OC = legal; legal <> RAS; therefore OC <> RAS; ... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : OC = legal; legal <> RAS; therefore OC <> RAS; ...


OlliesRevenge
05-03-2012, 23:31
RussP: I added these first posts, 1-7, to this thread because: I appreciate your thoughts here Sam. I have learned something, and I thank you for that.

It looks like I discovered the rules here at Glock Talk... I'm debating civil rights issues with (mostly) police officers, in a forum controlled by...police officers. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when half my debate vanishes.

It's been 26 years since my father drew his last breath, but I can hear him chuckling about this one as clear as if he was sitting across the table from me... he didn't raise a fool.

Good night gentlemen.*******************************************

I'm a career firefighter for a Big "West Coast 7" City up here in the NorthWest, and I work in the south "culturally diverse" side of that city... so I get to see you guys and gals in blue on alot of the same runs (I've pulled many taser darts out of your "customers"). I have seen the kind of people you have to deal with... Basically I "get it", just judging from the photo, I'm not inviting Christopher Proescher to my back yard BBQ either.

What I don't get is why these OC confrontations always wind up in a @!$$!#& contest to get the OCer to show ID.

I don't personally OC, but I have several friends who do (one of whom has actually had one of these "Papers Please" encounters). With minor variations, it's always the same story -



· Nervous Nellie citizen calls 911 to report OC'er



· Cop shows up, knows OC is perfectly legal but wants to see ID - "To ensure the scene is safe" (like that will prove anything).



· OC'er just happens to be a Ron Paul libertarian who knows his rights (go figure!). He says something like : "Given the fact that I'm not driving, and am not required to carry my Drivers License when I'm a pedestrian, what kind of ID would you like to see officer?"



· Situation either escalates into an arrest for some creative infraction ('cause the initial reason for contact - OC, is legal) OR either OC'er or cop capitulates.

The basic point is that the OC'er isn't breaking the law, so I'll just ask; "Why the need to ID?...What will it prove?" I don't want to get into a big discussion about social psychology and the need to establish Alpha dominance, so I'll circumvent that issue and simply ask - Wouldn't it be pretty easy to articulate the rationale for complete inaction in this case?

You arrive on scene to investigate an OC complaint and witness an adult male carrying an expensive firearm in a quality holster openly on his belt... he's clearly not a "banger", or a 220 nutjob. He's just "That Guy", the passionate gun enthusiast making his statement (one I know drives a minivan... sheesh). If we input the details of this scenario into the critical thinking - Street Smart section of our grey matter, the output would clearly be..... 'This Person Is Not a Threat'... and as an added bonus they weren't even breaking the law in the 1st place! They could win the prize of NOT even being contacted by Law Enforcement today!

Feel free to stop by the station and use the restroom, just don't raid the fridge!

My .02

OlliesRevenge
05-05-2012, 23:45
Very simple, the cop is now responsible for this guys actions. If they fail to check him out and he walks across the street to McDonald's and shoots half a dozen customers it will become the Police Officers fault.

I've heard this argument, and I don't buy it. The responding officers arrive, do not observe any unlawful behavior, thus no need to demand ID. If they want to cover themselves, they can document their actions and whatever conversation takes place (that's what documentation is for - I do it all the time). I propose that ID'ing someone has little to no utility in determining if they are planning a one man 'active shooter' event, it is simply a "compliance test" - I could name off a laundry list of shooters that had no record that would have gotten them arrested prior to their event had LE had the chance to make contact before the shooting (Loughner & the Army officer are recent examples...).

This is a great thread, alot of good legal debate, but let's not forget to try to put the pieces together of how it goes down on the street. I know how the conversation goes, cause I have witnessed stuff like this...

Security Guard: "This guy's unreal, I approach and ask him why in the name of Tebow he's carrying a gun in the park... and he goes cow$#!* on me, telling me I'm just a rent-a -cop, etc"
Cop: "That's rough man, well go have a chat with this jack hole and see if he wants to talk himself into going to jail... Sir can I see some ID..."

... and he's off to the races, doing the most he can get away with, rather than the minimum necessary to get the job done.

