Inform the officer or not when concealed carry? - Page 111
Page 111 of 117 FirstFirst ... 1161101109110111112113 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,110 of 1169

Thread: Inform the officer or not when concealed carry?

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Cord View Post
    Just for the sake of argument, I understand that cops are people, and as surprising as it may be, there are people that are cops that are also a**holes.
    Here's the problem, Cord. 99% of cops are good, hardworking people just like everyone else. 1% are bad cops and will violate your rights the second that you allow them to. When a police officer approaches me, unless I know them personally as a friend, I have no idea if they are the 1% that are bad, or one of the 99% of they good. Therefore, in an official capacity, I will only interact with a police officer to the minimum extent that is required by law. There is nothing disrespectful about that. I merely exercise my right to not voluntarily interact with a police officer in the line of duty.

    Maybe that way instead of him taking time to seize my ID and gun temporarily, tying up radio and dispatcher resources to verify I have no legal problems, verify the validity of my carry license, and check the serial number of my gun, unload my gun, and then give everything back to me; maybe instead of doing all that we can simply say, "Officer, unless you are officially detaining me with reasonable and articulable suspicion that I am, have or about to commit a crime, I will be on my way, thank you, have a nice day" and the officer can be on his way that much sooner without wasting any more taxpayer's time, money, and scarce enough already law enforcement resources. I am doing the police and taxpayers a favor by not interacting with police officers when not required by law.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  2.   
  3. #1102
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Cord View Post
    Agreed, but again, it just simply is not ALL of "them" ALL of the time. I don't think much of Illinois's gun laws or Chicago's either, but it would be pretty narrow minded of me to say I hate the state in general because of my disgust for their laws.
    Ok, it's not ALL cops. So which ones IS it?

    I'm unaware of an app for my Android phone that will ID bad cops. That means that I have to be wary of ALL cops for among others, the following reasons:
    1. [***Cops get the benefit of the doubt when their words conflicts with that of a citizen.
    2. Cops cover for each other when they violate policy and law, even in the case of serious felonies.
    3. Cops have considerable authority to destroy evidence of misconduct and obstruct justice.

    Cops are like hitchhikers. Most hitchhikers aren't serial killers. SOME are. I have no easy, foolproof method of telling which ones. I therefore don't pick up hitchhikers.

    Likewise, most cops aren't violent, racist psychopaths. SOME are. I have no easy, foolproof method of telling which ones. I therefore don't interact with the police more than absolutely necessary.

    Experience tells me not to trust the police because I have precious little to gain from it and an infinity of possible risks. Cops don't like that. I don't care.

  4. #1103
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Ok, it's not ALL cops. So which ones IS it?

    Likewise, most cops aren't violent, racist psychopaths. SOME are. I have no easy, foolproof method of telling which ones. I therefore don't interact with the police more than absolutely necessary.

    Experience tells me not to trust the police because I have precious little to gain from it and an infinity of possible risks. Cops don't like that. I don't care.
    This single group of quotes boils down ths whole thread, there's a "Glass Half Full" semi-optimism about police from "pro-informers" and a "Glass Half Empty" semi-pessimism from the "anti-informers" about police. Both sides are fairly absoloute, either always inform because it's their business to know, or never inform unless required to do so because it's none of their business to know. In my opinion, some of the flaming in the thread comes down to folks thinking the other side is "wrong" rather than just simply disagreeing with them. There IS a distinction to be made there. Food for thought, I guess.

    Those quotes above could be easily flipped over to:

    "Ok, it's not ALL cops. So which ones IS it?

    Likewise, most cops aren't violent, racist psychopaths. SOME are. I have no easy, foolproof method of telling which ones. I therefore interact with the police in as friendly and open a manner as possible.

    Experience tells me to trust the police because I have precious little to gain from not trusting them and an infinity of possible risks from being defensive or closed to them. Cops like that. And I'm ok with that."

