My thoughts on interaction with LEO in a MWAG call

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; Originally Posted by mlr1m Not sure. Is there a law that requires him to stay there and answer your questions? Yes, its that simple to ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 81
Like Tree64Likes

Thread: My thoughts on interaction with LEO in a MWAG call

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by mlr1m
    Not sure. Is there a law that requires him to stay there and answer your questions? Yes, its that simple to me.

    Michael
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    But should the police respond at all? The caller has given them no idication I have broken any laws.
    How would responding to a call be a problem? The problem is not answering the call. The problem is what you do when you get there. Was an actual crime being committed? If you get there and do not see that a crime was committed or that one is in process its over. No reason to interfere in their life or to detain them.

    EDIT: Why does the Government preform stakeouts if all they have to do is to detain the person and demand that they prove their innocence? If you answer a call and wish to observe a person to see if they are breaking a law fine.

    Michael
    suntzu likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,557
    We are on post 60 something and what it comes down to is the citizen is required to know the law regardless of how many and complex they are as to not break it. The Government official seems to have the luxury of time and resources to figure out if you did something wrong and then arrest youregardless if he knew the law or not at the same time the citizen is expected to know and follow them. Quite a system we have here.
    ericb327, ccw9mm, noway2 and 1 others like this.

  4. #63
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    How would responding to a call be a problem? The problem is not answering the call. The problem is what you do when you get there. Was an actual crime being committed? If you get there and do not see that a crime was committed or that one is in process its over. No reason to interfere in their life or to detain them.

    EDIT: Why does the Government preform stakeouts if all they have to do is to detain the person and demand that they prove their innocence? If you answer a call and wish to observe a person to see if they are breaking a law fine.

    Michael
    Ok so how long should the officer sit and observe me in the van before making contact with me?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #64
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Ok so how long should the officer sit and observe me in the van before making contact with me?
    He can sit there till the cows come home for all I care. He's not hurting anyone. He is not infringing on anyones rights.
    You do know that there is a difference between making contact and a detainment don't you? If a person be it LEO or private citizen comes up to you and asks what you are doing no law has been broken or right has been given up so long as you are able to leave at anytime.

    Michael

  6. #65
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,746
    I understand that perfectly. So please help me understand, at precisely what point does the officer cross from performing his job to harassing a law abiding citizen?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I understand that perfectly. So please help me understand, at precisely what point does the officer cross from performing his job to harassing a law abiding citizen?
    Okay, first off I have no problem with identifying myself to an Officer.
    Now, if an Officer detains me and demands that I do something that I am not legally required to do that is at the very least harassment. If for instance you are not required to give out your ID or to identify yourself and the officer refuses to accept your legal non compliance with his wishes he is harassing you and quite possibly breaking the law.

    The Government is allowed to only do what is allowed them under the law. A private citizen is free to do anything not prohibited under the law. The citizens are allowed freewill where the Government is not.

    Michael
    suntzu and atctimmy like this.

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,746
    OK, I agree with you on that.

    And I think this sort of brings us to one of the issues we have when discussing legal issues on the forum here. What is perfectly legal and proper at point A may be illegal harassment literally inches away.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,557
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    OK, I agree with you on that.

    And I think this sort of brings us to one of the issues we have when discussing legal issues on the forum here. What is perfectly legal and proper at point A may be illegal harassment literally inches away.
    I just do not see many cases where it is a gray area or as you say 'literally inches away'. If an officer approaches you and does not see you breaking a law, and there is no evidence of you breaking a law, then he must not be allowed to detain you. I am referring to MWAG calls. I understand the need for a LEO to respond but quite honestly I do not see why he needs to do anything more than say hello. Asking for ID, seizing the weapon, is all to see IF something is wrong. The fact that a nervous mom called about a man with a gun should not be enough for an officer to do anything more than observe to make sure they guy is not whacked out on drugs or intimidating people with it.

  10. #69
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Ok so how long should the officer sit and observe me in the van before making contact with me?
    Probably until he sees you break a law or until he has a reasonable suspicion that you are about to break a law.
    suntzu likes this.
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and Ió
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.

  11. #70
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,746
    The literally inches part is jurisdictional boundaries. Example, the Maryland/D.C. line. If you are standing in the street on Western Ave. you are in Washington D.C. If you are standing on the curb on the Maryland side you are in Maryland. Neither one is particularly gun friendly but they do have very different laws. It has since been repealed but as an example Friendship Heights Maryland had a ban on smoking in public back in 2000. You were perfectly legal smoking a cigarette as you walked across Western Ave, but were illegal as soon as you stepped onto the sidewalk. Some jurisdictions have laws that require you to identify yourself when asked by an officer, some don't.
    Where you stand legally very much depends on where you are standing physically.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #71
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,075
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    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.

    Hypothetically speaking.....
    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?
    Responding to a MWAG call in the absence of RAS or PC is not unlawful. Merely "responding to a call" is when a cop shows up to see what's up. How the cop handles it, and what he person does, may result in:
    no detainment (voluntary encounter, you are free to go);
    detainment w/o RAS or PC (unlawful);
    detainment w/ RAS or PC (lawful);
    arrest w/o RAS or PC (unlawful); or
    arrest w/PC (lawful).