For the record - I'm not arguing that no contact should be made. I'm arguing that ID should not be part of the equation in cases like this, cause it makes no sense.

There is a big wrinkle in the law with the ID'ing of a pedestrian. There is a reason "ID" is requested of a pedestrian as opposed to "drivers license". DL makes no sense here, but that is what the cop wants to see, and that is what most people will reflexively produce. In my state (outside of a traffic stop) you must only "identify yourself" during a detainment, but during an arrest cops may use force to procure a physical ID. During the detainment you can simply state your name and you've complied with the law (unfortunately opinions and understanding vary widely from cop to cop on this - I know 'cause I have talked to alot of you guys around the beanery table). That's why the arrest in these cases is never for "failure to show ID"... it's always some tangential result of creative thinking.

I propose that a Police Officer who does "creative thinking" to come up with a reason for arrest simply because someone takes a stand for their rights on the ID issue is just as belligerent (arguably more so) as the person being arrested.

I do not have any sympathy for a person who makes what should have been a nothing and ends up forcing po po to arrest him so that he can file a suit. This type of person is nothing but a thief.

Same level as the fall down artist...

I don't know Georgia law, but I don't think LE is required to arrest in a case like this. The word "forced" simply isn't applicable here. And I guarantee this guy isn't motivated by money... absolutely guarantee it! Think about it! If anything this guy tunes into Alex Jones...

From one humble civil servant to another, I think the "Papers Please" protocol is nothing but a liability and a PR bomb for the city.

Bottom line: what is it about encountering an armed man that should seem unusual or alarming, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Regards,

OR

OlliesRevenge
05-06-2012, 11:07
However please be aware that there is a substntial group of people out there who regularly refuse to identify themselves to us... That group is of course regular criminals. ...sometimes when people act almost just like members of a group they get confused with being a member of that group.
I hear you. I have no LE experience (I just get to see LEO's do their thing alot), but logic tells me that criminal's won't want the attention that OC'ing would bring. I'd be surprised if any LEO reading this could relate a story of an OC'er who also had a warrant, etc.

It all boils down to street sense & threat recognition doesn't it? Clothing, hygiene, body language, how they articulate themselves in conversation; it all paints a picture. Every experienced LEO reading this knows what I am talking about. Through experience, observation, and intuition, you can tell the difference between a "scroat" and an activist libertarian OC'er within seconds of meeting them. The same way I can differentiate between a "sick" & "not-sick" patient on an aid call as soon as I'm through the door. And let's be honest, any LEO who cannot do this should probably find a different line of work.

And at where you are are there really alot of people who are openly carrying a gun or is it a bit unusual, in a statistical sense? I concede it is unusual, albeit perfectly legal.

Take care Bruce

OlliesRevenge
05-06-2012, 18:55
Here are two people who may have blurred the line between "scroat" and activist libertarian open carrier:Touche' Bruce.

My experience with OC'ers has been influenced by those I know personally; Well dressed professional people who just happen to be dedicated 2A advocates. I have no idea how well my personal impression of OC'ers reflects what is happening, on average, nationally. I hope these two examples do not represent the norm.

I'm gonna head back to General Glocking and just break out the popcorn for this thread... thanks for the replies.

OlliesRevenge
05-07-2012, 12:06
I have never...NEVER,,,seen a "well dressed professional" who was either an OC activist or OCIng for any reason.

I find your claim very hard to believe.

The most recent OCers I have seen - in about 2010 there was a biker at the parts counter...

Well, I tried to bow out of the discussion, in part 'cause I'm starting to notice posts go missing that I didn't think were inflammatory, and thus something is happening at the Mod level that I don't understand. But I felt compelled to come back since my honesty has been questioned.

I'm not sure why my statement would be hard to believe. I'm a firefighter, competition shooter, CCW'er, father, and a fairly well groomed square lookin' dude. It stands to reason that I associate with similar folks...

My experience with OC'ers has been influenced by those I know personally
... in fact, one of the OC'ers that I know is doing well in the entrance process for a major county sherriff's office up NW where I live. This young man is educated, well dressed, articulate, and is the epitome of a "good ambassador" for the OC cause.

