Being disarmed

[slowG]

Just for clarification and educational purposes. If someone were stopped by police (pulled over or on foot) and asked to disarm after a LTCH was presented, what are your rights? Can you refuse ? Or are you to hand your property over and just deal no matter the circumstance?

I have not fortunately had an issue where I was asked to disarm. I have read several stories on here about being disarmed. I personally would feel very uncomfortable with having my sidearm unholstered by a stranger in public.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Hopefully the officer would ask before he just grabs your gun (unlike my meeting with a State Trooper).
when he does, you simply tell him that you will not resist if he takes it but you do not consent to any search of your person or property.

 

[CitiusFortius]

You do what the officer says regardless of rights. If not (even though you're right) the officer can make your life hell with disorderly conduct or junk like that. It'll get tossed out, but not before you drop big bucks on legal fees etc.

Just do what he/she says, then go to the station after to file a complaint.

 

[SteveM4A1]

At a minimum, officer needs RAS to fear for his/her safety. The LEO must have specific, articulable facts that the carrier is armed AND dangerous.

 

[ATM]

You do what the officer says regardless of rights. If not (even though you're right) the officer can make your life hell with disorderly conduct or junk like that. It'll get tossed out, but not before you drop big bucks on legal fees etc.

Just do what he/she says, then go to the station after to file a complaint.

Disagree. You don't necessarily resist the officers actions, but there are many demands I would not comply with or perform myself merely because he wanted me to.

Unholstering/handing over a gun is among those.

 

[9x18]

Have a really good lawyer(actually couple of lawyers). Then just as the cop would make your life hell, make his life hell drag his/her thru courts, make sure the cop loses the job and then file personal suits. Basically sue he/her and the department into oblivion.

 

[Hammer]

Have a really good lawyer(actually couple of lawyers). Then just as the cop would make your life hell, make his life hell drag his/her thru courts, make sure the cop loses the job and then file personal suits. Basically sue he/her and the department into oblivion.

LOL, good luck with that.

 

[88GT]

You do what the officer says regardless of rights. If not (even though you're right) the officer can make your life hell with disorderly conduct or junk like that. It'll get tossed out, but not before you drop big bucks on legal fees etc.

Just do what he/she says, then go to the station after to file a complaint.

What is the point of having rights if we have to surrender them at the demand of the state?

 

[nakinate]

What is the point of having rights if we have to surrender them at the demand of the state?

Because in the moment, active resistance would end poorly for you. Unless you're willing to have a shiny jackboot on the back of your head and spend a night in the pokey is it worth it? I would hit record on my phone the second I got pulled over so the officer doesn't even know it's happening. Then I would say I don't consent to search and seizure. Get evidence and file a complaint.

 

[Dead Duck]

Because in the moment, active resistance would end poorly for you. Unless you're willing to have a shiny jackboot on the back of your head and spend a night in the pokey is it worth it? I would hit record on my phone the second I got pulled over so the officer doesn't even know it's happening. Then I would say I don't consent to search and seizure. Get evidence and file a complaint.

Nakinate said "Pokey".


Reported!










Use an audio recorder....all the time.

Video would be nice, but gets messy when contact begins.

Stay Calm......






Do Not Volunteer or Touch Your Gun........Period........It's a Trap.

 

[88GT]

Because in the moment, active resistance would end poorly for you. Unless you're willing to have a shiny jackboot on the back of your head and spend a night in the pokey is it worth it? I would hit record on my phone the second I got pulled over so the officer doesn't even know it's happening. Then I would say I don't consent to search and seizure. Get evidence and file a complaint.

Wrong. I didn't ask why we might find it prudent not to exercise our rights in the face of illegal use of police powers. I asked why we even claim to have rights if we have to surrender them at the behest of the state or its agents just to prevent a different set of consequences that also infringe on our rights.

 

[darinb]

You do what the officer says regardless of rights. If not (even though you're right) the officer can make your life hell with disorderly conduct or junk like that. It'll get tossed out, but not before you drop big bucks on legal fees etc.

Just do what he/she says, then go to the station after to file a complaint.

Very true, Ive seen many arrested for disorderly conduct,etc because the officer either was on an ego trip or didnt understand people get emotional.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Wrong. I didn't ask why we might find it prudent not to exercise our rights in the face of illegal use of police powers. I asked why we even claim to have rights if we have to surrender them at the behest of the state or its agents just to prevent a different set of consequences that also infringe on our rights.

What alternative do you suggest? I find no problem with his suggestion to start an audio recorder nor with obtaining evidence of a misdeed if one does happen to occur, and in the event of said misdeed, deciding whether the department or a court should be the ones to address the righting of the wrong and making whole of a person again. That's not to say I think that should or should not be the only action,
only that the advice to do so is, pardon the pun, sound.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Liberty Sanders]

LOL, good luck with that.[/QUOTE

You might have better luck than you think.

During my tenure with Cincinnati PD we had twice-yearly management training sessions for all ranks sergeant and above in which we got trained and updated on issues relating to law enforcement.

