OC confronted by police - Page 3
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74

Thread: OC confronted by police

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    BC1: I am one of those people NavyLT was talking about but we have been around this racetrack before. I believe this individual acted like a horse's rear end when he didn't have to. I have looked up requirements to ID yourself to the police and, contrary to what others have said, EVERY state has penalties for failing to identify yourself to a LEO. From some of the information I have garnered, even the state of Washington can impose a fine of up to $500, up to 30 days in jail and up to 6 months probation for failure to identify. This may or may not apply when carrying. Another item said the offender can refuse to identify himself if he feels he is violating his rights under the 5th Amendment.That would indicate he may be guilty of some other offense and you know where that would lead. In this instance, the police gave the person every opportunity to ID himself and everything would have stopped. He chose not to do that. A person like that can cause others that OC to possibly have a hard time with LEOs. To me, being confrontational is unnecessary but there are those (many) who disagree. Anyway, grab a steel helmet and flak jacket and hunker down. There will be lots of incoming fire!
    How is it that a peacenik, liberal-leaning localgirl always finds herself agreeing with a guy who identifies himself as an old hardcore conservative? It just warms the cockles of my heart.

    NavyLT and BC1 really agree on most everything, you know.

    Here's the dilly-o, as I see it. We live in a country founded on the Constitution, which gives us certain rights, and takes others away.

    Having a police force means that we agree, by dint of a social contract of sorts, to have some of our rights restricted.

    We endow these men with the ability to do things that we would not allow ordinary citizens to do, including taking human life with virtually no repercussions. They are also allowed to violate the bill of rights on a regular basis to varying degrees.

    Now, I guess the question is, are you going to be the person who calls the police into account for their actions? Or are you going to be the person who realizes the system is weighted so that it's nearly impossible to make LEOs accountable?

    For me, it depends on the circumstances. Every cop is a human, and every human reacts differently in any given situation. One day the police are your friends, the next they are not. I always treat the police with respect and I always do as they ask of me, up to the point where they violate my idea of what is tolerable and acceptable to me.

    There is, as they say, a time and a place for everything, be it cooperation or rebellion.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by localgirl View Post
    How is it that a peacenik, liberal-leaning localgirl always finds herself agreeing with a guy who identifies himself as an old hardcore conservative? It just warms the cockles of my heart.

    NavyLT and BC1 really agree on most everything, you know.

    Here's the dilly-o, as I see it. We live in a country founded on the Constitution, which gives us certain rights, and takes others away.

    Having a police force means that we agree, by dint of a social contract of sorts, to have some of our rights restricted.

    We endow these men with the ability to do things that we would not allow ordinary citizens to do, including taking human life with virtually no repercussions. They are also allowed to violate the bill of rights on a regular basis to varying degrees.

    Now, I guess the question is, are you going to be the person who calls the police into account for their actions? Or are you going to be the person who realizes the system is weighted so that it's nearly impossible to make LEOs accountable?

    For me, it depends on the circumstances. Every cop is a human, and every human reacts differently in any given situation. One day the police are your friends, the next they are not. I always treat the police with respect and I always do as they ask of me, up to the point where they violate my idea of what is tolerable and acceptable to me.

    There is, as they say, a time and a place for everything, be it cooperation or rebellion.
    localgirl:

    Very astute. I agree whole-heartedly and I like reading your posts. We aren't really that far apart. At the root Navy and I believe in the same things. I believe our government should stay out of our business. I believe no person should be detained or bothered without cause. But I choose peace first and confrontation later. I often take heat because I choose to cooperate just to avoid the hassle. Sort of like Opey Taylor from Mayberry. And despite having an attorney as a partner at PPA, I really hope I never need one. I guess I've mellowed with age.

    Keep writing. Love your posts. Insightful.
    BC
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  4. Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Who is "we?" What's your record for insulting other posters? Do you keep count? I'm only curious because other posters seem to warn us about you.
    Don't forget about my band of trolls. I am sure you have been warned about them as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Perhaps you can enlighten everyone by explaining a NY attitude. What exactly is a NY attitude? Are you referring to NYC or all 18 million of us in beautiful rural gun-friendly upstate? How is it that a single attitide can apply to nearly 18 million people? I'm waiting for an answer that is hopefully backed up by some facts, a study or other substance. You'll get your message across by being nice, not insulting. BTW, I'm not from NY. It's just where the money is right now. Lighten up Frances, it's only a chat board.
    Sure. It seems like, to me, the overwhelming majority of opinions that the citizen is the servant of the police and should comply with any request that a person with a uniform and badge makes, and the majority of opinions that open carry "is asking for trouble" comes from states that have restrictive firearms laws. New York, from what I have observed, is at the top of that list. Florida is probably second, and then Texas. It seems as if your legislatures' fear and/or disdain at the sight of an American wearing a gun filters down into the populace, even the "pro-gun", "pro-2a" populace. And there is almost always this "justification" for your anti-open carry opinion that the criminal is going to pick out the guy carrying the gun to attack. Which, simply, has not been recorded to happen in reality more than about once every 10 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Frances, I'll leave you to have the last word on the subject. Then call the state attorney general and get his response on this issue.
    Feel free to. Would you like me to introduce you to him? He's the guy in the middle:

    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.