May I suggest that your opinion is tainted by the fact that, as someone who litigates these kinds of cases, you have been exposed mostly to the 'lowest common denominator'?


We all have indivduals within our respective groups that we wish were not representing us. Up here in the NW, if I run across "bikers" they are more likely to be Microsoft employees playing bad boy dress up than actual "scroat's" or true 1%'ers. And let's be honest, we know plenty of Cops and FF'ers who like to play the same dress up game on their day off.

As far as blurring the line between "scroat" and activist libertarian OC'er - I can come up with many more examples that blur (or worse) the line within any group. I know of a firefighter currently incarcerated for child pornography, and I could come up with bad LE examples all day long.

Here's one- Ohio Cop threatens to execute concealed carrier. (http://www.ohioccw.org/201107214955/cantonpd.html)

I can think of five more New Orleans PD guys currently in jail for gunning down an unarmed family on the Danziger Bridge...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings)

OlliesRevenge
05-09-2012, 23:50
The reason a Cop wants ID is to run you for outstanding warrants.

Uh... yeah, I'm aware of that.

This debate just got flogged in over 300 posts to date. Knowledgeable people on both sides made some very lucid arguments... and you felt the need to add this? Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but based solely on what you wrote here I cannot even tell which side you are on.

OlliesRevenge
05-10-2012, 00:15
I fully agree. ...It makes sense to check people for warrants even if it is intrusive.

ID checks and searches in the absense of RAS? It doesn't make sense in this country. I'll take freedom over safety... safety is just an illusion anyway.

OlliesRevenge
05-10-2012, 12:07
RussP: I moved these posts to their own thread from the "Man files suit over (OC) arrest in Gwinnett park" thread since the OP wants a general discussion not specifically related to the Gwinnett park incident.
*******************************************

I suppose there is nothing wrong with participating in a debate like this w/ academic interest only. From the standpoint of the guy in jail however, it certainly is more practical to think in terms of those who support your arrest, and those who do not.

I think the difference has to quantified further than that though, and can be expressed in 'math like' terms. My thought process is as follows:

OC = legal
legal <> RAS
therefore OC <> RAS
RAS is necessary for a Terry stop, therefore:
OC <> Terry stop

The primary divide, as I see it, between those who support the arrest and those who do not, rests within step 2. Can legal activity equal RAS? IMO, the answer is a firm "No". RAS is required to be more than a "hunch". It must be a combination of articulable facts. I personally don't buy the "totality of the circumstances" (TOS) argument, because if you distill that argument down, TOS essentially winds up needing to be based on articulable facts... so then we are in the loop of circular reasoning.

I only know the basics. I don't have the experience with "Shepardizing" case law like some of more knowledge members here have, I simply operate under the philosophical notion that; "The law should serve the people, the people should not serve the law"



"The law is a convenience created to let man live in a reasonable society. To venerate it simply because it exists is nonsense" ~ Jeff Cooper

RussP
05-10-2012, 12:12
I suppose there is nothing wrong with participating in a debate like this w/ academic interest only. From the standpoint of the guy in jail however, it certainly is more practical to think in terms of those who support your arrest, and those who do not.

I think the difference has to quantified further than that though, and can be expressed in 'math like' terms. My thought process is as follows:

OC = legal
legal <> RAS
therefore OC <> RAS
RAS is necessary for a Terry stop, therefore:
OC <> Terry stop

The primary divide, as I see it, between those who support the arrest and those who do not, rests within step 2. Can legal activity equal RAS? IMO, the answer is a firm "No". RAS is required to be more than a "hunch". It must be a combination of articulable facts. I personally don't buy the "totality of the circumstances" (TOS) argument, because if you distill that argument down, TOS essentially winds up needing to be based on articulable facts... so then we are in the loop of circular reasoning.

I only know the basics. I don't have the experience with "Shepardizing" case law like some of more knowledge members here have, I simply operate under the philosophical notion that; "The law should serve the people, the people should not serve the law"



"The law is a convenience created to let man live in a reasonable society. To venerate it simply because it exists is nonsense" ~ Jeff CooperI'm curious, what does that have to do with an arrest for trespassing?