    Bleh, reading that made me squirm a bit. Trust me, I'm not saying I have rose colored glasses and think people in general are great until proven otherwise. I think most people want to be able to trust other people until someone proves they can't be trusted. Yes, a cop violating my trust in him/her is going to be a lot more damaging to me than me violating a cop's trust, especially if both of us are carrying lethal weapons. I get that. It's just never happened to me.

    SOOOO

    How about this question, is there a middle ground or "situational" "yes, you should inform" or "no, you shouldn't inform"....sometimes....depending on the situation? I'm probably not articulating that well, and I'm not sure I can think of a real world scenario similar to the original one presented way back when this thread started that could meet BOTH side's viewpoints, but just tossing out some tinder to spark up some conversation.

    Good stuff, I love how active and passionate the folks in this forum are about this topic.

  5. #1104
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Cord View Post
    Those quotes above could be easily flipped over to:

    "Ok, it's not ALL cops. So which ones IS it?

    Likewise, most cops aren't violent, racist psychopaths. SOME are. I have no easy, foolproof method of telling which ones. I therefore interact with the police in as friendly and open a manner as possible.
    A rational person would weigh the potential costs and benefits.

    1. How much good could come to me from trusting a trustworthy cop?
    2. How much harm could come to me from not trusting a trustworthy cop?
    3. How much good could come to me from not trusting an untrustworthy cop?
    4. How much harm could come to me from trusting an untrustworthy cop?

    And all of this is premised on the impossibility of knowing the motivations and character of any strange cop at a glance.

    I'm from Chicago. Trust and optimism are not emotions I associate with interactions with the police.

    A trivial good achieved at the risk of a catastrophic harm isn't even close to justified to me.

    A course of action unlikely to benefit me in any way, while incurring the risk of destroying my life isn't a course of action I'm EVER going to take.

  6. #1105
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Cord:236593
    Using my iPhone to edit this quote and reply, and it's pissing me off a bit, so apologies in advance if the post is all butchered up.
    Does it jump into the quote and erase or replace words when you try to edit your message? Maybe its an android/swype problem...

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Cord View Post
    Likewise, most cops aren't violent, racist psychopaths. SOME are. I have no easy, foolproof method of telling which ones. I therefore interact with the police in as friendly and open a manner as possible.

    Experience tells me to trust the police because I have precious little to gain from not trusting them and an infinity of possible risks from being defensive or closed to them. Cops like that. And I'm ok with that."
    In my opinion, you have it backwards. May I ask what exactly are the infinity of possible risks of exercising your rights? On the other hand, if you do happen to be dealing with the 1% of bad cops, you have everything to lose by consenting to whatever they want. Remember... just because you have nothing to hide is no guarantee they won't find something.

    I would suggest you want this video in it's entirety.



    At 27:20 a police officer comes out and tells you why you should NOT cooperate with police.

    Up to you, though.... but the experts will tell you there is no benefit to you to offer anything the police want.

    Here's an example:

    http://www.bederowlaw.com/Criminal-D...-Charges.shtml

    New York City Weapons Charge Lawyer
    Manhattan Gun Arrest Attorney, Weapons Crime Lawyer

    New York has some of the nation's most rigorous gun possession laws. If you are convicted of possessing a loaded weapon without a New York permit, you will serve a minimum of three and a half years in prison.

    Frequently, people from other states are caught unaware when they travel to New York carrying a weapon, which they are licensed to carry in their home state. They get picked up for speeding or another offense and are cited for not possessing a New York permit.
    New York Gun Permit Laws

    The Law Office of Mark A. Bederow, P.C., regularly represents clients who are charged with possession of a weapon without a permit. Mr. Bederow has received national attention for representing a client in a gun possession case. His client is from Florida, where he lawfully owns and carries a gun. He came to New York to visit his girlfriend. While here, he was stopped for making a right turn on a red light, which is not permitted in New York. The officer who stopped him found the gun and arrested the driver for illegal possession of a weapon without a permit. Prosecutors offered to reduce his prison term to two years. Our law firm is working to have the case dismissed.
    In a case like this, if you consent to everything the officer wants, you have given up one valuable defense that you might have: unlawful search and seizure. If you consent, there can be NO unlawful search and seizure, unless you can prove that your consent was given under duress or coercion, the burden of proof is on you. However, if you refuse to consent, and refuse to have voluntary interactions with police officers, then the burden of proof shifts to the police to prove that they had reasonable and articulable suspicion under which to detain you and to search for weapons. In court, where would you rather the burden of proof to be, on you that you were coerced into consent, or upon the police to prove they had RAS to detain you?

