REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.

[protias]

Seriously? Yes

That is an encounter you consider to be harassment? Yes

Let me point out what DIDNT happen in that video/audio.
1. You were not detained So only detainment = harassment?
2. You were not threatened So only being threatened = harassment?
3. You were not lectured He knew it was my right to carry and still harassed the business and me for carrying. Since when are police allowed to ask the business what their policy is for carrying?
4. You were not touched He was within 3' of my face. That is intimidation!
4. Your firearm was not seized "for officer safety" That's because the business, nor any other customers, called the police. Click on the video to take you to the YouTube page. Then click on the thread link in the description.
5. You were not asked irrelevant questions or even for ID They ran the plate of my vehicle before they entered the business. Yes, I have the proof.
6. You were not even contacted by the LEOs own choice Actually, I was. Read the thread.
7. And from the sounds of it, you were not even formally trespassed That's because the business, nor any other customers, called the police. Read the tread.

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. What authority do police have that can just waltz into a business and ask their policy?

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. Bull! He was trying to throw me out because he didn't like a LAC carrying!

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. I don't think he gave a darn if he was being recorded or not.

Can you please clarify what you considered to be harassment in that encounter?Walking into a business, asking their policy, not once, not twice, but three times. First time she said she didn't know (meaning, they didn't have on). Second time she said no because Chinese just agree with police (have you seen what they do to you in China if you go against the government?). Third, he asked again and she was visibly uncomfortable and did not answer. The following week, we have over 50 members at that very restaurant. We had no issue with the owners! Perhaps you should actually learn what harassment consists of?

See red

 

[FMCDH]

See red

Ok, given your answers...

If he contacted you and told you to leave without the restaurant asking him to do so, then I fully agree, he was being an @$$ hat, and I suppose I would consider it harassment too. I grant you that.

It just goes to show how subjective even video/audio can be without proper point of reference. Your post didn't exactly give preamble as to the circumstances he contacted you under. To me, it appeared as if he was responding to something, not just stumbling upon you.

For the purpose of this discussion, I take you at your word, and I agree.

 

[MKEgal]

1. You were not detained
2. You were not threatened
3. You were not lectured
6. You were not even contacted by the LEOs own choice
7. And from the sounds of it, you were not even formally trespassed

He was lectured, & these officers had local LEO come to his home late that night to harass him further.
The LEO initiated the contact, badgered the employee until he got the answer he wanted.

What I saw was a cop pressing his own ideology.
...The manager/owner didn't ask the cop to get them to leave.
The cop initiated that discussion on his own.

Bingo.

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 think its pretty obvious the establishment called the officers there to eject the gent.

No, the cops saw the LAC enter the restaurant & decided to make him leave.
The restaurant was perfectly happy having him there, & having a very full house about a week later, the vast majority of whom were LACs. We have pictures. In fact, the counter gal was walking around delivering meals saying "I'm so happy!"

 

[FMCDH]

He was lectured, & these officers had local LEO come to his home late that night to harass him further.
The LEO initiated the contact, badgered the employee until he got the answer he wanted.

Understood, please see post #156 above.

 

[Justin Mang]

Inform the general public

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.

First off, the officer should always respond to a call no matter how minor it may seem to that officer. Secondly, the officer, after talking to the person who is open carrying, should visit the person who called into the police with the issue. This would ensure the officer did in fact resolve the issue and the officer should inform that person it is his or her right to open carry and it was that persons right to do so as well. This person may or may not like that law but they will not call in again about it under those circumstances and he or she might even tell their friends about the event, as we all like to do with any situation involving the law. Problem solved and people were informed, is that not the ultimate job of an officer of the law?

 

[MilProGuy]

Kudos to the original poster for starting this thread and for the helpful information you disseminated to us.

I appreciate your service as a law enforcement officer.

 

[wrightme]

Kudos to the original poster for starting this thread and for the helpful information you disseminated to us.

I appreciate your service as a law enforcement officer.

Which information from the original poster do you see as "helpful?"

 

[protias]

First off, the officer should always respond to a call no matter how minor it may seem to that officer. Secondly, the officer, after talking to the person who is open carrying, should visit the person who called into the police with the issue. This would ensure the officer did in fact resolve the issue and the officer should inform that person it is his or her right to open carry and it was that persons right to do so as well. This person may or may not like that law but they will not call in again about it under those circumstances and he or she might even tell their friends about the event, as we all like to do with any situation involving the law. Problem solved and people were informed, is that not the ultimate job of an officer of the law?