In any information that's been released, where does it say the RAS by the police for the arrest was OC?

The open carry was noted by the security guard in the 911 call.

OlliesRevenge
05-10-2012, 12:46
I'm curious, what does that have to do with an arrest for trespassing?

In any information that's been released, where does it say the RAS by the police for the arrest was OC?

The open carry was noted by the security guard in the 911 call.

I only read the Gwinnett Park information once, because I am more interested in the general scope of this debate rather than the specifics of this case.

That said, In my understanding, OC'er was in the process of walking out of the park when contacted by LE. OC'er asked; "Am I being detained?"... and in the absence of RAS, the answer should have been; "No, you are free to go" - End of Story

The arrest for CT occurred 50 + min into the Terry stop IIRC.

This has all been fleshed out in this thread.

For the record, I am not "anti-cop". I get along well with the cop's that work in my district. I do understand the desire to get scrappy with regard to protecting civil rights though, & if more people did this I think it would make our country a better place, and our cops better civil servants.

Sam Spade
05-10-2012, 13:00
That said, In my understanding, OC'er was in the process of walking out of the park when contacted by LE. OC'er asked; "Am I being detained?"... and in the absence of RAS, the answer should have been; "No, you are free to go" - End of Story


You forget the call that got them there in the first place.

"Yes, you're being detained while I sort out this 911 call about you."

Sam Spade
05-10-2012, 19:27
Can legal activity equal RAS? IMO, the answer is a firm "No". RAS is required to be more than a "hunch". It must be a combination of articulable facts.

Next, let me address this. Your latter statement is correct, but your view on legal activity being "off limits" in developing RAS is totally wrong. In fact, RAS is *exactly* a legal or series of legal acts that leads an officer to believe that crime is afoot. If he could articulate illegal acts, it wouldn't be RS, it would be probable cause---he's actually just witnessed a crime.

Two examples, mine and someone else's :whistling:

So there I am at 0-dark-hundred, patrolling an otherwise vacant street. I see some guy looking up and down the street near a jewelry store. He's wearing socks on his hands. Not a thing that I described is in any way illegal, yet I stopped and detained him for investigation. And I was right.

The other example: officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a store for a potential robbery. The officer decided to approach the men for questioning, and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

Again, nothing illegal about window shopping, or talking to your friends, or walking up and down the same street. Yet Mr. Terry (if you didn't recognize the story) was rightfully stopped, and the evidence collected was used to convict him---but he was never charged with attempted robbery.

OlliesRevenge
05-10-2012, 22:14
I appreciate your thoughts here Sam. I have learned something, and I thank you for that.

It looks like I discovered the rules here at Glock Talk... I'm debating civil rights issues with (mostly) police officers, in a forum controlled by...police officers. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when half my debate vanishes.

It's been 26 years since my father drew his last breath, but I can hear him chuckling about this one as clear as if he was sitting across the table from me... he didn't raise a fool.

Good night gentlemen.

TBO
05-10-2012, 22:57
You've been given your very own thread (in order not to sidetrack the original thread/topic).

RussP
05-11-2012, 06:22
I appreciate your thoughts here Sam. I have learned something, and I thank you for that.

It looks like I discovered the rules here at Glock Talk... I'm debating civil rights issues with (mostly) police officers, in a forum controlled by...police officers. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when half my debate vanishes.

It's been 26 years since my father drew his last breath, but I can hear him chuckling about this one as clear as if he was sitting across the table from me... he didn't raise a fool.

Good night gentlemen.Actually, sir, it did not vanish. Let me explain to you and others new to GT and Carry Issues.

The parts directly relevant to the original thread remained there.

However, when you stated you wanted a broader discussion, a more general discussion...I only read the Gwinnett Park information once, because I am more interested in the general scope of this debate rather than the specifics of this case....so as not to derail "Man files suit over (OC) arrest in Gwinnett park", as TBO advised you, you were given your own thread, your own venue to continue that discussion.

Now, since you felt there exists some conspiracy against you because only a portion of your posts were brought into the new thread, voilà - they are all here now.