We ALWAYS got a report on police departments that had been sued and gotten their asses kicked under section 1983 of the U.S. Code. All you had to do to get one of our brass to drop a big load in his skivvies was to sneak up behind him and say 1983!!!!! They were terrified of it.

1983 is the section that forbids violation of civil rights under color of law and officials who lose lawsuits under the section are required to pay punitive damages out of their own pockets. This is to prevent crooked cops from saying, "Hey, I can do whatever I want cuz if I get sued the city/county/state will pay for it."

​1983 lawsuits should be like voting, done early and often.

 

[nakinate]

Wrong. I didn't ask why we might find it prudent not to exercise our rights in the face of illegal use of police powers. I asked why we even claim to have rights if we have to surrender them at the behest of the state or its agents just to prevent a different set of consequences that also infringe on our rights.

Wrong. You asked what the point of having rights was, not why do we claim to have rights. I was giving reasoning for why you may submit after stating that you do not consent. If enough people actually recorded these encounters and filed suit afterwards then we would regain the rights that we have given up. I agree it is pointless to have rights that are constantly trampled, but unless you want a bloody revolution then suing the pants off of local law enforcement will be the best way to institute change.

 

[88GT]

What alternative do you suggest?

Are the only options fight or take it up the ass?

I find no problem with his suggestion to start an audio recorder nor with obtaining evidence of a misdeed if one does happen to occur, and in the event of said misdeed, deciding whether the department or a court should be the ones to address the righting of the wrong and making whole of a person again. That's not to say I think that should or should not be the only action,
only that the advice to do so is, pardon the pun, sound.

Neither do I. You just answered your own question, I suppose.

 

[88GT]

Wrong. You asked what the point of having rights was, not why do we claim to have rights. I was giving reasoning for why you may submit after stating that you do not consent. If enough people actually recorded these encounters and filed suit afterwards then we would regain the rights that we have given up. I agree it is pointless to have rights that are constantly trampled, but unless you want a bloody revolution then suing the pants off of local law enforcement will be the best way to institute change.

It's a ridiculous semantics issue. You're splitting hairs.

And there was no "after stating you do not submit" in the context of the post of mine that you originally quoted. I was addressing the post that said we should just consent by doing what the officer says. You introduced that after the fact. The post I quoted initially suggested just bending over and taking it up the rear because the LEO said to do it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's a ridiculous semantics issue. You're splitting hairs.

And there was no "after stating you do not submit" in the context of the post of mine that you originally quoted. I was addressing the post that said we should just consent by doing what the officer says. You introduced that after the fact. The post I quoted initially suggested just bending over and taking it up the rear because the LEO said to do it.

In your original post that started this, were you asking a rhetorical question or an introductory question? That is, were you asking a question to begin a discussion on available options when an officer commands you to do something you believe is in violation of your rights? I think most of us that contribute in these types of threads bridle at the JBThuggery that happens from time to time. But we all know refusing to do as instructed with "legal" instructions in a non-consenual stop will end badly for you.

 

[45fan]

Using the "violating my rights" argument to say an officer cannot do whatever is being naive, and simple minded. Try telling a robber that he is violating your rights and must cease and desist the next time you are being held at gun point, or any other crime committed against you would stop the moment you pulled "violating my rights". Criminal actions are just that. If an officer is committing a criminal act, then obviously you would not file a complaint about the officer with himself. If retaliation is most likely going to end up bad for you initially, suck it up, and come back with a lawyer in tow at a latter time. Doesnt make it right, but when dealing with police that are human, you WILL eventually find one that lets the badge go to their head. (Probably not something that is all that difficult, sadly). If you are being put in a situation that is putting you in an unsafe situation, the best solution, as in any unsafe situation, is to to whatever you have to do to keep things as safe as possible, and you out of harms way in the most expedient manner possible.

Right or wrong, fighting with cops tends to end badly, no matter who was in the wrong to begin with. Getting yourself shot, beat, killed in the process of defending your rights is kinda counter productive unless you are in an actual war.

If my options were to succumb to an officers demands that violated my rights temporarily, and have an opportunity to become quite wealthy, or fight over the officers demands at the scene and get beaten, arrested, loose money and possibly be killed, I think I will take the option that puts me in the least likely place to gain a bullet and loose money.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

I was disarmed by IPD officer Howard. She refused to let me even get my LTCH out of my wallet until backup showed up to assist in the disarmament. At that point with 3 squad cars on the scene, I was "Hands on my head, feet spread", on the side of the road. A little surprised I wasn't placed in prone position at that point. The worst part was that when office White disarmed me, he "swept" all three of us with the barrel before jacking 2 rounds of my ammo onto the street, because he forgot to remove the magazine first.

Did they violate my rights? Maybe, maybe not. My understanding is they have a right to actually see your LTCH to make sure it is valid, and they have a right to disarm you until that fact is established, and/or the LEO/Citizen interaction is complete.

Could they have handled it better? Absolutely. Am I all "Butt-Hurt" about it? Nope.