This is a discussion on My thoughts on interaction with LEO in a MWAG call within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; It seems to me that we can make a bit of a distinction here. They may not know the all the laws and can't be ...
It seems to me that we can make a bit of a distinction here. They may not know the all the laws and can't be expected to, but they shouldn't be declaring someone being guilty of a crime when they are ignorant of the law. An example being not knowing that a particular state has non resident reciprocity. They may not know this and not knowing shouldn't give them grounds to say someone who has a valid permit is unlawful.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
It wouldn't take much time to look it up and be knowledgeable before harassing somebody.
Why is OK for a cop to not know laws but you must or face sometimes severe penalties. No thanks on the double standard, I don't like it so doing nothing is not the answer.
What do you envision a cops job duties are? I was under the impression they were to enforce laws, which would seem to me that they should know the laws they are wanting to get paid to enforce.
Folks, this is drifting closer and closer to a "Cop Bashing Thread" which is not tolerated in these here parts of the interworld. Let's get it back on target before I buckle up and bust up the fun.
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
This is not cop bashing or CPA bashing. It's saying professionals have a duty to know the law. Ignorance is never an excuse for a layperson either. However, I don't expect a cop or CPA to know every law, especially the more esoteric laws, but if an arrest is made then they had better be sure of what they are arresting for.
Isn't your example of being detained and not arrested?
Most officers have a book issued with the state laws that they are issued for reference. When filling out a citation of arrest or just the issuing of a citation, it is not uncommon for officers to need to look up the offense to apply the correct law on paper.
There can be so many different elements that change the varying degrees, that it's impossible to know them all. An example may be something as difficult as trespassing. Is it , 1, 2 or 3rd degree?
Early in my rookie days, I responded to resident complaints of someone peeling out and squealing their tires in a parking lot. When I arrived I caught them in the act. But I was unsure of the correct statue. Was it reckless driving? Disturbing the peace? Or a dozen other possible violations?
With the help of a veteran officer, it was " improper start from a parked position".
Just keeping up with laws of your state, and then local ordinances on top of that can be impossible.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
The police scanners Suntzu was refering to can also get tricky. I have a ham license. If we are in a state such as Indiana that prohibits mobile use of scanners excepting folks like me, and we are in your vehicle with an installed scanner, does my presence make your scanner legal? What about if it is a hand held model?
Should the officer just charge you and let the lawyers sort it out, or should we take a few minutes and maybe all part company happier and wiser?
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
Should a person who is not breaking any laws be subject to detainment simply because the Government has no proof of a crime? That the citizen then has to present proof that he is acting within the law? The Government should not have to stop you and ask if you are breaking the law. They should know that before they interfered in your life.
If I am breaking a law arrest or cite me for it. If I am not then leave me alone to enjoy my life. Simple.
We are talking here about a man with a gun call. Ok fine, a man with a gun in and of itself in many states is not a crime. Neither is sitting in a panel van with a camera, pillow cases,condoms, and duct tape at an elementary school playground during recess.
If someone calls the police to report me sitting in that van taking pictures of little kids should the police refuse to respond because there is no evidence I am breaking the law?
If the officer shows up should I be allowed to leave before he determines whether or not I am a registered sex offender? Until he finds out that I am there is no evidence of me breaking any law is there?
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
I'm going back on track with the statement that if I were approached by a LEO about a MWAG call, I'm going to do all I can to make it as easy and painless as possible for both parties involved. You never know when you just might be doing "slightly over" the speed limit and meet the same officer. Mutual courtesy goes a long way.
Why Waltz when you can Rock-N-Roll
Ya know, the day before I moved to Texas I had to put my sheep dog down. Plus the stress of the move. I was grumpy. If a LEO stopped me I would not have bit his head off but I would not have been the most firendliest person on the planet. Plus, I wouldn't kiss up and tell him of my woes....so should I get a ticket instead of a warning?
Yada yada..I know, human nature...don't make it right.
One final thought: Almost everyone here says CANT like it is a motto. But if it can get them out of a ticket they will make sure they let the LEO know they have a weapon on them for "the officer's safety" and to be "courteous and polite". And oh, to get out of a ticket.
"Do not fear those who disagree with you; fear those that do and are too cowardly to admit it" - Napoleon