Proper way to handle LEO while OC

[SonicBlue03]

BS

Hard to argue with your logic. Consider my mind changed!


I really don't get why some of you look to antagonize law enforcement officers (not directly, obv, since most of you keep your venom for forums like this, I suspect.) He was wrong on point-of-law; there's no reason to be abusive or a d-bag about it.

I'd like our in-resident officer/moderator to chime in on this thread as to how this would be perceived and how it could be best handled to prevent escalation. There's a lot of armchair cowboys here that will either feel validated or educated once he weighs in.

 

[FourTeeFive]

If this is the case then he is lucky he did not get cuffed & stuffed until they could remove his wallet from his person and find the CHL themselves. This said I hope I'm not the next CHL holder this officer talks to. And for the 'subject' in this video, you did our community no good in this. Next time maybe it's a well deserved concrete kiss for you.

Wow, nice attitude there!

 

[FourTeeFive]

I personally think that having to show your ID any time a cop wants to see it, just because, is a short distance away from "Papers Please!". We have rights. We need to enforce those rights.

 

[Kevatc]

I personally think that having to show your ID any time a cop wants to see it, just because, is a short distance away from "Papers Please!". We have rights. We need to enforce those rights.

So how do you feel about the AZ immigration law? That's exactly what's going on there. How is an LEO suppossed to determine who is and isn't legal without asking for "papers"?

 

[SonicBlue03]

So how do you feel about the AZ immigration law? That's exactly what's going on there. How is an LEO suppossed to determine who is and isn't legal without asking for "papers"?

But....you mean that doesn't only apply to brown people?

 

[fd15k]

So how do you feel about the AZ immigration law? That's exactly what's going on there. How is an LEO suppossed to determine who is and isn't legal without asking for "papers"?

From the way it sounded AZ legislature was really proposing racial profiling. But that's the thing - they are legislature, group of random people who sometimes pass unenforceable and impractical laws driven by emotions. We would really have to see memos circulated by various police departments in there to get an idea on how they were going to enforce it if enforce at all. Now another thing is that some states indeed have various stop & identify laws (Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), that require for ID to be presented in some situations. But until there is one in a given state (Maine and Oregon don't seem to have one), it is your right to refuse showing ID to a LEO.

 

[DonovanJay]

A person who carries a gun should not have to carry the responsibility of representing every person who has ever owned a firearm.

 

[soberups]

I personally think that having to show your ID any time a cop wants to see it, just because, is a short distance away from "Papers Please!". We have rights. We need to enforce those rights.

We can uphold our rights while still being polite and courteous to people who risk their lives for us every day.

For the life of me I cannot understand why someone would not just show ID if politely asked to do so. If your goal is to be an ambassador for OC then you will win over a lot more LEO's to "our" side by being courteous and cooperative vs being an jerk. Every minute spent arguing with a cop over a finer point of law is a minute that cop could be spending doing real police work. i'm a busy guy, I have stuff to do, and I see nothing to be gained by provoking pissing matches with police.

 

[soberups]

A person who carries a gun should not have to carry the responsibility of representing every person who has ever owned a firearm.

In a perfect world you would be correct. We dont live in a perfect world, though.

 

[slimmer13]

We can uphold our rights while still being polite and courteous to people who risk their lives for us every day.

For the life of me I cannot understand why someone would not just show ID if politely asked to do so. If your goal is to be an ambassador for OC then you will win over a lot more LEO's to "our" side by being courteous and cooperative vs being an jerk. Every minute spent arguing with a cop over a finer point of law is a minute that cop could be spending doing real police work. i'm a busy guy, I have stuff to do, and I see nothing to be gained by provoking pissing matches with police.

+1

The local sherriffs deputy is not Holders henchman or the cursed ATF or the Gestapo or anything. He is your neighbor or your kid's little league coach who does a hard job. A little diplomacy and courtesy goes a long way. Local LEO's are great connections to have and to build relationships with. Some are DB's (just like some civilians are) and to them I can give as good as they can but for the most part I have always been treated with respect.

Would I give my ID if the only reason they wanted to see it is because I was legally carrying a firearm? I can not say for certain but I guess that I probably would while explaining to him politely and respectfully that doing so was a courtesy on my part. The next time I ran into him it would probably be with a wave and a hello.

 

[dmancornell]

We can uphold our rights while still being polite and courteous to people who risk their lives for us every day.

I lol'ed.

For the life of me I cannot understand why someone would not just show ID if politely asked to do so.

Maybe because my identity is none of their damn business.

As for the sentimental BS about how the cops are "part of our community", as long as they willingly serve the corrupt law and the ruling class bureaucrats, I will treat police with extreme suspicion regardless of how nice they are at a personal level.

When the rank and file police stage a mass revolt against civil forfeiture, stop and frisk, no-knock raids, and all the other outrages they are ordered to aggress upon the citizenry on a daily basis, then I will trust the police.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Maybe because my identity is none of their damn business.

As for the sentimental BS about how the cops are "part of our community", as long as they willingly serve the corrupt law and the ruling class bureaucrats, I will treat police with extreme suspicion regardless of how nice they are at a personal level.

So you treat the military the same way then, I assume? If you think it's different from what you described, I'd love to hear the rationale behind it.

And your ID absolutely is their business now. Supreme Court just cracked open the door for that by allowing immigration status to be confirmed. Call it a slippery slope if you want, but the likelihood of you being forced to provide valid identification to confirm who you are is a whole lot more likely than the administration suddenly deciding citizens can't own guns.

 

[dmancornell]

So you treat the military the same way then, I assume? If you think it's different from what you described, I'd love to hear the rationale behind it.

Nice try, but totally irrelevant since since soldiers have no domestic police powers (yet).

And your ID absolutely is their business now. Supreme Court just cracked open the door for that by allowing immigration status to be confirmed. Call it a slippery slope if you want, but the likelihood of you being forced to provide valid identification to confirm who you are is a whole lot more likely than the administration suddenly deciding citizens can't own guns.

Oh I see, it's their business because nine government lawyers said so. I think I'll just keep doing the absolute minimum to avoid detention.

Also lol @ slippery slope, we're falling off a cliff.

 

[fd15k]

And your ID absolutely is their business now. Supreme Court just cracked open the door for that by allowing immigration status to be confirmed. Call it a slippery slope if you want, but the likelihood of you being forced to provide valid identification to confirm who you are is a whole lot more likely than the administration suddenly deciding citizens can't own guns.

For arrested persons, not for random citizens on the street. Oregon and Washington states don't have Stop & Identify laws, and any demand to present an ID by a LEO from a citizen while exercising a legal activity is use of authority for intimidation.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Nice try, but totally irrelevant since since soldiers have no domestic police powers (yet).

Not at all irrelevant. They "willingly serve the corrupt law and the ruling class bureaucrats" and would do so under the switch flip of martial law or declared emergency. If you want to be selective and inconsistent, that's fine. Just be honest about it.

Oh I see, it's their business because nine government lawyers said so. I think I'll just keep doing the absolute minimum to avoid detention.

Nine court justices who were approved by the officials that were elected by the people to decide on Rule of Land. Whether or not you agree with their selection, its the bed that was made. And if you're serious about avoiding detention, it means complying when they ask and not making a scene. That's a bit contrary to your initial titling and post in this thread, no?

 

[SonicBlue03]

For arrested persons, not for random citizens on the street.

Wrong. Re-read the SCOTUS ruling. Arrested is not a sole requirement.

Oregon and Washington states don't have Stop & Identify laws, and any demand to present an ID by a LEO from a citizen while exercising a legal activity is use of authority for intimidation.

Yet. My point - if you re-read what I said - is that the slippery slope is far more reachable since the door has been cracked open by SCOTUS.

 

[dmancornell]

Not at all irrelevant. They "willingly serve the corrupt law and the ruling class bureaucrats" and would do so under the switch flip of martial law or declared emergency. If you want to be selective and inconsistent, that's fine. Just be honest about it.

Like you said, they serve the state, so they are to be treated with suspicion.

Nine court justices who were approved by the officials that were elected by the people to decide on Rule of Land. Whether or not you agree with their selection, its the bed that was made. And if you're serious about avoiding detention, it means complying when they ask and not making a scene. That's a bit contrary to your initial titling and post in this thread, no?

LOL if you actually buy that horsecrap about being "elected by the people", as if that actually means anything. Maybe if we had a choice between jackass A and jackass B, then elections would have some meaning.

Also, since the law student in the original post did nothing that warranted detention, it was proper. Complying with unlawful orders is not only improper, it's pathetic.

 

[fd15k]

Wrong. Re-read the SCOTUS ruling. Arrested is not a sole requirement.

I have not read the 76 pages of the ruling. Many news articles covering the subject state that "show me your papers" part of the AZ law has been overturned. For example :

It said the state cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to not carry registration documents; criminalize the act of an illegal immigrant seeking employment; or authorize state officers to arrest someone on the belief that the person has committed an offense that makes him deportable.

Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona law for now, strikes down other provisions - The Washington Post

If you have read the decision, please provide the relevant citations.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Like you said, they serve the state, so they are to be treated with suspicion.



LOL if you actually buy that horsecrap about being "elected by the people", as if that actually means anything. Maybe if we had a choice between jackass A and jackass B, then elections would have some meaning.

Also, since the law student in the original post did nothing that warranted detention, it was proper. Complying with unlawful orders is not only improper, it's pathetic.

Appointed by, but approved by elected officials whom we as citizens vote for. Didn't know you wanted to quibble on that point, so here's the clarification you were seeking.

That law student got himself on the radar by being a self-righteous d-bag. I can see why you'd find that proper, but if you take a step back from that and think about how you can slide under the radar you might want to re-think that position.

Do you OC, and if you ever are stopped by an officer do you plan to conduct yourself in this matter? Curious now.

 

[fd15k]

That law student got himself on the radar by being a self-righteous d-bag.

So if I walk with my handgun in the open from Tigard to Beaverton, I am automatically a d-bag. Got it!