Now, you've stated above, "I'm debating civil rights issues with (mostly) police officers, in a forum controlled by...police officers." Well, no police officers control any public forum here on GT. That is done solely by Eric and his staff.

And civil rights discussions really belong in Civil Liberties Issues Forum. However, since your formula for the discussion is,
OC = legal
legal <> RAS
therefore OC <> RAS
RAS is necessary for a Terry stop, therefore:
OC <> Terry stopabout OC, it will stay here in Carry Issues.

This will give an opportunity to both LE and non-LE members to contribute.

stillbill
05-12-2012, 09:11
If a LEO would like the name of a person, why not introduce their self to this person.

Officer "Hi, I am officer <name>", then wait for a reply.
Could get a response of "Hi, I am Mr. <name>"

The biggest thing is the approach. Be polite and professional.

On the other side, if a LEO approaches and demands ID. How will they respond to "Give me our name, and I'll give you mine."?

Drain You
05-12-2012, 10:05
I was told there would be no math.

Misty02
05-12-2012, 11:04
I’ve enjoyed reading through this thread and your comments, OlliesRevenge. I find the topic of discussion interesting and often read through the OC threads.

Learning a thing or two from Sam will become the norm, rather than the exception. Give it time and you’ll see. :)


.

Misty02
05-12-2012, 11:05
I was told there would be no math.

:rofl:I read over that part quickly too, just in case.

.

DScottHewitt
05-12-2012, 11:17
I got lost just trying to figure out the danged thread title.....

MKEgal
05-12-2012, 14:41
There are people employed as LEO who respect the Constitution & the rights of citizens, yet manage to sort out & arrest the BGs.

Absent RAS of a crime which would make him a prohibited person - you recognize the guy from a "most wanted" poster, or you remember testifying at his trials for DV umpteen times - there's no reason to demand/force (or even request) ID or name from someone simply because they're going to church... er, um, wearing an "I voted" sticker... er, um, carrying a firearm.

If you're concerned about protecting the public, how about running a check on everyone with kids, just to make sure they're not a kidnapper, or maybe a sex offender who's prohibited from having contact with minors?

I open carry in some situations because it works better for those situations for me at this time.
...People OC for a variety of reasons. For some people, it is their only option for carrying. For some people, they do so because it is a better option for their particular situation. And yes... others OC simply because they want to.
This!

If you can't see the responsibility that acting like a wounded gazelle at a watering hole carries, I've got to conclude that you're as situationally unaware as the centerpiece of the story.
Exaggerate much?
Actually, I'd say that OC is more like the water buffalo that lower their horns & paw the ground when a lion approaches.
And the object of the news piece could simply have been walking on the sidewalk on his way to class or work, just like everyone else. You can't be hyperaware all the time, & jumping at everyone who comes within 10' will get you a stay in the looney bin. We don't even know if he was hit from behind... which has happened to LEO too. Terribly unaware of them, no?

Cops learn situational awareness from being in dangerous places a lot. You are not going to learn that open carrying at Wal-Mart and malls.
Because those are safe places with few people around, all the people are sane & sober & no crime ever happens there, right?
People can use those less-dangerous environments to learn to pay attention to what's happening around them.
I wouldn't want to start off driving the Indy 500 the day after I turned 16! Greatly perferred learning slowly, on increasingly busy roads, until today I'm OK going through Chicago (though I prefer not to if I can avoid it!).

They think that open carry will scare the bejesus out of any criminal who sees them, and that thugs will wet their pants, rather than try and rob a person with a gun showing, and this will supercede any need for alertness or SA.
Not supercede, no. In fact, someone who comes after an OCer is more dangerous than someone who picks a victim who's hiding their SD tool, because he's gone for a target he knows can & will fight back. So if someone is harassing or threatening an OCer, the situation is a lot more serious.

