Surrounded by cops today

[RichardR]

I don't disagree with that, and from what I read it was with the exception his weapon was returned unloaded. I said I think that unloading his weapon was silly and classless. I don't think it rises to the level of criminal nor is it worthy of getting pissed off about. I'm not the victim type. I'd have just called him a pissant and been done with it. I guess other people need to hold on to their anger.

I can't speak for the OP but from what I gathered from reading the thread was that the extended detention (in order to run the OP's firearm's serial number) was the OP's primary complaint, the officer unloading all of the OP's magazines before returning the weapon was just "icing on the cake" so to speak.

Personally I don't blame the OP for being irritated, I was too, law-abiding citizens generally don't like being treated like criminals, especially after it has been determined that no crime had been committed & that they are not criminals.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Arguing with or resisting the officer's attempt to disarm you will only result in you being handcuffed (or worse).

It's best to comply with the officers orders (even if they are in the wrong) and then taking it up with their supervisors or with a judge after the fact.

i dont see how it could even come to that point if one just keeps their mouth shut and doesnt volunteer anything to the cops. even rolling up on a call like that, they cant just start handcuffing people left and right because they claim its for "officer safety". I would gladly see them in court. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many people end up in jail because they talk to police. Im sure FAR fewer go there because they kept their mouth shut. I will go with the odds. Talking to the cops is NEVER in your best intrest. they will gladly lie to you to achieve their end goal. but if i lie to them, then i will be charged with a crime. however thay cant do s*** to you if you just dont speak at all.

some cop points a gun in my face for NO GOOD REASON like what was done here, then I WILL be seeing him in court and suing him for his kids college fund (well his department at least, since individualy they can murder people and not even have to pay out of pocket .)

 

[RichardR]

When did you ever read a post from me that says I will ARGUE with and RESIST a LEO??? Thanks for putting your own twist on my posts...

I am sorry if I offended you, I was simply trying to convey to everyone who might be following this thread (not just you), that the proper time & place to correct an officers behavior is after the fact.

Even if the officer seems completely ignorant of the Constitution, the laws regarding carry or even just basic human decency.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I am sorry if I offended you, I was simply trying to convey to everyone who might be following this thread (not just you), that the proper time & place to correct an officers behavior is after the fact.

Even if the officer seems completely ignorant of the Constitution, the laws regarding carry or even just basic human decency.

no the proper time to correct injustice is while its occuring. teach the retarded by simply not going along with it like every other sheep does. they will learn quick. if candy stopped working for a child molester then i guess they would have to move to using ponys wouldnt they?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I can't speak for the OP but from what I gathered from reading the thread was that the extended detention (in order to run the OP's firearm's serial number) was the OP's primary complaint, the officer unloading all of the OP's magazines before returning the weapon was just "icing on the cake" so to speak.

Personally I don't blame the OP for being irritated, I was too, law-abiding citizens generally don't like being treated like criminals, especially after it has been determined that no crime had been committed & that they are not criminals.

Again, no disagreement. I'd be irritated. Then I'd get over it rather than let it fester like an open sore.

I'm not defending what was done, I'm explaining it. I see the rationale. I just personally don't see it as some attempted gun grab, which is what it has been painted as.

Really, I've spent more time thinking about this than I want to. Peace out on this thread.

 

[MinuteMan47]

I am sorry if I offended you, I was simply trying to convey to everyone who might be following this thread (not just you), that the proper time & place to correct an officers behavior is after the fact.

Even if the officer seems completely ignorant of the Constitution, the laws regarding carry or even just basic human decency.

....and I agree. If I have commited a crime in the presence of an officer then that is one thing (HIGHLY UNLIKELY). But, I am not going to sit around and listen to his FALSE accusations. A LAW ENFORCEMENT officer is NOT the judge and jury so why should I plead my case to him. Therefore, as I have stated NUMEROUS TIMES, I would execise my right to remain silent and not entertain his questions. If the officer decides he wants to arrest me (without PC) then I would glady see him and his department in court!

 

[Hammerhead]

Because there was a reported felony and the OP was a suspect until it was determined that there was in fact no crime committed. Until that determination was made there was probable cause to arrest, which was done. You don't get to keep a gun when you're under arrest. It's just a thing the police do. I don't know. It seems reasonable to me when you are suspected of committing a felony to be disarmed.

