# More open carry idiots....



## Tgace (Aug 23, 2012)

http://www.policeone.com/Patrol-Vid...o-Cops-expert-open-carry-response-goes-viral/

I fail to see how going out with the intention of drawing police into a confrontation is going to gain the average persons support for second amendment rights. It just makes the gun owner look like a tool.

This cop did an outstanding job btw. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## clfsean (Aug 23, 2012)

Tgace said:


> http://www.policeone.com/Patrol-Vid...o-Cops-expert-open-carry-response-goes-viral/
> 
> I fail to see how going out with the intention of drawing police into a confrontation is going to gain the average persons support for second amendment rights. It just makes the gun owner look like a tool.
> 
> ...



The cop was a consummate pro. No doubt. 

The idiot with the camera... I see a chlorine injection coming to his gene pool if he keeps crap like that up, brought on by his own stupidity in action.


----------



## Steve (Aug 23, 2012)

I guess I don't understand the agenda.  Are these guys trying to make the cops look bad?  Is that what they do?

And I'd agree, the officer did a terrific job.


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 23, 2012)

Do people really walk around the streets with weapons out like that? I understand that these guys are since they appear to be trying some sort of entrapment for a cop.

I just can not grasp why someone would need to.. And the fact there are laws to allow.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Aug 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> I guess I don't understand the agenda.  Are these guys trying to make the cops look bad?  Is that what they do?
> 
> And I'd agree, the officer did a terrific job.



I think the goal is to draw attention to what the legalities of open carry are. For example, if open carry is legal, than just walking down the street with a rifle means a cop shouldn't be able to even stop you or demand ID.

These types like to illustrate these facts at the expense of some cops who may not know all of the "ins and outs" of OC but think they are protecting their beats.

While I'm a pro 2nd type myself I'm glad we don't have to face this sort of stuff in my state.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tames D (Aug 23, 2012)

Tgace said:


> http://www.policeone.com/Patrol-Vid...o-Cops-expert-open-carry-response-goes-viral/
> 
> I fail to see how going out with the intention of drawing police into a confrontation is going to gain the average persons support for second amendment rights. It just makes the gun owner look like a tool.
> 
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 24, 2012)

There are quite a few attention mongers who would do anything for 15 minutes of fame, in an effort to bait police.  I would hardly call this fellow a defender of the Second Amendment, since he's just trying to provoke things.  

This is no different than the miscreants who hold vials of powdered sugar and snort them when they know that police are watching them, hoping that they can somehow get a negative reaction.


----------



## Skpotamus (Aug 26, 2012)

There's been a big upswing in open carry incidents lately. Most have the police officers reacting in a pretty belligerent manner towards legal open carry. 

It was quite refreshing to see a police officer acting professionally and following the laws. I'm surprised he posted the vid as I imagine that most of the vids where police are doing their jobs professionally don't make it online. 

The open carry "advocate" was clearly looking for an argument instead of trying to advocate open carry laws. 

People like him give responsible gun owners a bad name.

Officers like Nork give police a good name.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2013)

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6160277-Video-A-classic-open-carry-response/


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 22, 2013)

The officers are doing a great job. The camera guys are douchnozzles.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 22, 2013)

Agreed.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 23, 2013)

After watching the video, I checked and was surprised to see that my state is listed as open carry. I think most people are sensible and considerate enough though to get a CCW permit, and don't make a scene by walking around with a gun out in the open. I suppose that in some areas that might be viewed as a normal occurrence, just not in my neighborhood where it meant run for cover.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 23, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6160277-Video-A-classic-open-carry-response/



I think in the second video the officer may be too nice? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but all that officer has to say is "let me see your ID", and if they refuse, then he could arrest them for disobeying a lawful order? It makes me wonder if these videos were arranged (ie *B.S.*)? Because to be honest, this is what I'm used to seeing: here I guess those guys with the AR-15s were lucky they didn't get caught Jaywalking?