  5. Also, many states protect individual's rights far beyond what the US Constitution does. For example:

    - Google Scholar

    8 Although they protect similar interests, "the protections guaranteed by article I, section 7 of the state constitution are qualitatively different from those provided by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d 20, 26, 60 P.3d 46 (2002). The Fourth Amendment protects only against "unreasonable searches" by the State, leaving individuals subject to any manner of warrantless, but reasonable searches. U.S. Const. amend. IV ("The right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches . . . shall not be violated. . . ."); Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 187, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) ("[W]hat is at issue . . . is not whether the right to be free of searches has been waived, but whether the right to be free of unreasonable searches has been violated.").

    9 By contrast article I, section 7 is unconcerned with the reasonableness of the search, but instead requires a warrant before any search, reasonable or not. Const. art. I, 7 ("No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."). This is because "[u]nlike in the Fourth Amendment, the word `reasonable' does not appear in any form in the text of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution." State v. Morse, 156 Wash.2d 1, 9, 123 P.3d 832 (2005). Understanding this significant difference between the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 is vital to properly analyze the legality of any search in Washington.
    So, to all you folks who claim this universal authority that police have to demand identification..... please keep that in your own states. The State of Washington is not interesting in giving our police such authority.

    10 Article I, section 7's blanket prohibition against warrantless searches is subject to a few well guarded exceptions. "Absent an exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search is impermissible under . . . article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution." Gaines, 154 Wash.2d at 716, 116 P.3d 993 (citing State v. Johnson, 128 Wash.2d 431, 446-47, 909 P.2d 293 (1996)). This constitutional protection is at its apex "where invasion of a person's home is involved." City of Pasco v. Shaw, 161 Wash.2d 450, 459, 166 P.3d 1157 (2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1651, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2008). Exceptions to the warrant requirement are narrowly drawn, and "[t]he State bears a heavy burden in showing that the search falls within one of the exceptions." State v. Jones, 146 Wash.2d 328, 335, 45 P.3d 1062 (2002). Here the State fails to carry this heavy burden to show an exception applies.
    As noted in RCW 7.80.060, when a person is not operating a vehicle, a demand for identification is NOT one of the exceptions to a warrantless search in Washington state, until such point as the officer is ready to issue a citation.

    The Washington Constitution:
    Washington State Constitution

    SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
    A police officer is not granted authority of law, in Washington state, to demand identification until they are going to actually charge or cite an individual for a crime committed.
    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.

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Who is "we?" What's your record for insulting other posters? Do you keep count? I'm only curious because other posters seem to warn us about you. Perhaps you can enlighten everyone by explaining a NY attitude. What exactly is a NY attitude?
    I have not seen NavyLT insult anyone. And I am not sure why anyone would feel the need to warn anyone about NavyLT. I have never received such a warning?

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Don't forget about my band of trolls. I am sure you have been warned about them as well.
    1- NavyLT
    2- G50AE
    3- BigGayAl
    4- Treo
    5- Tucker's Mom
    6- Cathyinblue
    7- localgirl
    8- Swinokur
    9- SC Tiger
    10- Whoever kelcarry is growling at today.
    11- Anyone else who has the stones to stand up for the bill of rights.

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Who is "we?" What's your record for insulting other posters? Do you keep count? I'm only curious because other posters seem to warn us about you. Perhaps you can enlighten everyone by explaining a NY attitude. What exactly is a NY attitude? Are you referring to NYC or all 18 million of us in beautiful rural gun-friendly upstate? How is it that a single attitide can apply to nearly 18 million people? I'm waiting for an answer that is hopefully backed up by some facts, a study or other substance. You'll get your message across by being nice, not insulting. BTW, I'm not from NY. It's just where the money is right now. Lighten up Frances, it's only a chat board.

    Frances, I'll leave you to have the last word on the subject. Then call the state attorney general and get his response on this issue.
    BC1: As you can see, NavyLT is very opinionated and froths at the mouth when someone disagrees with him. As for his "trolls", read their posts and determine for yourself. There is a prevalent "in your face" attitude with them but it is easy to have that attitude while sitting in front of your computer. I can not believe the majority of people in this country are like that. Might they be called "anarchists" or something akin to that? I will have to give the devil his due however. NavyLT does come up with some interesting information at times and I believe it is helpful to all. If you can ever get him on a neutral subject, he is quite informative and knowledgeable in different areas, an otherwise nice chap. Be that as it may, keep your helmet handy.

  9. #28
    Because you are a smart girl with common sense. A hard commodity to find anymore.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    Might they be called "anarchists" or something akin to that?
    Constitutionalist is indeed close kin to anarchist. An anarchist believes that government has no authority. A Constitutionalist believes that government has only the authority granted to it by the people. The tide in America, fueled by politicians and unhindered by a citenship only riding the tide, is moving towards Socialism.
    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. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    The police have the right to ask anyone for ID. If you don't provide it you may be taken into custody to determine if you have any warrants. Refusal to provide an ID is proper grounds regardless of the gun issue. He can be detained for obstruction. This a$$hat has been told six or seven times to produce ID and he can go. My head hurts from shaking it in disbelief.
    Wow,can tell you live in NY! In NH open carrying a firearm is not grounds enough for the police to stop someone. If stopped you do not have to show id,unless they have good cause to stop you(open carry is not that cause!)

    Type in OC in youtube and see people in NH who are stopped for OC alone, they refuse to show it and the police let them go. Because they know they had no legal grounds to stop them.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

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