So I take it you are saying the police should let criminals keep their guns?

No. What a lot of people are saying is that he wasn't under arrest, which is a very specific state of interaction with police, which requires a very specific series of events and definitions of reason and cause. In the case of the OP, he was asked what he was doing, why he was doing it, and if there'd been another person there. Even once the question of weapons came up, he still wasn't under arrest. He was being detained, and when he produced the proper authority to carry said weapon, the detainment should have ended right then and there. When the police confiscated his weapon, he still wasn't under arrest. When the police removed each bullet from his magazines, he still wasn't under arrest.

The police at this point had already concluded that he wasn't a threat, he wasn't the person they were looking for, and he wasn't doing what they suspected him of doing, they should have apologized. Problem is, there was a line there, right about when they see the little pink piece of freedom that everything else should have shifted. It's almost understandable if they ran his ID and LTCH for validity, however he wasn't required to provide any of it. And it might be procedure to progress through asking what he's doing and asking for ID, but even at a heightened alert level, the police could easily see he wasn't doing what was suspected. That's where good police work says "this guy is not robbing the place". Plenty of police encounters end after the police interact with a person without going to ID and "are you armed?".

The travesty is that they seemed to cross the line from innocent citizen doing his job to suspected robber and stayed there, especially after he stated he was legally armed. And what everyone else seems to understand is that once they crossed the line to detainment for no reason, and found they'd erred, they decided to be Richards and prevent a legally armed citizen from returning to being a legally armed citizen in their presence. They had to remove his bullets which reeks of immaturity. It seems they need a re-wiring on the switch that goes from Zero to Full Alert. They couldn't turn it off and they retaliated like a child. Poor form, at least.

No, I'm not cop bashing, and no, I don't equate any or all of the issues that the OP experienced to every cop, or any other cop aside from the one he dealt with.

 

[downzero]

LOL, yeah try telling the judge that when he asks you to substantiate a relevance based objection. Let me know how it works out for you when you refuse to give him your analysis of why something is irrelevant and just keep repeating your conclusion.

Yeah, okay genius. Why don't you enlighten us as to the probative value of telling someone you're a veteran in a dispute about something totally unrelated to that?

I'm a veteran. Does that mean you'll stop assuming bad faith and respond to my posts maturely? We obviously know the answer to that. It's pretty obvious that even you, with your snide remarks, understand that veteran status says nothing about someone's conduct at a later date.

Hell, for all I know, you could be a veteran, thus illustrating my point further.

 

[PatriotPride]

Well this thread is turning bad faster than the cheese I forgot to put back into the fridge.

 

[finity]

Yeah, if you called the cops and said there was a felony in progress (let's say a baby snatching), and they come out and find me pushing a stroller down the street, I would expect them to detain me and investigate the supposed crime thoroughly before letting me go. They wouldn't know that the baby in the stroller was my grandchild, and I wouldn't expect them to take my word for it. I would want them to check out my story, because maybe it's someone else trying to steal my granddaughter.

Apples & oranges.

In the OP the person who reported the "crime" didn't give a descrtiption of the "criminal". They just said they THOUGHT they were being robbed based on a strange noise outside the back door. Then when the cops show up all they see is a guy doing work on a light & jump to the conclusion that he was the "criminal". Based on what, exactly? The fact that he was armed? Which he readily admitted to when they asked. Yep, he sounds like a real hardened criminal to me.

At least the cop got one thing right. He was able to instantly figure out that the "strange noise" was being made by him. Great police work there, Barney!

Oh, and we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

As did I.

That means criminals in my mind. So yeah, I'm OK with stopping crime in its tracks.

That also means from the police/government IF they become too oppressive. I'm not saying we're there yet. But we seem to be inexoribly moving in that direction. & guess what...it's all condoned, if not promoted, by people who should know better all in the name of being "tough on crime". It sounds as though you may be a willing participant in that.

In the long run, we are in more danger from oppression from our own government than from criminals. History has shown that's the way it's always been...if we're not vigilant to stand against it.

 

[finity]

I'm not qualified to say whether or not it would apply in this case, but ...


The examples that LexisNexis gives as sufficient to prove false informing indicate that the lies told to police investigators be intended to conceal a criminal offense or offender. Given that the gun was legally possessed and carrying a firearm when properly licensed in and of itself is no crime, I'd say there is at least an argument that the false informing law would not apply in the stated scenario, but that is something a court would have to decide at great cost to the defendant.

Thanks for the info. I'll have to look into it more.

 

[Pale Rider]

I know one who's trying.

After reading, re-reading, skimming and skipping through this thread I guess I'll throw in my two cents for whatever it's worth.

1. Police overreacted
2. Filing formal complaint makes sense
3. This does not mean that the police are a military occupation force, regardless of prior training, current equipment or overreactions.
4. As a soldier (one with a unique skill set, and yet little experience) I would find it hard to shift to the Police mindset. If I were the officers in this situation, sans unloading the OP's gun I would have probably acted similarly. I've read a number of threads on here about similar happenings around our state and I'm torn on the issue. I always try to put myself in the officers shoes, and frankly I think, with my current mindset and training I'd probably act like they do. I'd operate under the assumption that you are a criminal until proven otherwise, for no other reason than I would want to come home to my family every night.

These officers need to be called on the carpet and trained better. I just find it hard to judge their actions when I know I'd probably react the same way.

 

[downzero]

Reps to this whole page of posters.

 

[serpicostraight]

I know one who's trying.

After reading, re-reading, skimming and skipping through this thread I guess I'll throw in my two cents for whatever it's worth.

1. Police overreacted
2. Filing formal complaint makes sense
3. This does not mean that the police are a military occupation force, regardless of prior training, current equipment or overreactions.
4. As a soldier (one with a unique skill set, and yet little experience) I would find it hard to shift to the Police mindset. If I were the officers in this situation, sans unloading the OP's gun I would have probably acted similarly. I've read a number of threads on here about similar happenings around our state and I'm torn on the issue. I always try to put myself in the officers shoes, and frankly I think, with my current mindset and training I'd probably act like they do. I'd operate under the assumption that you are a criminal until proven otherwise, for no other reason than I would want to come home to my family every night.

These officers need to be called on the carpet and trained better. I just find it hard to judge their actions when I know I'd probably react the same way.

and that is the problem with le these days. i remember a time when cops was tough they had to be. but now they are so afraid of anything that moves it takes a swat team to issue a parking ticket. is society really that dangerous or are cops just paranoid?

 

[Pale Rider]

and that is the problem with le these days. i remember a time when cops was tough they had to be. but now they are so afraid of anything that moves it takes a swat team to issue a parking ticket. is society really that dangerous or are cops just paranoid?

Maybe both?? I think it has to fall back on their training, and I hope some LEO's can clarify this. I'm guessing that they are trained to roll up agressive and ready for confrontation, always expecting the worst. But who can blame them we live in a time when you can't take a person's word on anything anymore and where making the wrong assumption can get you killed.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I know one who's trying.

After reading, re-reading, skimming and skipping through this thread I guess I'll throw in my two cents for whatever it's worth.

1. Police overreacted
2. Filing formal complaint makes sense
3. This does not mean that the police are a military occupation force, regardless of prior training, current equipment or overreactions.
4. As a soldier (one with a unique skill set, and yet little experience) I would find it hard to shift to the Police mindset. If I were the officers in this situation, sans unloading the OP's gun I would have probably acted similarly. I've read a number of threads on here about similar happenings around our state and I'm torn on the issue. I always try to put myself in the officers shoes, and frankly I think, with my current mindset and training I'd probably act like they do. I'd operate under the assumption that you are a criminal until proven otherwise, for no other reason than I would want to come home to my family every night.

These officers need to be called on the carpet and trained better. I just find it hard to judge their actions when I know I'd probably react the same way.

yep cause coming home is always more important than protecting freedom

Your a soldier and I understand what you are trained to do. these guys are cops, not ninja storm troopers. or atleast they arent supposed to act like they are. a lot of cops are taking things too far. It will eventualy break loose. once the public opinion of the need for LE flips then it will get real nasty real quick. so all these cops who wanna follow SOPs to keep their job should remember they wont have a job if the public decides they are bigger bullies than the criminals they "protect" them from.

