Why does it have to be OC Vs. Police?

This is a discussion on Why does it have to be OC Vs. Police? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Brad426 Really, you think the police would respond if someone called and said "There is a black man on the sidewalk of ...

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 241
Like Tree381Likes

Thread: Why does it have to be OC Vs. Police?

  1. #136
    Member Array Hamltnblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Springfield PA
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    Really, you think the police would respond if someone called and said "There is a black man on the sidewalk of Main Street" (yeah, I guess it depend on where, huh)? You don't think the dispatcher would ask what he was doing before they dispatched officers? I just strongly feel that officers shouldn't be dispatched to calls about legal activities, regardless of whether or not it makes some people nervous.
    I'm not saying that the person reporting would note the skin color but report a suspicious person.
    The point is that the police cannot specifically profile a person based on things like race, clothing worn etc. I see nothing wrong with officers being dispatched but when they arrive they should access if there is a threat. A man with a gun call in a state that allows OC is the same as a man with a dog call.
    I think the problem lies with the people making the call. If they simply say Man with a gun, maybe the 911 operators should be trained to ask if it's in his hand or on his belt etc.
    atctimmy and Jollymann like this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #137
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamltnblue View Post
    I'm not saying that the person reporting would note the skin color but report a suspicious person.
    The point is that the police cannot specifically profile a person based on things like race, clothing worn etc. I see nothing wrong with officers being dispatched but when they arrive they should access if there is a threat. A man with a gun call in a state that allows OC is the same as a man with a dog call.
    I think the problem lies with the people making the call. If they simply say Man with a gun, maybe the 911 operators should be trained to ask if it's in his hand or on his belt etc.
    Oh, good idea. Wish I had said that.
    Jollymann likes this.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  4. #138
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamltnblue View Post
    I'm not saying that the person reporting would note the skin color but report a suspicious person.
    The point is that the police cannot specifically profile a person based on things like race, clothing worn etc. I see nothing wrong with officers being dispatched but when they arrive they should access if there is a threat. A man with a gun call in a state that allows OC is the same as a man with a dog call.
    I think the problem lies with the people making the call. If they simply say Man with a gun, maybe the 911 operators should be trained to ask if it's in his hand or on his belt etc.
    I think people really need to consider what they are recommending when things like this are suggested. You are recommending the police force be more subjective rather than objective. That is a VERY dangerous and slippery slope. I for one want a police force that is going to respond the exact same way everytime and it is in my opinion on us as gun owners to educate the PUBLIC not the POLICE.

  5. #139
    Member Array Hamltnblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Springfield PA
    Posts
    20
    I simply don't agree that a person who is not breaking the law, should be treated like a criminal in the face of the public because someone made a phone call.
    You don't educate the public by interrogating a person, sometimes in front of his family, because someone doesn't like him carrying. That education to the public is that you should not carry.
    The right approach is for people to be educated by the correct response.
    If someone doesn't know the laws or perceives something is wrong because of what they are fed on TV, then they should be told when calling in.
    It would go something like this.
    Caller. There's a man with a gun on the corner of 2nd and pine street.
    Dispatcher. Does he have it in his hand or doing anything that looks threatening?
    Caller. No he's just walking around with his kids.
    Dispatcher. In this state that's legal unless he is doing anything threatening.
    atctimmy and CommonCents like this.

  6. #140
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,097
    My main concern is I question the LEO's motive rather than his/her action.
    If a LEO motive for stopping me was purely out of concern for public safety and after the brief encounter. there was No record of the stop no names were taken, the officer did not record serial numbers of my weapon, I would have no real issue.
    Sadly this is not the case. And it not only happens in OC.
    Most often officer is using a badge to carry out an agenda that has nothing to do with anything else. In most cases it is done only to those that do not fit in any protected class.
    Except for a very few today's LEO and their leaders are not the serve and protect people we once looked up to.