OC (or, rather, the threat to their well-being which OC shows is present) will keep away the less determined criminals, as seen in the Kennesaw incident as well as a multitude of other informally-reported events (see the OCDO thread about "true tales of SD (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?136-True-Tales-of-Self-Defense)" & "why OC (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?83-Why-Open-Carry)").
Most criminals aren't stupid or psychopathic enough to choose a "hardened target" - they want to get things easily & without harm to themselves.
If the choice of victim is between me with my G17 or G22 OC on my hip or the woman about my age & build heading for the car next to mine who isn't visibly armed, the criminal with 2 brain cells to rub together will probably choose her. If he's a true psychopath, or on drugs, he'll probably pick whoever is closer.

On the other hand, I run into plenty of people, who whether armed or not, I know would be trouble.
So you use your awareness & brain to figure out who is likely to be able & willing to harm you or others.
That same ability should let you figure out that someone carrying openly is unlikely to be a problem - even the FBI (http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/08/violent-encounters.html) says that criminals don't call attention to themselves by carrying openly, & rarely use holsters.
Being a professional means keeping up on research & developments in your area of expertise. That FBI study was published in 2006. That's plenty long ago enough that officers across the country should be aware of what it says in re OC.

In fact, see pg. 3 in Ch. 4 here (http://www.calgunlaws.com/Docs/CGL%20NEWS/Chapter_Four_of%20_Violent_Encounters_%20FBI_Report.PDF)... on the right-hand side, under "firearm concealment & storage":
"None of the offenders regularly carried their handguns in a holster."
Because if they were caught at something that would be strong evidence in favor of the idea that they'd had a gun.

If you have not been trained in weapon retention tactics, it is my OPINION that you have no right to endanger those around you by providing an opportunity for an accessible weapon to any would be assailant.
Unless you use a Club on your steering wheel every time you're out of the car, you have no right to endanger those around you by providing an opportunity for an accessable speeding bludgeon to any would-be thief.

I wish CC was a nation wide option and that OC was only available to law enforcement or military in uniform.
I'll agree with you on the first part.
In fact, I'd like to see the Constitution honored everywhere in the USA.
As for the last part of your statement, why?
What makes those people so much better or more responsible than everyone else?
They've had training, we've had training. Some regular everyday citizens actually used to be employed as LEO or in the military.
And even with their training, people employed as LEO or in the military still do stupid things & have NDs. So do regular everyday citizens.
In fact, according to several people I know who are trainers of various sorts, having worked with regular everyday citizens as well as people employed as LEO, the everyday folks are safer with firearms!
If you've ever taken the UT cc permit course, you know that they're like the NRA - no live ammo in the classroom. Do you know why they changed their policy? NDs by people employed as LEO. Every single one that happened in a class was by a LEO.

Sam Spade
05-12-2012, 15:23
Ever read about the NYPD decoy squad? Remarkably successful in prompting attacks against themselve on the streets and subways. Their MO was an obvious display of valuables combined with equally obvious lack of awareness. This guy was doing exactly the same thing, only instead of gold chains and a flash roll, he had his pistol.

If you can't see the responsibility that acting like a wounded gazelle at a watering hole carries, I've got to conclude that you're as situationally unaware as the centerpiece of the story.


Exaggerate much?
Actually, I'd say that OC is more like the water buffalo that lower their horns & paw the ground when a lion approaches.
And the object of the news piece could simply have been walking on the sidewalk on his way to class or work, just like everyone else. You can't be hyperaware all the time, & jumping at everyone who comes within 10' will get you a stay in the looney bin. We don't even know if he was hit from behind... which has happened to LEO too. Terribly unaware of them, no?

Not really, especially when you quote my whole post. I'm curious, though, as to what relevance you see in a post about attractive victims to a thread about cops developing reasonable suspicion to stop someone.

DaneA
05-14-2012, 07:16
I still don't understand why people that BEG for attention (aka OC) get so upset when they get the attention that they apparently so desperately ask for? And then what is the big deal about providing ID? Are you hiding something? The videos I've seen from these attention whores could have ended much quicker if ID was produced. Why make a 30 second stop into a 10 minute issue possibly ending it a court date and money spent on defense.
Just produce an ID and spend your money on ammo.