 

[Pale Rider]

yep cause coming home is always more important than protecting freedom

Your a soldier and I understand what you are trained to do. these guys are cops, not ninja storm troopers. or atleast they arent supposed to act like they are. a lot of cops are taking things too far. It will eventualy break loose. once the public opinion of the need for LE flips then it will get real nasty real quick. so all these cops who wanna follow SOPs to keep their job should remember they wont have a job if the public decides they are bigger bullies than the criminals they "protect" them from.

I understand and honestly agree with you, my question is, are you saying the problem is the individual officers or the SOPs?? That's really what I'm curious about, how do we fix the problem? Are departments not training guys properly or are they hiring too many scared weenies who can't handle not having an army behind them? Or maybe they're hiring too many rambo wannabes? I don't know, but I've seen a lot of trash talk and strong opinions in this thread but no real discussion of what is the root of the problem and how to fix it. Being an a-hole when confronted by police won't fix it. Stopping former military personnel from becoming cops wont fix it. is a better hiring process needed? Maybe reworking the profile of what makes a good officer? I'm curious.

And I'm not saying coming home is more important than protecting freedom, just that I know covering mine and my comrades' backsides would be a high priority.

 

[PatriotPride]

I understand and honestly agree with you, my question is, are you saying the problem is the individual officers or the SOPs?? That's really what I'm curious about, how do we fix the problem? Are departments not training guys properly or are they hiring too many scared weenies who can't handle not having an army behind them? Or maybe they're hiring too many rambo wannabes? I don't know, but I've seen a lot of trash talk and strong opinions in this thread but no real discussion of what is the root of the problem and how to fix it. Being an a-hole when confronted by police won't fix it. Stopping former military personnel from becoming cops wont fix it. is a better hiring process needed? Maybe reworking the profile of what makes a good officer? I'm curious.

And I'm not saying coming home is more important than protecting freedom, just that I know covering mine and my comrades' backsides would be a high priority.

One can "plead the 5th" and not be an a-hole. And it's NOT being an "a-hole" when we we as citizens act within the law and choose to use OUR RIGHTS when dealing with police officers.

There is NO higher priority than protecting our freedoms. I'll say it again: THERE IS NO HIGHER PRIORITY THAN PROTECTING OUR FREEDOMS. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but a police officer's "desire to go home at night" does NOT trump my freedoms and the law. If a police officer feels that they must violate the law and infringe upon my rights in order to go home every night, they should find another profession.

 

[serpicostraight]

One can "plead the 5th" and not be an a-hole. And it's NOT being an "a-hole" when we we as citizens act within the law and choose to use OUR RIGHTS when dealing with police officers.

There is NO higher priority than protecting our freedoms. I'll say it again: THERE IS NO HIGHER PRIORITY THAN PROTECTING OUR FREEDOMS. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but a police officer's "desire to go home at night" does NOT trump my freedoms and the law. If a police officer feels that they must violate the law and infringe upon my rights in order to go home every night, they should find another profession.

what he said

 

[Pale Rider]

One can "plead the 5th" and not be an a-hole. And it's NOT being an "a-hole" when we we as citizens act within the law and choose to use OUR RIGHTS when dealing with police officers.

There is NO higher priority than protecting our freedoms. I'll say it again: THERE IS NO HIGHER PRIORITY THAN PROTECTING OUR FREEDOMS. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but a police officer's "desire to go home at night" does NOT trump my freedoms and the law. If a police officer feels that they must violate the law and infringe upon my rights in order to go home every night, they should find another profession.

And once again the real issues at hand are ignored...

How exactly does an officer protect your freedoms when responding to a robbery or "man with a gun" call made on you?

What needs to change so that you're rights aren't infringed on??

Better training? Different personnel? New laws? Stricter punishment for officers over stepping their bounds?

(I'm not being a smart-a, I'm honestly asking these questions)

I have no desire to have my rights infringed on anymore than the next guy, and there is obviously a growing problem. I am interested though in getting to the root of it not just sitting around crying everytime I feel I or someone else was bullied. I want to write an editorial to the star on this topic of police overreacting, and I want to mention stories I've read here. But writing in with no suggestions on how to fix the problem is poor form. So I ask again what needs to change? I'm not educated enough on police training and tactics or their hiring process to make a smart judgement. So I'm asking for some real suggestions not just a bunch of "Don't tread on me" flag waving.