to human life and property is. It isn't people with defensive weapons, or even terrorists. So it's silly to send cops out on what is already known to be a "wild goose chase".

Now, as to your example. The cop was punished in your hypothetical because he failed to engage in unlawful prior restraint. It is not the job of the police to prevent crime, but to apprehend the bad guy in the act or to detect and apprehend him after a crime is committed. There's no way, short of psychic clairvoyance, that the cop could have guessed that the openly carrying citizen was about to become public enemy number one. And, unless and until the criminal act is in progress, law enforcement's hands are pretty much tied, and well they should be.

It's just more political crap reported in the news that the cop is taking the fall for the department in failing to prevent the crime. The department should be confident in telling the news people that there was no crime in progress at the time the officer investigated (there was no "failure to investigate", btw, he did investigate and found no crime in progress). If people want armed guards to protect them at every turn, then they're going to have to pay for that, themselves. Or better, yet, be responsible for their duty to protect themselves and their familes. ("Yeah, well, he should'a armed himself." - Clint Eastwood as William Munney in "Unforgiven".)

But the department is afraid of bad p.r., and "stuff" slides downhill, you know...

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

He's been gone for a week, maybe he didn't get the warm reception he thought he was going to?

QilvinLEO has not made any friends yet

Heck, he's probably just on vacation.....or paid leave of absence?

 

[Freedom First]

Wow.

I just read this entire thread. Phew.

Troll or not, he unwittingly helped bring alot of excellent material to the table. Excellent thread.

 

[Vitaeus]

This has been a very informative and thought provoking thread. My sincere thanks to all the posters, even the possible trolls. The video of the law professor and the policeman are now proudly part of my collection of educational material.

 

[lockman]

I have read alot of posts and have come to the general consensus that this website supports not talking to the police. From what I have read, It basically comes down the OC telling the LEO "Officer, Am I being detained?"

I have a feeling some of you might not be as polite as you are stating, but we will go with it. How many people are your place of employment dont completely understand their jobs? Or know every single small rule? Now try to understand every single aspect of the law that is changing on a day to day basis. Tell me that you would know it all. If so, Congraulations, you are perfect and this is not directed towards you.
--------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Lets look at another situation.

Call comes in again that a person is open carrying and people are worried about them because they are unfamilar. Officer LEO shows up and see OCer that he has dealt with in the past. "Hey <Insert OCer name>, Officer LEO here, How you doing today? You wouldn't believe it, ANOTHER person called in about you carrying your firearm again. Not up to anything today I presume? No, Alright, take it easy man." Officer LEO leaves, annoyed that he has to keep responding to law abiding citizens again.
----------------------------



Which brings me to the next point that DRIVES ME INSANE.


Alot of individuals on this website have stated "Am I being detained" factor in and get mad at the police. Sure, it might be a bad move on the police the first time, because they were unaware of the ever changing law. But after being made to feel stupid once, it wont happen again. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS.

Think about it if we didnt. Example following:

Dispatch- Dispatch, 23
Officer- Go for 23.
Dispatch- 23, Respond to 123 Hippy Street, a suspicous individual was reported by passerby's to be carrying a firearm openly on his side
Officer- Dispatch, go ahead and clear that call. It is legal to open carry.
Dispatch- Copy, 23 Dispatch out.


5 PM News

Three 18 year old kids murdered at 125 Hippie Street. The police were even called and an officer was dispatched to the perosn walking down the street with a gun. Officer FAILED to investigate. Officer was fired for neglect of duty and is being criminally charged for neglect of duty resulting in a homicide.




Come on people, TALK TO THE POLICE.

Is the firearm holstered?

 

[Cracker]

I think LEO's just need to understand the way most LAC's feel about them... I for one, have never had a LEO "help" me (Directly) in any way, shape or form... All I have had is a ticket and the attitude that you are better than me (No, you're not) and that I must submit to your authority (in which you have none over me). I'm sorry but, I do NOT feel safer when I see a LEO, I feel like I am being hunted/watched in case I do something "wrong' in order for an Officer to write me a ticket.

LEO's have no duty to protect, by law. The thing that REALLY drives me insane is the crap (and it's CRAP) from officers is "It's for Officer safety, I want to go home at the end of the night"... Puhhhlease! You signed up for it... Do your job, stop complaining and remember the Serve part... SERVE us, do not attempt to incrimiate us every chance you get.

Note: The use of the word "You" does not mean you personally... Just know that most Citizens do not trust you nor do they want to speak to you.

Not cop bashing at all, just telling you how it is.

 

[rpyne]

Actually, I think most LAC's have been conditioned to view police as the ultimate authority.

There, I fixed that for you.

 

[Daylen]

I think LEO's just need to understand the way most LAC's feel about them... I for one, have never had a LEO "help" me (Directly) in any way, shape or form... All I have had is a ticket and the attitude that you are better than me (No, you're not) and that I must submit to your authority (in which you have none over me). I'm sorry but, I do NOT feel safer when I see a LEO, I feel like I am being hunted/watched in case I do something "wrong' in order for an Officer to write me a ticket.