Police shouldn't visit every single call. I mean, here is the difference between two cities in WI:

[video=youtube;LQ8795iZk-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8795iZk-0&feature=channel_video_title[/video]

By the way, the city of Milwaukee has had over 150,000 calls this year so far. Two incidents where there were burglaries recently where it took the officers over 3.5 hours to show up! Perhaps those issues should have a priority over someone doing a lawful activity?

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/130382243.html

http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-110910-plasma-break-in,0,7333094.story

 

[MilProGuy]

Which information from the original poster do you see as "helpful?"

I felt that everything the officer shared in his initial post was helpful. It was from his unique perspective as a LEO.

This is the beauty of talking with folks on a forum; we can gain insights into issues that otherwise we would not be exposed to.

This, in turn, can broaden our horizons, so to speak...if we will but be respectful of the other person and actually listen to what he / she is attempting to convey.

My purpose for logging on to a forum such as this one is to learn and increase my knowledge base. One way I can do that is to relax my own preconceived notions and open my mind to a world that is much larger than the one I live in.

 

[TheRatt]

I suspect the main reason why the original poster doesn't appreciate people asking "Am I being detained" is because it makes him actually have to perform police work to investigate a suspected crime.

If he could compel people to answer questions when they didn't have to, and when it wasn't in their best interest to do so, it would make his job much easier. Unfortunately, such fishing expeditions aren't proper police work.

By his very words he said he would initiate a Tier II encounter (detainment) on people whom he had no suspicion of wrongdoing. And if they called his bluff by asking if they were detained, he'd have to admit he had no reasonable suspicion to detain them, that they weren't being detained, and that they were free to go.
And he says that he'd continue to detain them again and again, even without any suspicion of wrongdoing.


If that ain't doing wrong ... what is?

Sounds like a good case of harassment to me!

 

[wrightme]

I felt that everything the officer shared in his initial post was helpful. It was from his unique perspective as a LEO.

This is the beauty of talking with folks on a forum; we can gain insights into issues that otherwise we would not be exposed to.

This, in turn, can broaden our horizons, so to speak...if we will but be respectful of the other person and actually listen to what he / she is attempting to convey.

My purpose for logging on to a forum such as this one is to learn and increase my knowledge base. One way I can do that is to relax my own preconceived notions and open my mind to a world that is much larger than the one I live in.

Be sure to let us know when that is

 

[MilProGuy]

Be sure to let us know when that is

Read the forum rules about bashing and kindly take a break from your childish remarks.

 

[protias]

Read the forum rules about bashing and kindly take a break from your childish remarks.

Where is the bash. If you think it is bashing, then hit the report button...

 

[wrightme]

Read the forum rules about bashing and kindly take a break from your childish remarks.

HAVE you now relaxed your own preconceived notions? I have not seen evidence of that yet.

 

[MilProGuy]

Read the forum rules about bashing and kindly take a break from your childish remarks.

They are getting rather onerous.

 

[wrightme]

They are getting rather onerous.

Odd. I do not find the ruleset onerous at all. Are they really that much of a burden to you?

 

[MilProGuy]

I was referring to childish remarks.

 

[Baked on Grease]

Which information from the original poster do you see as "helpful?"

Read the post above you again. He is not saying the OP had helpful info but that in posting what he did, many members came out in resoonse with valuble info.

Sent using tapatalk

 

[wrightme]

Read the post above you again. He is not saying the OP had helpful info but that in posting what he did, many members came out in resoonse with valuble info.

Sent using tapatalk

I do not get that from the elaboration he subsequently posted. Do you?

I felt that everything the officer shared in his initial post was helpful. It was from his unique perspective as a LEO.

This is the beauty of talking with folks on a forum; we can gain insights into issues that otherwise we would not be exposed to.

This, in turn, can broaden our horizons, so to speak...if we will but be respectful of the other person and actually listen to what he / she is attempting to convey.

My purpose for logging on to a forum such as this one is to learn and increase my knowledge base. One way I can do that is to relax my own preconceived notions and open my mind to a world that is much larger than the one I live in.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Three weeks now without a visit from our dear, dear friend.
Too soon he was taken away from us, only a brief 48 hours on this forum's mortal plane.


Was it lack of constitution on his part, or was he lacking in the Constitution?