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 23, 2013)

Wrong. He had no grounds to compel them to identify themselves. Merely carrying a gun was not illegal in those circumstances. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jezr74 (Mar 23, 2013)

What a bunch of tools, these type of guys do a dis-service to the pro-gun crowd. People that are carrying guns like that with the sole purpose to provoke, are a high risk IMO. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 23, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Wrong. He had no grounds to compel them to identify themselves. Merely carrying a gun was not illegal in those circumstances.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2



I guess it depends in what state you live? Because in my state, cops can arrest people who don't produce ID, and *they don't need any special reason to ask for it either*. I have personally seen police draw their weapons on unarmed citizens for way less reasons then for walking around town brandishing an assault rifle like they lived in a demilitarized zone. I was very surprised that police did not draw their guns on these guys, and told them to lay down their weapons before approaching them. If the videos are legit, it seems very probable to me that the police recognize what these guys are up to, and are being extra-specially-nice to avoid bringing the negative national attention that these guys are seeking.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 23, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> I guess it depends in what state you live? Because in my state, cops can arrest people who don't produce ID



Are you sure this is right? If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and a cop ask for ID and I refuse/am unable to comply, it's off to jail I go? Because "Let me see your papers" isn't really the system here.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 23, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes



> As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, *provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement*,[20] and 24 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional[22] stop and identify laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[23] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[24] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 23, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Are you sure this is right? If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and a cop ask for ID and I refuse/am unable to comply, it's off to jail I go? Because "Let me see your papers" isn't really the system here.



Nine years ago I asked a police car stop so I could give a description of a dealer who had approached me selling drugs. The officers insulted me - suggesting that I was in the area to either buy drugs or find a prostitute. They then asked me to give my ID. I was upset with the way I was being treated, and refused to give my ID because I wasn't committing a crime. They arrested me, and held me for twelve hours before I could use the phone to call my wife (who was worried sick). I was told that the charges were dropped (I never was told what they were). However, just recently I wanted to volunteer for a chaplain service that required a background check - three miscellaneous misdemeanors were charged against me that day. I have a criminal record for trying to report a drug dealer - no ****. The lesson = show your ID - it's a lawful command, don't believe the B.S. in that video because it's not the norm. And if you don't want to get out of your car for "officer safety" you better have your doors locked, your hands on the wheel in plain sight, and move very slow when passing your ID through the cracked window. I was pulled over once for driving without a seatbelt, the officer tried to force open my car door, and then drew his gun when I said I wanted to stay in my car and hand him my information through the cracked window. The lesson = keep a cell phone and a way to record things handy when you go out in public, and call the state police to come out and make a report at the scene if your local police is harassing you. This system worked out well for our local cable installer tech. who was being subject to racial profiling by being pulled over every time he drove through the city; he eventually had enough evidence to win a lawsuit - the police tried claiming that he matched a suspect's description (black man driving a used car apparently).


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 23, 2013)

Tgace said:


> As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement,[20] and 24 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional[22] &#8220;stop and identify&#8221; laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[23] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[24]



Thanks for posting this.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 23, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Thanks for posting this.



All that has changed since Hiibel (2004) is that you may now possibly be charged for refusing to ID when an officer has reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime, depending on your states laws. An officer has had to have RS to even ask for the ID from at least Terry V Ohio (1968).


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 23, 2013)

Tgace said:


> All that has changed since Hiibel (2004) is that you may now possibly be charged for refusing to ID when an officer has reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime, depending on your states laws. An officer has had to have RS to even ask for the ID from at least Terry V Ohio (1968).



I wonder how a person could prove that there was no basis for reasonable suspicion when he is alone with no witnesses, cell phone or recording device? Answer = you can't, and you better hand over your ID or risk being arrested; because if the officer asked for it, it's because he's already suspicious of you.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 23, 2013)

I apologize for my bitterness guys, it's easy for me to be nearsighted sometimes and forget what God has done for me. In all honesty, God truly makes things fit together like if it were all planned when we turn our lives over to Him. Because of that experience, I learned I have a stronger faith then I had realized, and instead of griping about the pruning along the way, I should be boasting about how gracious He has been to me throughout the years.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 23, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> I guess it depends in what state you live? Because in my state, cops can arrest people who don't produce ID, and *they don't need any special reason to ask for it either*. I have personally seen police draw their weapons on unarmed citizens for way less reasons then for walking around town brandishing an assault rifle like they lived in a demilitarized zone. I was very surprised that police did not draw their guns on these guys, and told them to lay down their weapons before approaching them. If the videos are legit, it seems very probable to me that the police recognize what these guys are up to, and are being extra-specially-nice to avoid bringing the negative national attention that these guys are seeking.



First -- I apologize if my earlier response seemed a bit curt.  Hazard of posting on a smartphone....

Now, to address these issues...

I'm not aware of any US state that has given the police carte blanche to stop and identify ANYONE, without at least reasonable suspicion of some sort of wrong doing.  Even the decision in _Hiibel _doesn't go that far in permitting laws to require at least some suspects to identify themselves.  However, the whole discussion is moot; Officer Estes told them several times that they weren't detained, and that he was only asking -- not requiring them to provide him with info.   They were not *brandishing* the rifle (or the pistol on his hip); they were merely carrying them.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 23, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> First -- I apologize if my earlier response seemed a bit curt.  Hazard of posting on a smartphone....
> 
> Now, to address these issues...
> 
> I'm not aware of any US state that has given the police carte blanche to stop and identify ANYONE, without at least reasonable suspicion of some sort of wrong doing.  Even the decision in _Hiibel _doesn't go that far in permitting laws to require at least some suspects to identify themselves.  However, the whole discussion is moot; Officer Estes told them several times that they weren't detained, and that he was only asking -- not requiring them to provide him with info.   They were not *brandishing* the rifle (or the pistol on his hip); they were merely carrying them.



Your right, they were only carrying their guns - I was upset and exaggerated. I was thinking back in comparison to what happened to me, and got angry over the matter again.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 24, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> First -- I apologize if my earlier response seemed a bit curt.  Hazard of posting on a smartphone....
> 
> Now, to address these issues...
> 
> I'm not aware of any US state that has given the police carte blanche to stop and identify ANYONE, without at least reasonable suspicion of some sort of wrong doing.  Even the decision in _Hiibel _doesn't go that far in permitting laws to require at least some suspects to identify themselves.  However, the whole discussion is moot; Officer Estes told them several times that they weren't detained, and that he was only asking -- not requiring them to provide him with info.   They were not *brandishing* the rifle (or the pistol on his hip); they were merely carrying them.



Isn't reasonable suspicion an opinion that is based on an officer's experience and training? Therefore it gives an officer the legal flexibility to ask anyone for ID a legal command as long as he could give a "reasonable" explanation of why. I highly doubt that most officers will say "May I please see your ID, but if you don't want to it's OK I'll just go away now." Or "If you let me see your assault rifle, I'll show you mine "  Perhaps all that an officer would really have to say in court to establish his reason is "He looked suspicious, so I asked for his ID," and the judge thinks "Well ... that's reasonable enough, he looked suspicious." BTW reasonable suspicion was NEVER brought up when I faced the judge when I was arrested in 2004 for not showing ID, it was just simply assumed (which is probably still the norm).

In the second video, the officer requests for their IDs to check and see if they have the legal right to carry their firearms (background check for felonies); which sounds like a reasonable suspicion - they could be unregistered or felons. However they refuse to showing their IDs, so now the officer cannot verify their legal right to carry. It is at this point that I do not see why the officer could not arrest them if he wanted to, because he already established a reasonable explanation for his suspicion. He could easily say "We received several calls from alarmed citizens of Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson who have been seen walking around town carrying assault rifles. When I approached the suspects and asked them to provide IDs to verify their legal right to carry they refused; which made me suspicious of their reasons for carrying openly in public. Throughout my years serving as an officer, I commonly come across felons who are in illegal possession of firearms; therefore, after they continued to refuse to comply and provide their IDs after several more attempts, I placed them under arrest to ensure the public's safety."


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Isn't reasonable suspicion an opinion that is based on an officer's experience and training? Therefore it gives an officer the legal flexibility to ask anyone for ID a legal command as long as he could give a "reasonable" explanation of why. I highly doubt that most officers will say "May I please see your ID, but if you don't want to it's OK I'll just go away now." Or "If you let me see your assault rifle, I'll show you mine "  Perhaps all that an officer would really have to say in court to establish his reason is "He looked suspicious, so I asked for his ID," and the judge thinks "Well ... that's reasonable enough, he looked suspicious." BTW reasonable suspicion was NEVER brought up when I faced the judge when I was arrested in 2004 for not showing ID, it was just simply assumed (which is probably still the norm).
> 
> In the second video, the officer requests for their IDs to check and see if they have the legal right to carry their firearms (background check for felonies); which sounds like a reasonable suspicion - they could be unregistered or felons. However they refuse to showing their IDs, so now the officer cannot verify their legal right to carry. It is at this point that I do not see why the officer could not arrest them if he wanted to, because he already established a reasonable explanation for his suspicion. He could easily say "We received several calls from alarmed citizens of Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson who have been seen walking around town carrying assault rifles. When I approached the suspects and asked them to provide IDs to verify their legal right to carry they refused; which made me suspicious of their reasons for carrying openly in public. Throughout my years serving as an officer, I commonly come across felons who are in illegal possession of firearms; therefore, after they continued to refuse to comply and provide their IDs after several more attempts, I placed them under arrest to ensure the public's safety."