LEO's have no duty to protect, by law. The thing that REALLY drives me insane is the crap (and it's CRAP) from officers is "It's for Officer safety, I want to go home at the end of the night"... Puhhhlease! You signed up for it... Do your job, stop complaining and remember the Serve part... SERVE us, do not attempt to incrimiate us every chance you get.

Note: The use of the word "You" does not mean you personally... Just know that most Citizens do not trust you nor do they want to speak to you.

Not cop bashing at all, just telling you how it is.

I feel far less safe when police are around unless I know them or have in some way been given evidence that they are not a threat. I have been helped by police, and bode them no ill will, I just don't trust them any more than I do any other citizen; plus they are armed and have special privileges in court. Its a problem of not knowing who it is, if its a decent LEO then there is no worry, for I am a law abiding citizen, if it is a criminal or idiot with a badge, then my life and liberty are in danger and I must tread carefully.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

He's been gone for a week, maybe he didn't get the warm reception he thought he was going to?
Heck, he's probably just on vacation.....or paid leave of absence?

QilvinLEO
Last Activity.....09-09-2011 05:21 AM

I guess he lost interest after all the ""hate.""

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

OP

He has 23 posts total, 6 of which are in the first 3 pages of this thread. Has anyone checked his other posts to see if they are of a similar vein?

 

[FTG-05]

He has 23 posts total, 6 of which are in the first 3 pages of this thread. Has anyone checked his other posts to see if they are of a similar vein?

Looks like mostly this one and a couple OC vs CC discussions: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/search.php?searchid=432413

Just a quick peruse it appears he has backtrack a lot, just a .02 sec look.

FWIW.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

It appears he tried the old "argument from authority" schtick.
And then found out that wearing a badge on his nickname doesn't carry the same authority online; where everyone's little electrons are just as powerful as anyone else's.

 

[protias]

Some know its legal and still harass you. This is what happened to me a little over a year ago.:

[video=youtube;CZVz0V-bek0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZVz0V-bek0&feature=channel_video_title[/video]

 

[FMCDH]

Some know its legal and still harass you. This is what happened to me a little over a year ago.:

Seriously?

That is an encounter you consider to be harassment?

Let me point out what DIDNT happen in that video/audio.
1. You were not detained
2. You were not threatened
3. You were not lectured
4. You were not touched
4. Your firearm was not seized "for officer safety"
5. You were not asked irrelevant questions or even for ID
6. You were not even contacted by the LEOs own choice
7. And from the sounds of it, you were not even formally trespassed

If anything, at the end, it actually sounded like he was trying to advocate for you with a very uncertain owner/manager, prompting her several times to clarify their "policy" before insisting you leave on their behalf.

Aside from appearing a bit adrenalin pumped throughout the encounter, I would say he was near the picture of professionalism. While he was certainly in "control the scene" mode, he was hardly attempting to control you.

Do you then believe he realized he was being recorded, and that is the only reason he acted the way he did? Because...I really didn't get that vibe from him.

Can you please clarify what you considered to be harassment in that encounter?

 

[WCrawford]

He's been gone for a week, maybe he didn't get the warm reception he thought he was going to?


Heck, he's probably just on vacation.....or paid leave of absence?

Medical leave, maybe?

 

[okboomer]

Nah, I think he is finally exposed for the troll he was :cuss: He came in here trying to bait folks into saying stupid things, and got well reasoned discussion instead. :monkey

 

[FMCDH]

Nah, I think he is finally exposed for the troll he was :cuss: He came in here trying to bait folks into saying stupid things, and got well reasoned discussion instead. :monkey

Ahh, yes.... troll kryptonite.

 

[CharleyCherokee]

What I saw was a cop pressing his own ideology. "Is it ok for him to have a gun in here?" If it wasn't don't you think the person would have said, "hey ******* you can't have a gun in here." Obviously it was. The manager/owner didn't ask the cop to get them to leave. The cop initiated that discussion on his own. If it wasn't ok for a firearm to be in your store and you had a few cops patronizing it would you not ask them to make a person leave before being asked? Don't be a *******, plox.

 

[FMCDH]

What I saw was a cop pressing his own ideology. "Is it ok for him to have a gun in here?" If it wasn't don't you think the person would have said, "hey ******* you can't have a gun in here." Obviously it was. The manager/owner didn't ask the cop to get them to leave. The cop initiated that discussion on his own. If it wasn't ok for a firearm to be in your store and you had a few cops patronizing it would you not ask them to make a person leave before being asked? Don't be a *******, plox.

Your talking about a form of class discrimination. Unfortunately, the law doesn't recognize a "person who carries a gun" as a protected class, so private property rights trump. If the establishment has no problem with the officers eating there with their firearms, but they do with LACs eating with their firearms, then that's the way it is. Right to refuse service to anyone, and all that.

I would suggest LACs take their business elsewhere or file a formal protest with the company.

And if you watch the video again, I think its pretty obvious the establishment called the officers there to eject the gent. The way he was looking around when he first appeared on camera, and speaking to the employees, doesn't suggest he was doing the ejecting of his own volition.