  7. #141
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamltnblue View Post
    I simply don't agree that a person who is not breaking the law, should be treated like a criminal in the face of the public because someone made a phone call.
    Do you feel the same way if a person is driving erratically but not technically breaking any law?

    You don't educate the public by interrogating a person, sometimes in front of his family, because someone doesn't like him carrying. That education to the public is that you should not carry.
    It is our job as gun owners to educate the public on carry...its the LEO's job to respond to calls and make sure everything is on the up and up.

    The right approach is for people to be educated by the correct response.
    If someone doesn't know the laws or perceives something is wrong because of what they are fed on TV, then they should be told when calling in.
    It would go something like this.
    Caller. There's a man with a gun on the corner of 2nd and pine street.
    Dispatcher. Does he have it in his hand or doing anything that looks threatening?
    Caller. No he's just walking around with his kids.
    Dispatcher. In this state that's legal unless he is doing anything threatening.
    It's not legal in every state, hell in most states it requires a permit and is illegal otherwise. Should Joe Public be asking you for your permit prior to calling in? This is where gun owners actively educating the public would pay dividends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    Sadly this is not the case. And it not only happens in OC.
    Most often officer is using a badge to carry out an agenda that has nothing to do with anything else. In most cases it is done only to those that do not fit in any protected class.
    Except for a very few today's LEO and their leaders are not the serve and protect people we once looked up to.
    How is it that you are aware of LEO's motives?
    kb2wji likes this.

  8. #142
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    It is our job as gun owners to educate the public on carry...its the LEO's job to respond to calls and make sure everything is on the up and up.
    First it is not a private citizens job to educate anyone. It might be a good idea to work at getting the word out if you so desire. It is not your responsibility.
    Second, yes the LEO will probably respond to see if everything is on the up and up. However he must work within the law in doing so. He is obligated to follow that law. The citizens only requirements are that he too must follow the law. If he is following the law when he chooses noncompliance as his course of action then the stop is over. Nothing more to do.

    Ever notice how when someone representing the Government violates the law it is said that they did not follow rules. That they violated policy? Those rules and policy they are violating are the law. But then it would sound too harsh to say they broke the law. Rules or policy sound so much nicer and less likely for the public to demand punishment.

    Michael

  9. #143
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    First it is not a private citizens job to educate anyone. It might be a good idea to work at getting the word out if you so desire. It is not your responsibility.
    I just stated that in my opinion, responsible gun owners would be much better served by educating the general public then bitching about LEO's asking for their ID's when stopped for OC'ing.

    Second, yes the LEO will probably respond to see if everything is on the up and up. However he must work within the law in doing so. He is obligated to follow that law. The citizens only requirements are that he too must follow the law. If he is following the law when he chooses noncompliance as his course of action then the stop is over. Nothing more to do.
    I would offer up that this happens in most all cases. In states where you are required to have a permit to OC the officer is completely within his rights to ask for both that and ID, and I could be wrong...but I don't think that compliance with that request is optional.

    Ever notice how when someone representing the Government violates the law it is said that they did not follow rules. That they violated policy? Those rules and policy they are violating are the law. But then it would sound too harsh to say they broke the law. Rules or policy sound so much nicer and less likely for the public to demand punishment.

    Michael
    Sounds like you are a bit jaded.

  10. #144
    Member Array pfries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    First it is not a private citizens job to educate anyone. It might be a good idea to work at getting the word out if you so desire. It is not your responsibility.
    I do agree it is not my job.

    That being said I would think we can agree that to carry safely is to carry responsibly and in order to carry responsibly you need to be informed of the legalities that come with carry.
    Part of being responsible in most other aspects of my life involves sharing of information and keeping communication open, weather that be job related or on the home front. So I do equate carrying responsibly with the need to share accurate information when appropriate.

    If we want to expand our rights back to a semblance of what they are supposed to be under the bill of rights that responsibility does fall upon us whether we like it or not. This is because it is not currently anyone’s job to educate the general populace about the legalities of carrying a fire arm.

    As for Law enforcement agencies it is not their job to educate the general public on it either, I do feel that it should fall their shoulders for officer training. Until it becomes main stream or a problem within a given jurisdiction I doubt any additional resources or time will be spent on it, thus leaving the ball in our court. I as a responsible gun owner advocate education on safe handling, storage, and the legalities of carry.

    My job no, a duty as a gun owner, self-defense, and second amendment advocate? Yes

    In order to protect my freedoms education is paramount, we as the people of the United States of America are ultimately responsible for protecting our rights and liberties. I for one cannot sit back and pass the buck along, that mentality in my opinion is a major part of what got us in this predicament in the first place.

    Pat
    Mors est libertas


    MALAD JUSTED

  11. #145
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    So if you are able to realize and understand that the folks OC'ing long guns and those out to make Youtube video's are the exception...why is it that most people cant understand that the power hungry LEO is also the exception and not the rule?

    I also have a question or would like to get some thoughts around the "probable cause" aspect of the discussion. The argument was put forth that simply OC'ing a firearm is not enough to justify a stop. I think we can all agree that while perfectly legal this activity is outside of "the norm". Now, would we all agree that a person drifting within their lane while driving is also outside of "the norm"? There is also nothing illegal about that activity, but I think the % of people who feel that to be a justifiable reason to stop and chat with someone is much higher. I think if we follow the "reasonable person" theory we could all conclude that officers politely chatting with folks in both of the above situations to determine what exactly is going on isn't at all out of line.

    I don't know, maybe I am crazy and have no idea what I am talking about. That is also an option.
    First, the legal justification for a Terry stop is not PC. It's reasonable and articulate suspicion.

    Second, a person weaving in their lane would certainly be easily articulated by an officer as to why they were suspected of committing a crime (in this case DUI). Judge: "Why did you stop him?" Officer: " Because he was weaving." On the other hand, OCing a pistol does not in any way constitute reasonable and articulated suspicion that a crime is being committed. In fact it has been ruled in court that it is NOT. Judge: "Why did you stop him?" Officer: " Because he was carrying a gun". Judge: " OK, what was he doing with the gun that caused you to believe he was committing or about to commit a crime?" Officer: "Uuuh....Nothing?"

    So to answer your question: It is not the same because 1) It's not the same and 2) A judge said that it's not the same.


    UNITED STATES v. DEBERRY, No.
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.

  12. #146
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    First, the legal justification for a Terry stop is not PC. It's reasonable and articulate suspicion.

    Second, a person weaving in their lane would certainly be easily articulated by an officer as to why they were suspected of committing a crime (in this case DUI). Judge: "Why did you stop him?" Officer: " Because he was weaving." On the other hand, OCing a pistol does not in any way constitute reasonable and articulated suspicion that a crime is being committed. In fact it has been ruled in court that it is NOT. Judge: "Why did you stop him?" Officer: " Because he was carrying a gun". Judge: " OK, what was he doing with the gun that caused you to believe he was committing or about to commit a crime?" Officer: "Uuuh....Nothing?"

    So to answer your question: It is not the same because 1) It's not the same and 2) A judge said that it's not the same.


    UNITED STATES v. DEBERRY, No.
    What if your State requires a permit to OC.

    Judge: "Why did you stop him?" Officer: "He was carrying a gun and I needed to verify his legal status as it pertains to that activity." Judge: "Sounds Good!".

  13. #147
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    What if your State requires a permit to OC.

    Judge: "Why did you stop him?" Officer: "He was carrying a gun and I needed to verify his legal status as it pertains to that activity." Judge: "Sounds Good!".

    .......... you don't know much about the law or the courts do you?
    atctimmy likes this.
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  14. #148
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    What if your State requires a permit to OC.

    Judge: "Why did you stop him?" Officer: "He was carrying a gun and I needed to verify his legal status as it pertains to that activity." Judge: "Sounds Good!".
    Sir, I gave you clear examples of the difference as to why one (weaving in your lane) does constitute RAS, and why the other (OCing) does not. I then backed that up with the 7TH circuit courts ruling on the matter. I also included a link in case you wanted to study the ruling a little and educate yourself.

    But since you haven't got it yet I'll respond again.

    The standard for a Terry stop is reasonable and articulate(d) suspicion. The way our country works is that the officer doesn't "need" to verify anything, he needs to follow and enforce the law. So, legal precedent has established that the officer either has RAS to stop the OCer or he doesn't. So now let's go back to your example:

    Judge: "Why did you stop him?"
    Officer: "He was carrying a gun and I needed to verify his legal status as it pertains to that activity."
    Judge: "Why did you need to verify his legal status? Did you suspect he was committing, or about to commit a crime?"
    Officer: " Uuuh, no. I just wanted to make sure he had a permit."
    Judge: "OK, I understand but what made you suspect that he didn't have a permit or that he wasn't allowed to do what he was doing?"
    Officer: "Uuuh....nothing."
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.

  15. #149
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Sir, I gave you clear examples of the difference as to why one (weaving in your lane) does constitute RAS, and why the other (OCing) does not. I then backed that up with the 7TH circuit courts ruling on the matter. I also included a link in case you wanted to study the ruling a little and educate yourself.

    But since you haven't got it yet I'll respond again.

    The standard for a Terry stop is reasonable and articulate(d) suspicion. The way our country works is that the officer doesn't "need" to verify anything, he needs to follow and enforce the law. So, legal precedent has established that the officer either has RAS to stop the OCer or he doesn't. So now let's go back to your example:

    Judge: "Why did you stop him?"
    Officer: "He was carrying a gun and I needed to verify his legal status as it pertains to that activity."
    Judge: "Why did you need to verify his legal status? Did you suspect he was committing, or about to commit a crime?"
    Officer: " Uuuh, no. I just wanted to make sure he had a permit."
    Judge: "OK, I understand but what made you suspect that he didn't have a permit or that he wasn't allowed to do what he was doing?"
    Officer: "Uuuh....nothing."
    Judge Officer
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  16. #150
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Sir, I gave you clear examples of the difference as to why one (weaving in your lane) does constitute RAS, and why the other (OCing) does not. I then backed that up with the 7TH circuit courts ruling on the matter. I also included a link in case you wanted to study the ruling a little and educate yourself.

    But since you haven't got it yet I'll respond again.

    The standard for a Terry stop is reasonable and articulate(d) suspicion. The way our country works is that the officer doesn't "need" to verify anything, he needs to follow and enforce the law. So, legal precedent has established that the officer either has RAS to stop the OCer or he doesn't. So now let's go back to your example:

    Judge: "Why did you stop him?"
    Officer: "He was carrying a gun and I needed to verify his legal status as it pertains to that activity."
    Judge: "Why did you need to verify his legal status? Did you suspect he was committing, or about to commit a crime?"
    Officer: " Uuuh, no. I just wanted to make sure he had a permit."
    Judge: "OK, I understand but what made you suspect that he didn't have a permit or that he wasn't allowed to do what he was doing?"
    Officer: "Uuuh....nothing."
    A citizens complaint is not enough eh? Disturbing the peace? Same reason you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater?


    There are dozens of reasons that could be brought up, whether or not they are reasonable is up for debate and depends on who you ask.

    I am of the opinion that if you want trouble with the LEO's you will find it, if you treat them like human beings just trying to get their job done you will probably get the same respect back in return. That is really my only point.

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... 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

carrying open in mi youtube

,
colorado please harassment open carry videos youtube
,
does a police officer have the right to ask for identification for open carry?
,
meaning of oc of police
,

oc meaning police

,

open carry police harassment

,

taking test for open carry permit in oklahoma after nov. 1

,
what does oc mean in police force
,

what does oc mean police

,
what does oc mean to police
,
what does oc mean witg guns
,

what is mean of oc of police

Click on a term to search for related topics.