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 glocknug Like I said in another reply, I will ask for ID on any call I go on, to see who I ...

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 249
Like Tree392Likes

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

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by glocknug View Post
    Like I said in another reply, I will ask for ID on any call I go on, to see who I am talking to. If you really wanted to say no, then fine. But why? This would be a consensual encounter type situation. If you did say agree to it... then 20 minutes down the road, when another call comes in, we can tell our dispatchers that we already made contact with you, and everything is great.

    We are both carrying for the same reason! Why cant we work together?

    I am curious what the majority of OCers think about those who walk down the road with assault rifles, just because they can, to make a video? Doesnt this hurt all of us that carry? Shouldnt those who carry work with the Police to solve the same issues we are all working toward?
    I believe the OCers that intentionally antagonize an officer, who during the stop, is doing his best to balance the line between following the law and assessing the situation to be jerks. On the other hand that same OCer who is attempting to respectfully exercise his rights and films an officer who is abusing his power to be preforming a public service. We must remember that the person doing the filming cannot force the officer to exceed his powers. He cannot force the officer to do anything illegal.

    Also how exactly do you know that the person carrying the rifle slung over his shoulder is doing it just so they can make a video? How do you know he isn't someone like me just on my way out of town to do some plinking? While its not as common as it once was its still perfectly legal to do where I live.

    Michael

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,377
    OP, you don't say where in VA your located, but I have never had any problems, or heard of any, OC'ing here in the Richmond area.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  4. #63
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,575
    Every encounter is started by LEO's and (I get the reasons why) LEO's are controlling. LEO's are the ones challenging citizens, not the other way around. You must keep in mind that underlying any and all encounters with LEO's is the possibility of being arrested/fined - either justly or due to officer ignorance. The very fact that the officer is stopping someone for doing something completely legal immediately increases that possibility due to officer ignorance. No one cares about the fine lines between arrest, detention, etc when they are stopped from going about their day - the result is the same, restriction of movement and underlying risk of arrest. These stops are unnecessary - the LEO's intent doesn't matter, the citizen's perception and concern does.

    You mention that if someone refuses to present their ID, it's fine with you; the problem is that is never the case in the vids we see, there are always repeated requests for said ID. With each request, the resentment of restriction of movement and concern of arrest increases.

    You mention "simple consent" and "consent to a short conversation". Just by using the term consent you are admitting it is not obligatory, but you seem to have the attitude that citizens have an obligation to consent.

    This is the problem with the officers on the street involved in these incidents. The problem with the supervisors is that they refuse to properly train their officers and/or insist on enforcing their own agenda.

    LEO's are the one's with a choice. They can observe to determine if there is anything wrong and if not, leave it alone or they can challenge the citizen by stopping them, questioning them, requesting id, etc.

    The only way the adversity is going to stop is when LEO's start respecting the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens and stop hassling them while they are pursuing legal activities. Instead of stopping a guy walking down the street doing nothing wrong, why are LEO's not working on serving warrants, talking to kids in schools, enforcing laws that are actually on the books, etc.

    Seriously, what is so hard to comprehend about this?

    Not consenting to an unnecessary request is not "challenging", educating an officer who has neither been educated by supervisors nor taken it upon him/herself to do so is not "challenging". Exactly how are these citizens challenging officers?

    There are over 60 responses to your initial inquiry, what are you going to do with the information and concerns you are now aware of?
    Thunder71 and elmacgyver0 like this.

  5. #64
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,112
    First, I do not open carry, and for the very reason of LEO encounters. I was proned out, with shotguns pointed at my head. Nuff of that.

    Officer side: Just show ID so we can PROVE that you are not guilty of anything. That you deserve to be walking around, while doing something LEGAL. Legal is an important term...This is not meant to come off as Im cop bashing.

    OCer side: Im doing nothing wrong, why are you asking for ID, why are you wasting my time. What part of a legal activity do you not understand.

    That being said. OP, we are not on the same side. In a lot of locations, the PD are harassing people. On the other side, some OCers give the PD a bunch of crap and make a video. Both sides are wrong when this happens.

    To fix it, the PDs around the nation need to be educated regarding the laws, as it pertains to Carry laws....If that doesnt happen, it will continue to be OCers vs. PD....
    oneshot likes this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  6. #65
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    :SNIP:
    To fix it, the PDs around the nation need to be educated regarding the laws, as it pertains to Carry laws....If that doesnt happen, it will continue to be OCers vs. PD....
    This pretty much sums it up.