    Remember, it is the prosecuting attorney's job to prosecute and win as many cases as they can, and it is the police officer's job to provide them with "suspects".
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  8. #1107
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    28
    @NavyLCDR
    Watched the video, read the law firm link and I'm scratching my head a little bit so bear with me.

    The original post on this thread was about whether or not you would volunteer you're carrying to an officer that had pulled you over for a real or imagined traffic stop. ALL of the examples cited in the video are examples of people talking themselves into confessions instead of invoking their 5th Amendment Right not to incriminate themselves. BUT, by volunteering that you are LEGALLY carrying a pistol to an officer, what exactly are you incriminating yourself for? I get that you could be inviting yourself for a search by volunteering that you have a weapon, but if I understand grounds for search and probable cause correctly, the officer still has to have your permission or probable cause for a search and volunteering that you are legally in possession of a firearm doesn't seem to me to grant permission for a search nor give probable cause for a search. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know. Open to thoughts on that, but I don't think "confessing" that you're a legal gun carrier implies consent for search or voluntarily gives up any rights. By extension, if I volunteered that I had a firearm and the LEO then asked if he could take a look in my vehicle based off telling him I have a weapon I can say I would not grant that permission during a traffic stop and probably ask for a supervisor if pressed about it.

    The New York story is a whole other ball of wax to me, and seems to be an apples to oranges comparison to the original post on this thread as well. In this thread, the presumption is that carrying is legal. In the New York story, carrying is NOT Legal, and ignorance of that law being different than his home state led to a conviction for violating that law. This gentleman broke the law as soon as he crossed the border but didn't get caught on that one until he broke another lesser law, but he STILL broke the law. Not only did the "responsible" gun owner from Florida fail to check the laws for the state he was traveling to (something any law abiding citizen probably should do for themselves anyway), but seems to feel that since it's legal to own and carry in his home state that he's not responsible for breaking New York's laws. I'm a little fuzzy on that logic. Yes, it's BS that state to state and sometimes county to county and city to city laws are different, but it's our responsibility as citizens to know those laws. If we claim to be law abiding citizens, it takes a little bit of knowledge and personal responsibility to make one's self knowledgeable of those laws to abide by them.

    Absoloutely loved the part in the video where the officer pointed out people are stupid, and just kept reiterating it. I get that admitting a crime no matter how petty is pretty stupid, and something as minor as admitting to only a "little" speeding is still admitting to a criminal act, but volunteering that you're following laws and exercising privileges by possessing a firearm doesn't strike me as opening the door for a foolish criminal admission.

  9. Liberty

    For me the whole thing boils down to liberty. Anyone who voluntarily surrenders their liberty to the government scares me and I will not trust them. They would certainly surrender MY liberties right along with their own I am sure.

    As for LEOs I look at them like sharks or bears or similar wild animals. They most certainly have the potential to do massive harm to me. Sure I have seen videos of people hand-feeding and petting sharks, but using my God-given ability to logically assess risk I choose not to undertake such risky things.

    I sense many on this forum who feel empowered by the fact the government bestowed permission on them to CC, thus they feel like "auxiliary police" or something. Another frightening condition.