Just for the math geeks here:
OC=Unnecessary Attention
Unnecessary Attention=911 call
911 call=Police investigation of said call
SO
OC = Police Investigation

Anyway, I'm all for carrying any way that is legal. But don't get upset with the results of your actions.

jhoagland
05-14-2012, 15:51
It's a tough thing but those who do open carry are doing us a service. Could it be done better? Yes. Nonetheless, drawing attention to the subject and getting the word spread around hopefully will get things to the notion that Herr Glock opined on before that open carry should be so prevalent that it is a non issue.
I paraphrased from memory.

I think it would be cool if so many folks were packing a gun in plain sight that no one even noticed it any more.

How will that happen?? By folks OC'ing now and getting questioned by the police.

DaneA
05-14-2012, 17:43
How will that happen?? By folks OC'ing now and getting questioned by the police.

I agree but don't be an ass when you are stopped and asked for ID. Just provide it and go on about your business.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

OlliesRevenge
05-14-2012, 19:29
... but your view on legal activity being "off limits" in developing RAS is totally wrong. In fact, RAS is *exactly* a legal or series of legal acts that leads an officer to believe that crime is afoot. If he could articulate illegal acts, it wouldn't be RS, it would be probable cause---he's actually just witnessed a crime.

Two examples...

Sam,

Thanks again for taking the time to share. I understand what you said here, and I understand your examples.

I have a question:

Am I correct to believe that Open Carry (or any other legal activity) does not constitute RAS in and of itself? In other words, wouldn't some other "hinky" activity need to be combined with OC in order to articulate suspicion of a crime?

I understand that the Gwinnett Park case was special. The security guard was feeling disrespected, and the Criminal Trespass charge was wheeled out even though it was a public park because the OC'er "failed the attitude test". So the arriving officers had that to "sort out", thus the reason for detainment.

But lets imagine the same situation minus the security guard. Police officers happen to be in the vicinity (ie. no 911 call), and by chance happen to witness man wearing gun openly while exercising in park. RAS? Or no RAS?

RussP
05-15-2012, 21:37
Bumping this to the top for more input from others and, maybe, the OP, OlliesRevenge.

DScottHewitt
05-16-2012, 13:33
I agree but don't be an ass when you are stopped and asked for ID. Just provide it and go on about your business.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

But that is absolutely no fun. Compared to acting an ass, and getting online to brag about acting an ass.....

jhoagland
05-16-2012, 17:44
I agree but don't be an ass when you are stopped and asked for ID. Just provide it and go on about your business.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I hear ya. However, if the law states you do not need to show a drivers license or ID, why should that escalate into something more? That is the crux of this thread isn't it?

boyscout399
05-17-2012, 01:34
Am I correct to believe that Open Carry (or any other legal activity) does not constitute RAS in and of itself? In other words, wouldn't some other "hinky" activity need to be combined with OC in order to articulate suspicion of a crime?



I would also like more insight on this from a more experienced person. My understanding is similar to Ollies. In Sams jewelry store example he noted several things. (The time of night, street is vacant, man is looking around, man is wearing socks on hands.) There are several things added together that give suspicion of a crime.

In many OC incidents (mine included) it seems that the ONLY thing the officer has is the legally carried firearm. There's no "late at night" or "casing a drug store" or "socks on his hands." It seems that it's usually mid day, polite and friendly man, proper holster, proper firearm, etc. All indications of a responsible citizen. Not indications of criminal activity.

Cases like Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v Nevada both involve an officer with a reasonable suspicion of crime. Cases like Delaware v Prouse, or Kolender v Lawson all have no suspicion of crime and are usually decided in the favor of the citizen. In another case, DeBerry v US, the federal judge stated that by itself, the presence of a firearm where it is legal to have it, does not constitute RAS.

I would support an officer that stopped an OCer if they had a reasonable suspicion of crime other than just the gun. If the officer said "He was carrying a gun, and wearing gang colors, and heading toward rival gang territory" I think a stop would certainly be appropriate. Similarly, "He was wearing a gun, and it was 2AM and he had socks on his hands" would constitute RAS of a crime.

TBO
05-17-2012, 08:34
A point:

What I've seen many times in discussions about a Permit Holder being disarmed by LE is application of the logical fallacy: "Begging the question".

One often seen indicator is the statement that the person was "doing nothing wrong".

That is setting the table for only one possible outcome.

As Sam's example showed, totality of circumstances (which does involved the Officer's training and experience) is what the measuring stick is.

Anyway, just adding an observation that may or may not contribute.

TBO

Misty02
05-17-2012, 08:46
During a majority of traffic stops it is highly likely we would have done something wrong. At that point we wouldn’t exactly be law abiding angels that have broken no laws. Something we should keep in mind as well.

.

boyscout399
05-17-2012, 11:39
During a majority of traffic stops it is highly likely we would have done something wrong. At that point we wouldn’t exactly be law abiding angels that have broken no laws. Something we should keep in mind as well.

.

These open carry confrontations usually are not a result of a traffic stop. They are usually a pedestrian who the officer does NOT observe breaking the law. In Delaware v Prouse the Supreme court said that in order to initiate a traffic stop the officer needs RAS of a traffic violation or other crime. The same logically should apply to a pedestrian.

boyscout399
05-17-2012, 11:43
As Sam's example showed, totality of circumstances (which does involved the Officer's training and experience) is what the measuring stick is.
TBO


Am I reading you right then that an officer should take in the totality of the circumstances when choosing to engage or detain an OCer? I would agree with this. If the OCer in the totality of the circumstances is a clean cut guy carrying in broad daylight acting friendly with a quality firearm in a quality retention holster I think the totality of the circumstances doesn't warrant a stop. However if the OCer is carrying a glock stuffed in their waistband at 2AM in gang colors the totality of the circumstances would give suspicion of crime.

TBO
05-17-2012, 11:52
Am I reading you right then that an officer should take in the totality of the circumstances when choosing to engage or detain an OCer? I would agree with this. If the OCer in the totality of the circumstances is a clean cut guy carrying in broad daylight acting friendly with a quality firearm in a quality retention holster I think the totality of the circumstances doesn't warrant a stop. However if the OCer is carrying a glock stuffed in their waistband at 2AM in gang colors the totality of the circumstances would give suspicion of crime.
Also, keep in mind the Reasonableness Standard isn't defined by the OCer who is contacted.

In that person's mind screaming "F YOU" at every passing car might be, in their mind, a reasonable greeting and doing nothing wrong, but not to the average person.

(And, ultimately, it may not be in the mind of the LE, if so decided by court review).

Misty02
05-17-2012, 11:56
These open carry confrontations usually are not a result of a traffic stop. They are usually a pedestrian who the officer does NOT observe breaking the law. In Delaware v Prouse the Supreme court said that in order to initiate a traffic stop the officer needs RAS of a traffic violation or other crime. The same logically should apply to a pedestrian.

My apologies, boyscout399. I had two different threads mixed in my head. :embarassed:

.

boyscout399
05-17-2012, 12:37
Also, keep in mind the Reasonableness Standard isn't defined by the OCer who is contacted.

In that person's mind screaming "F YOU" at every passing car might be, in their mind, a reasonable greeting and doing nothing wrong, but not to the average person.

(And, ultimately, it may not be in the mind of the LE, if so decided by court review).


My understanding of the reasonableness standard is "would a reasonable officer, given the same information, have a suspicion of criminal activity." I understand that it's not decided by the OCer, but basically by a fictitious "reasonable person"

My thought on that is, would a "reasonable officer", seeing a generally friendly, clean cut man, in middle of the day, carrying a quality firearm in a retention holster suspect that person of crime? My thought is that given the totality of those circumstances that a reasonable officer would not suspect crime, but would suspect a Libertarian OCer.

Have you read US v DeBerry? The case involves a man carrying a concealed weapon in Illinois where it is illegal to do so. The decision mentions that an anonymous tip (MWAG 911 call) is not RAS. The concurring opinion also states that the case would have come out differently in a state that allows the carrying of weapons. Here's the quote:

The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon. The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view. I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons. At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?). This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here. It would mean, in states that permit carrying concealed weapons, that the police no longer need any reason to stop citizens on the street to search them. However, we do not have that situation. Because I therefore consider the Court's comments on lawful concealed weapons to be dicta, I concur in the result reached today.