    Michael

  7. #66
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    I don't OC, but I am on the same page as you here. Your statement "we HATE being dispatched to calls regarding things that are not illegal, such as a guy openly carrying a holstered firearm, but we still HAVE to go!" begs the question... why aren't dispatchers and 911 operators trained to deal with that over the phone rather than sending officers out? It's legal (assuming it IS legal in the place the call comes in from, of course), so why can't the dispatcher explain to the caller that they are reporting a legal activity and avoid the potential confrontation in the first place?
    Quote Originally Posted by glocknug View Post
    Probably due to Liability. If the dispatcher didnt dispatch an Officer to the guy with a gun call... the one time in a million it would be something serious, somebody would be shot, and then they are liable... Like I said, highly unlikely, but possible... so they send an Officer.

    ^^^^^^^^^^So why can't^^^^^^^

    the officer drive by, observe what the oc'er s doing and leave as long as he isn't pulling the firearm out, brandishing it, shooting it where there isn't a firing range?
    Is he picnicing , just hiking along, shopping in a store minding his own business, or what.
    Common sense goes along way.

    Your response is the same bull that we hear all the time,
    but its been proven in Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)....... Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    From article;

    The court noted that because the police are only under a general duty to provide services to the public at large, a special relationship must exist between the police and the individual in question for the "duty" element of negligence to be satisfied. It held that no such special relationship existed so the case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3


    It is the modern day policing belief that wishes to demonize firearms and those who have them.
    This is what gets instilled into the publics mindset and that is where all this malarkey comes from.
    Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 21st, 2012 at 12:54 AM.
    Brad426 likes this.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  8. #67
    Ex Member Array PIMking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    First, I do not open carry, and for the very reason of LEO encounters. I was proned out, with shotguns pointed at my head. Nuff of that.

    Officer side: Just show ID so we can PROVE that you are not guilty of anything. That you deserve to be walking around, while doing something LEGAL. Legal is an important term...This is not meant to come off as Im cop bashing.

    OCer side: Im doing nothing wrong, why are you asking for ID, why are you wasting my time. What part of a legal activity do you not understand.

    That being said. OP, we are not on the same side. In a lot of locations, the PD are harassing people. On the other side, some OCers give the PD a bunch of crap and make a video. Both sides are wrong when this happens.

    To fix it, the PDs around the nation need to be educated regarding the laws, as it pertains to Carry laws....If that doesnt happen, it will continue to be OCers vs. PD....
    Why should we have to hand over an ID just because they want to make sure we're not a felon? If that is acceptable they will start thinking it's okay to pull someone over just to check and make sure they have a license or that they're not a felon...

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PIMking View Post
    Why should we have to hand over an ID just because they want to make sure we're not a felon? If that is acceptable they will start thinking it's okay to pull someone over just to check and make sure they have a license or that they're not a felon...
    That is the point of my post. Re-read it.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  10. #69
    Ex Member Array PIMking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    226
    sorry, I'm at work and glanced at it quick

  11. #70
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    First, I do not open carry, and for the very reason of LEO encounters. I was proned out, with shotguns pointed at my head. Nuff of that.

    Officer side: Just show ID so we can PROVE that you are not guilty of anything. That you deserve to be walking around, while doing something LEGAL. Legal is an important term...This is not meant to come off as Im cop bashing.


    OCer side: Im doing nothing wrong, why are you asking for ID, why are you wasting my time. What part of a legal activity do you not understand.

    That being said. OP, we are not on the same side. In a lot of locations, the PD are harassing people. On the other side, some OCers give the PD a bunch of crap and make a video. Both sides are wrong when this happens.

    To fix it, the PDs around the nation need to be educated regarding the laws, as it pertains to Carry laws....If that doesnt happen, it will continue to be OCers vs. PD....
    I agree with your post and ask this question when they have been educated and the law has been clearly explained and step by step cases explained to them.
    A police Chief like the C.O.P In Milwaukee and Madison WI. Make it clear they will take any OC to the ground with force take their gun then figure out if they can get it back.
    When another Major city chief say " I can always find a reason to arrest you"
    What are we suppose to think. These are statements they have made to the press in public

  12. #71
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,830
    I really do not understand all of the hostility towards local police in these situations. They get a call about a man with a gun. Whether you like it or not, they have to respond. If they do not, then the first time it is really a problem and no officer arrives the lawsuits will continue until the end of time. So, you have an officer showing up and approaching an individual with a firearm. Like it or not, police officer will always be nervous when around someone with a gun. There are too many people that are ready and willing to shoot at them to take the situation lightly. So, even knowing that you're probably a law abiding citizen not doing anything wrong, there's going to be a small amount of anxiety.

    Now, let's couple that with an OCer that's out looking for a police officer to approach him. He's going to be combative to any request and be a jerk in general. The Type A officer (because most LEOs are Type A's) is going to feel angry about the behavior, will still feel anxious, and things are going to start heading south.

    I am odd, I support both sides. I have no problem with a police officer asking to see an ID of any person he has received a call about. I also have no problem with a citizen resisting the request (though I do think it is childish, it is your right to act, say and do things I think are silly). Where I do have a problem is when either side starts turning this into an "us" v. "them" situation. When police officers sit around making statements about idiot citizens deserving to boot in the butt, that's wrong. When people act as if an officer doing his job is on par with a member of the KGB demanding papers, that's wrong. In the end we're all on the same side. We're law abiding citizens that want to ensure that we, and those we love, continue to lead happy, healthy lives. If we'd stop trying to fight one another just to prove we can or that we're right and start working together we could start focusing on things that actually matter.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Echo I agree that both sides are sometimes in the wrong. The trouble is that my not wanting to have an interaction with police is not solely up to me. I can be obeying all the laws in my attempt not to be stopped for questioning but that does not work if the LEO wants to stop me.

    Michael

  14. #73
    Member Array Oufan08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    35
    It doesn't has to be, nor should it be.

    Unfortunately, my experiences with leo's haven't been very good, they seem very anti-gun in our state.

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    I really do not understand all of the hostility towards local police in these situations.
    They get a call about a man with a gun. Whether you like it or not, they have to respond.
    So, you have an officer showing up and approaching an individual with a firearm. Like it or not, police officer will always be nervous when around someone with a gun. There are too many people that are ready and willing to shoot at them to take the situation lightly.
    There need be no hostility ... by either party.

    But circumspection is reasonable and natural, particularly if one is familiar with how such contacts can go, or if one has heard first-hand (though one-sided) accounts of how they've gone. And it's particularly reasonable when NOTHING ILLEGAL has been done and one is being stopped, detained, vetted for merely lawfully going about one's life and business. If this doesn't make sense, re-read the many previous comments on exactly this point.

    Frankly, the citizens in the USA are the ultimate authority, by law and right. Those hired by the citizens to perform a challenging task for them have a responsibility to handle the duties honorably, responsibly and intelligently, in spite of any dictates by the politically-motivated and -influenced power structure back at the office. When simple contacts aren't handled in such a manner, it breeds suspicion and circumspection, at minimum.
    atctimmy and oneshot like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  16. #75
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,830
    The hostility is showing plainly in this thread. Guys, I don't know what you expect the police to do. It isn't up to them. If somebody calls them to complain about "a man with a gun" they are going to come talk to you. If they didn't they'd lose their job and be replaced by someone who would. The guy wearing the blue suit and driving the black and white car isn't a decision maker when it comes to that kind of thing.

    I don't know what the "activists" would have the police officer do. It appears that he's in a no-win situation at this point. By doing what is required of him, he will be made out to be evil. There has to be some give and take in any situation, and that's true here. If you choose to carry a weapon openly there's a good chance the police are going to be forced to come talk with you. Once they learn that you're not about to do something crazy they'll leave you alone. Some may not like that you are armed, some may want to spend 10 minutes talking about holster choice or the new 1911 you're sporting. In either case I just don't see the value in attempting to make things worse for everyone involved.
    Rock and Glock, kb2wji and pfries like this.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... 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

,
meaning of oc, police
,
oc meaning by police
,
oc meaning in police
,

oc meaning police

,

open carry police harassment

,
shelby county alabama open carry law
,

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

,

what does oc mean police

,
what does oc police mean
,

what is mean of oc of police

,
what is meaning of oc in police.?
Click on a term to search for related topics.