    There is NOTHING in life more precious for a U.S. citizen than their constitutional liberties. Don't give them up without a fight.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Cord View Post
    @NavyLCDR
    ALL of the examples cited in the video are examples of people talking themselves into confessions instead of invoking their 5th Amendment Right not to incriminate themselves. BUT, by volunteering that you are LEGALLY carrying a pistol to an officer, what exactly are you incriminating yourself for? I get that you could be inviting yourself for a search by volunteering that you have a weapon, but if I understand grounds for search and probable cause correctly, the officer still has to have your permission or probable cause for a search and volunteering that you are legally in possession of a firearm doesn't seem to me to grant permission for a search nor give probable cause for a search. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know.
    Under the rules of a Terry Stop and established in US Supreme Court cases after Terry, when a cop has reasonable suspicion to detain you (speeding, rolling through a stop sign, whatever they stopped you for) and the officer has reasonable suspicion that you are armed and dangerous, they now have the authority to frisk you for weapons and to search the area of the vehicle from which you can readily obtain a weapon without your consent. There has been only one court that I am aware of (I think it was the Indiana State Supreme Court) that has ever seperated armed from dangerous. No other court has yet to separate the two. So, by you informing the cop of your gun right from the start, you have almost automatically granted them the authority to frisk you and search a portion of your vehicle without your consent.

    Now let's play out two scenarios. 1. You get stopped for speeding, you immediately tell the officer about your gun, he asks you to step out of the vehicle, frisks your person, removes your gun and unloads it (for officer safety, of course), and searches the front part of your vehicle. He finds the knife pictured below in your pocket. Guess what, you are in violation of Seattle Ordinance SMC 12A.14.080 Unlawful Use of Weapons. Now your knife gets confiscated, probably your gun too, and now in addition to speeding you have a citation for use of weapons. Also, take note: when you give your driver's license and CPL to the officer up front - at that point in time they have no way of knowing if either of those documents is valid, suspended or revoked.

    When you go to court, the judge asks the cop, "What suspicion did you have that the suspect was armed and dangerous?" Cop says, "Because he told me he was and I had no way of knowing if the license he handed me was valid or not." You say, "No sir, I told the cop that I was in legal possession of a firearm and showed him my CPL, that doesn't make me dangerous." Judge says, "Son, let me explain something to you. ALL guns present a danger to police officers. That is exactly the reason why he has the authority to take the gun from you during the stop, to ensure his safety." Verdict: guilty.

    2. Now let's say you don't tell the cop about your gun. He takes your driver's license and it is returned that you have a Concealed Pistol License. He comes back and asks you if you have a gun. You answer yes, he frisks you, finds your knife, you go to court. Judge asks the same question. This time the cop says, "I found out when I ran his driver's license, the dispatcher said there were no warrants, but also informed me that he had a CPL. Then I asked and he answered that he did possess a gun." Now what is your defense? "Officer Jones, may I ask when you first had reasonable suspicion the subject was armed and dangerous?" Cop, "When I called in his driver's license and they said he had a CPL." "Really, Officer Jones? Isn't it interesting that after your initial contact with the suspect, you felt no reason to ask them about a gun. You felt no danger to yourself from the suspect, otherwise why would you NOT ask about a gun, and the leave the suspect alone, turning your back on him to return to your patrol car. Officer Jones, does a person with a CPL carry a firearm with them 100% of the time? No. So you had no reason to suspect the subject was armed and dangerous until AFTER you found out that the state had already performed a background check and authorized the suspect to carry a firearm because they had no criminal history." Well, now things are a bit more in your favor, wouldn't you say?



    This knife is illegal to posses in Seattle.
    http://www.overstock.com/Sports-Toys...4/product.html

    This knife is also illegal to posses in Seattle:
    http://www.buckknives.com/index.cfm?...productID=3765

    Remember, just because you don't have anything to hide does not mean that the officer won't find something.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  11. Lucenut,

    I absolutely 100% agree with your post #1108. Very well said!
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

Similar Threads

  1. Commonsense in Concealed Carry, and Gunfights
    By Kaymen in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 12-20-2011, 07:11 AM
  2. Travel to Ohio from MA
    By DickL in forum Ohio Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 04:07 AM
  3. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-03-2010, 11:32 PM
  4. A LEO speaks about citizens & CC
    By Glock Fan in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-17-2009, 12:52 AM
  5. Inside A Concealed Carry Class
    By lukem in forum Ohio Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 11:46 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast