Proper way to handle LEO while OC

[SonicBlue03]

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

You walking with your handgun in the open from Tigard to Beaverton has absolutely nothing to do with your status as a d-bag.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

If by "proper" you mean "educating the officer on individual rights while acting like a smug a-hole that used to get beat up a lot before he could carry a gun" then yes, I think this thread was titled properly.

There are plenty of ways to make your point without being a dbag. It's a pity that so many people choose the alternative.

You and "Notazombie" are the kind of folks who would just lay down your arms as a LEO would demand.
Though the guy MIGHT have came off smug, people like him and others who STAND UP to LEOs are the ones keeping them in check.

They are the lap dogs of the local government doing the bidding as the masters command. Whether they see it or not. Sadly it is not a career nor position I respect anymore. No LEO has done a single thing to keep nor earn my respect thus I will treat them with as much respect as I feel they treat me with.. little to none.

I don't see you fighting our 2A battles?

 

[dmancornell]

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.

Didn't want to quibble on the mechanics of voting, but rather the notion that winning an election gives legitimacy for some jerkoff to piss on the Constitution (protip: it doesn't).

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.

Nah, the only dbags in that scenario are the sheeple who called the cops in the first place.

I don't OC because neither Beaverton nor Portland allows it. But since you were curious, I practiced non-compliance on the last cop who pulled me over and boy was he pissed. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside just remembering.

 

[fd15k]

You walking with your handgun in the open from Tigard to Beaverton has absolutely nothing to do with your status as a d-bag.

I will appear on the radar of Tigard or Beaverton PD in 5-10 minutes. Since being on the radar is result of being a d-bag, thus doing that makes me a d-bag. Kind of logical, no ?

 

[SonicBlue03]

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.

Page 4, at the top under (b), subsection (1) and (2) gives you the appropriate initial pages to start your reading. Enjoy.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I will appear on the radar of Tigard or Beaverton PD in 5-10 minutes. Since being on the radar is result of being a d-bag, thus doing that makes me a d-bag. Kind of logical, no ?

How you conduct yourself if stopped (legally or otherwise) would determine based on the context of this thread.

In your case, the items may very well be separate in the context that you posed your question.

 

[fd15k]

Page 4, at the top under (b), subsection (1) and (2) gives you the appropriate initial pages to start your reading. Enjoy.

Excellent. That very page, slightly below your pointer confirms what I have been saying :

(2) It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in
practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees
for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This
would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal
framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in
custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and
supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the
law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the
course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been
released, the provision would likely survive preemption—at least ab-
sent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to
federal law and its objectives.

That means that a LEGAL detention has to take place prior to immigration
check to be permissible.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Excellent. That very page, slightly below your pointer confirms what I have been saying :

(2) It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in
practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees
for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This
would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal
framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in
custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and
supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the
law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the
course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been
released, the provision would likely survive preemption—at least ab-
sent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to
federal law and its objectives.

That means that a LEGAL detention has to take place prior to immigration
check to be permissible.

Right. Legal detention =! arrest. A traffic stop and probable cause to immigration in this case. Door cracked open. Slippery slope probable.

 

[Spitpatch]

@Fd15k,

Agreed. Someone also mentioned that the 911 dispatch should have known the law, verified that there was no actual crime being committed and educated the caller and ended it there.

I hope the people that go over the call logs for that day catch the error and address it.

Um, No.

It is not the 911 dispatcher's job, responsibility (or liabiltiy) to educate the public (or to be well-versed) in the law. That is all the realm of a Police Officer. Even in cases where the dispatcher might take it upon himself to state the law as he believes it to be (a significant risk, because the caller may misinterpret and act on that), the disptacher is still obligated to send police upon request from a caller.

Any dispatcher that quoted "chapter and verse" and thereby dispensed with a caller asking for police help would be hanging his rectum in a stiff breeze.

 

[SonicBlue03]

You and "Notazombie" are the kind of folks who would just lay down your arms as a LEO would demand.

Are we?

Though the guy MIGHT have came off smug, people like him and others who STAND UP to LEOs are the ones keeping them in check.

There are some well-respected members of this site that are former and active LEOs. I'd be interested to see their responses if you pose that statement to them as fact. You might be surprised at the response.

They are the lap dogs of the local government doing the bidding as the masters command. Whether they see it or not. Sadly it is not a career nor position I respect anymore. No LEO has done a single thing to keep nor earn my respect thus I will treat them with as much respect as I feel they treat me with.. little to none.

Funny. With regard to people in authoritative positions, I was raised that Golden Rule is an effective first method of engagement. And in the one time I can actually remember where an officer was aggressive/antagonistic with me, it wasn't difficult to de-escalate the situation to where they became civil and polite. People have bad days, and I'm not going to crucify a group of people for the slips of some individuals.

 

[fd15k]

How you conduct yourself if stopped (legally or otherwise) would determine based on the context of this thread.

In your case, the items may very well be separate in the context that you posed your question.

Well, perhaps you didn't mean that that way, but your earlier statement suggested that the law student got onto the radar by being a d-bag. The only activity that differentiated him at that time and place from other ordinary citizens was the fact he was carrying a handgun in the open. Even if you didn't mean it that way, the question remains whether he could have avoided a de-facto detainment and search/seizure of his property by promptly identifying himself and/or presenting his ID. I believe there was no clear indication that he would be on his way within 5 seconds of showing his ID to the officer(s).

 

[fd15k]

Um, No.

It is not the 911 dispatcher's job, responsibility (or liabiltiy) to educate the public (or to be well-versed) in the law. That is all the realm of a Police Officer. Even in cases where the dispatcher might take it upon himself to state the law as he believes it to be (a significant risk, because the caller may misinterpret and act on that), the disptacher is still obligated to send police upon request from a caller.

Any dispatcher that quoted "chapter and verse" and thereby dispensed with a caller asking for police help would be hanging his rectum in a stiff breeze.

- 911, what's your emergency ?
- I believe my neighbor is an alien from outer space, and he wants to steal my thoughts!
- Hold on sir, SWAT team is on its way!

 

[SonicBlue03]

Well, perhaps you didn't mean that that way, but your earlier statement suggested that the law student got onto the radar by being a d-bag. The only activity that differentiated him at that time and place from other ordinary citizens was the fact he was carrying a handgun in the open. Even if you didn't mean it that way, the question remains whether he could have avoided a de-facto detainment and search/seizure of his property by promptly identifying himself and/or presenting his ID. I believe there was no clear indication that he would be on his way within 5 seconds of showing his ID to the officer(s).

And he may not have been on his way to your point. The point is that driving conflict with the intent to escalate or humiliate (and therefore escalate) isn't necessary (in most cases, and certainly it didn't appear to be based on the video recording in this case) so the recording individual made conscious choices to be difficult and act the way he did.

As stated before, there are plenty of ways to engage and educate without escalation. Maybe that's a confidence issue; dunno.

 

[Puddin99]

FYI - the guy is not a law student.

<broken link removed>

 

[fd15k]

Right. Legal detention =! arrest. A traffic stop and probable cause to immigration in this case. Door cracked open. Slippery slope probable.

First of all, any example driven off a traffic stop is not a good one - all traffic stops require identification. Second, you correctly point out that PC has to be present - random person pulled over for 10mph over the limit can not be checked for their immigration status. Finally, sure there is a difference between detention and arrest - but in many cases first leads to the second.

Oh, and also, SCOTUS said this part of the law should be analyzed further.

 

[fd15k]

The point is that driving conflict with the intent to escalate or humiliate (and therefore escalate) isn't necessary (in most cases, and certainly it didn't appear to be based on the video recording in this case) so the recording individual made conscious choices to be difficult and act the way he did.

So basically your opinion is that he should have presented his ID, and perhaps apologized for taking up officer's time.

Now let me ask you, where do you draw the line ? What if the officer asked to search his person, to make sure he is not carrying any other weapons or illegal substances ? How about taking his fingerprints, and running them through the system to make sure he is not a wanted criminal ? Checking his blood alcohol level, to make sure he is not carrying a weapon while under influence ? Asking for his home address, to check that he has nothing illegal in there ? All of that while the officer is on the clock, paid perhaps by that very person's tax money. And sure, he has a right to refuse all of those, but why escalate ? Comply and be done with it!

 

[SonicBlue03]

FYI - the guy is not a law student.

<broken link removed>

That's him?

Now I know why he carries a gun.

 

[saxon]

aint it funny that these thread always get to " he was stupid for carrying and not giving his ID "

Instead of what part on inalienable rights,
what part of The Right to Keep And Bear Arms
And what part of shall not be infringed do you NOT understand?

 

[SonicBlue03]

So basically your opinion is that he should have presented his ID, and perhaps apologized for taking up officer's time.

Now let me ask you, where do you draw the line ? What if the officer asked to search his person, to make sure he is not carrying any other weapons or illegal substances ? How about taking his fingerprints, and running them through the system to make sure he is not a wanted criminal ? Checking his blood alcohol level, to make sure he is not carrying a weapon while under influence ? Asking for his home address, to check that he has nothing illegal in there ? All of that while the officer is on the clock, paid perhaps by that very person's tax money. And sure, he has a right to refuse all of those, but why escalate ? Comply and be done with it!

Which of those scenarios would you like me to respond to? Some of those are silly, but I'm not sure which ones you're being intentionally silly about and which ones you're serious about.

 

[fd15k]

Which of those scenarios would you like me to respond to? Some of those are silly, but I'm not sure which ones you're being intentionally silly about and which ones you're serious about.

Those are all silly scenarios but all within a similar context: officer makes a request without having any legal grounds, using his authority as intimidating factor in order to achieve compliance, and not to forget the false pretense for the interaction itself.

The point I am trying to make, when is it okay for a citizen to be pissed off and refuse cooperation ?