    There's no cookie cutter approach. Whether or not there is RAS to detain you depends, in part, on what you do when the cop approaches you. If you freak out, make a bunch of furtive gestures and start throwing stuff in the sewer drain while mumbling "oh, god, oh god!" I'm pretty sure the cop might think something is not right and detain you. On the other hand, if you act normal (or even act like a bit of a jerk), but do nothing else, you should be free to go.

    That's why all these MWAG calls focus on what happens after the initial encounter. Cops can show up anywhere to check things out without detaining anyone.

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Probably until he sees you break a law or until he has a reasonable suspicion that you are about to break a law.
    So as a tax payer paying his salary would you be OK with him sitting and watching me for six or seven hours? If we are in a state that does not require me to identify myself, and I refuse to roll down my window, should the officer just leave? Or if as soon as the officer pulls up I start to drive away should the officer let me go and just clear the call?


    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    Responding to a MWAG call in the absence of RAS or PC is not unlawful. Merely "responding to a call" is when a cop shows up to see what's up. How the cop handles it, and what he person does, may result in:
    no detainment (voluntary encounter, you are free to go);
    detainment w/o RAS or PC (unlawful);
    detainment w/ RAS or PC (lawful);
    arrest w/o RAS or PC (unlawful); or
    arrest w/PC (lawful).

    There's no cookie cutter approach. Whether or not there is RAS to detain you depends, in part, on what you do when the cop approaches you. If you freak out, make a bunch of furtive gestures and start throwing stuff in the sewer drain while mumbling "oh, god, oh god!" I'm pretty sure the cop might think something is not right and detain you. On the other hand, if you act normal (or even act like a bit of a jerk), but do nothing else, you should be free to go.

    That's why all these MWAG calls focus on what happens after the initial encounter. Cops can show up anywhere to check things out without detaining anyone.
    Thats right there is no cookie cutter. Part of RAS is the officer's personal experience. So what may be RAS to one officer might not be to another, but would satisfy a judge, but would not satisfy us. And there is also the "A" part of RAS. The exact same facts as presented by one officer to a judge might fail but a more eloquent officer the judge might have no problem with it. So with two identical detentions, one by a rookie officer and one by a veteran officer, one may be legal while the other is not.

    I am not trying to start anything with anybody I am just genuinely curious as to what peoples expectations are for police. The department I worked for had policy changes it seemed every time the wind changed. One week it was educate and inform the callers and refer non police issues to appropriate agencies, the next was send it to the road and have the officer explain it.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  14. #73
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    So as a tax payer paying his salary would you be OK with him sitting and watching me for six or seven hours?
    Whats the difference with that and sitting in his car watching for speeders? More importantly, in my opinion, what the taxpayer thinks an officer should be doing is less important than what the law allows him to do. Should the Government stop everyone of a certain race just because the people in that area want them to? Or, should they act under the restrictions of the law?

    Or if as soon as the officer pulls up I start to drive away should the officer let me go and just clear the call?
    What does the law say about it?
    For me its not about how best to protect an individual person. Its not about how to best catch a criminal in an isolated case. Its not about making life easier for the Government.
    Its about the law. The Government cannot be allowed to break the law to enforce another law.

    Michael

  15. #74
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,075
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So as a tax payer paying his salary would you be OK with him sitting and watching me for six or seven hours?
    If nothing else is going on that requires the officer's attention, there's not a thing you can do about it. Officers can watch us in public. With me they would get bored quick.


    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post

    Thats right there is no cookie cutter. Part of RAS is the officer's personal experience. So what may be RAS to one officer might not be to another, but would satisfy a judge, but would not satisfy us. And there is also the "A" part of RAS. The exact same facts as presented by one officer to a judge might fail but a more eloquent officer the judge might have no problem with it. So with two identical detentions, one by a rookie officer and one by a veteran officer, one may be legal while the other is not.
    It's law enforcement, not a science that is subject to mathematical proofs. Just like some judge once said - You got a right to a fair trial, but not a right to a perfect trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    [B] I am not trying to start anything with anybody I am just genuinely curious as to what peoples expectations are for police. The department I worked for had policy changes it seemed every time the wind changed. One week it was educate and inform the callers and refer non police issues to appropriate agencies, the next was send it to the road and have the officer explain it.
    RAS and PC are usually not policy issues. My expectations are they can decide what to respond to and what not to respond to, depending on the level of crime, calls, etc. I'm not the chief, and I don't know what how far the department resources are stretched, etc. Should they respond, I expect them to act within the confines of the law. Don't detain me/seize property unless they have RAS or PC. They can observe me and ask a few questions, and I'll probably answer some of them.

  16. #75
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So as a tax payer paying his salary would you be OK with him sitting and watching me for six or seven hours? If we are in a state that does not require me to identify myself, and I refuse to roll down my window, should the officer just leave? Or if as soon as the officer pulls up I start to drive away should the officer let me go and just clear the call?
    Your argument is silly and you know it. The officer would observe for 5 minutes to 5 hours depending of his discretion and his feel of the situation. If after 5 minutes he just sees a guy walking down the street acting normally he goes on his way.
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and Ió
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Search tags for this page

cobb county mwag calls

,
how to keep glock 19 from printing under my shirt
,

mwag call

,
mwag sex llmobile
,
powered by mybb appearance
,
powered by mybb drug interactions
,
powered by mybb every day food
,
powered by mybb food sex
,

powered by mybb law

,
powered by mybb legal
,
powered by mybb oklahoma state
,
powered by mybb say no to drugs
Click on a term to search for related topics.