No.

Reasonable Suspicion is a defined legal term:

http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/59



> _Defined_: "_Reasonable suspicion_" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to _reasonably believe_ that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. *The officer must be able to articulate more than an "**inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch' of criminal activity**."* (*Terry v. Ohio* (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 27 [20 L.Ed.2[SUP]nd[/SUP] 889,



An officer has to be able to testify at a hearing the specific articulable reasons for why he/she believed a contact reached the RS stage. You cannot manufacture RS by assuming every gun owner you approach is a convicted Felon and use that to demand ID.

If you are truly interested in this topic read this:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Wum9J0&sig=AHIEtbQh0M4uo0pwPr2MABGFVqWP9ianUQ

The thing to remember with police encounters and RS is that "you" (the person being contacted) rarely know all the details regarding the WHY'S of the police contact. RS isn't something you debate or run a hearing on in the street. An officer demanding ID when he doesn't have the right to may indeed happen. You can try schooling him on RS on the roadside but I don't know how wise of a choice that would be. RS comes into your favor in pre-trial hearings (called a DeBour hearing in NY). I have seen numerous cases dismissed outright at DeBour...officers who violate RS open up their departments for lawsuits and themselves for civil rights cases....


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Isn't reasonable suspicion an opinion that is based on an officer's experience and training? Therefore it gives an officer the legal flexibility to ask anyone for ID a legal command as long as he could give a "reasonable" explanation of why. I highly doubt that most officers will say "May I please see your ID, but if you don't want to it's OK I'll just go away now." Or "If you let me see your assault rifle, I'll show you mine "  Perhaps all that an officer would really have to say in court to establish his reason is "He looked suspicious, so I asked for his ID," and the judge thinks "Well ... that's reasonable enough, he looked suspicious." BTW reasonable suspicion was NEVER brought up when I faced the judge when I was arrested in 2004 for not showing ID, it was just simply assumed (which is probably still the norm).
> 
> In the second video, the officer requests for their IDs to check and see if they have the legal right to carry their firearms (background check for felonies); which sounds like a reasonable suspicion - they could be unregistered or felons. However they refuse to showing their IDs, so now the officer cannot verify their legal right to carry. It is at this point that I do not see why the officer could not arrest them if he wanted to, because he already established a reasonable explanation for his suspicion. He could easily say "We received several calls from alarmed citizens of Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson who have been seen walking around town carrying assault rifles. When I approached the suspects and asked them to provide IDs to verify their legal right to carry they refused; which made me suspicious of their reasons for carrying openly in public. Throughout my years serving as an officer, I commonly come across felons who are in illegal possession of firearms; therefore, after they continued to refuse to comply and provide their IDs after several more attempts, I placed them under arrest to ensure the public's safety."



First -- reasonable suspicion is a legal standard.  It's a vague definition, but it's more than a mere hunch or mere suspicion.  It must be based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts based on an officer's training and experience which would give rise to a belief that crime may be afoot.   (See _Terry v Ohio_ for a starting point.)  So, the mere possibility that these guys may be felons isn't enough; the officer needs some reason to believe that they are felons.  That reasonable, articulable suspicion may be based on things that wouldn't mean anything to an ordinary citizen, like the way that they stand, details about their dress, recognizing tattoo styles, or even knowing the person.  Simply being on the street, legally carrying a gun isn't enough.

Now... I'm going to share a "secret"...  I use people innate habits of compliance against them a lot.  A whole lot.  Let's look at this sort of incident.  In Virginia, it's generally legal to openly carry a gun.  There are a few odd limits in specific places, and a property owner has the right to tell someone carrying a gun to leave... but that's the general rule.  So, let's say I see a couple guys walking around with an AR.  OK...  I'm going to go see if they'll have a chat.  I walk over, and I don't block their line of travel.  I say "Hi, guys... Mind talking for a minute?"  If they say "yes" and walk away -- that's as far as I can go.  Most people won't, though.  Then I'll ask "Do you have ID?"  Most people will then voluntarily present it... but notice I haven't asked for it.  I've only asked IF they have it.  If they say "yes" and that's it -- I may ask for it ("May I see it?" or "Do you mind letting me look at it?"... notice, not a demand... just a request) and I might explain that it just saves me asking them things... or I may just ask for their name...  Again, most people voluntarily comply.  If I take their ID -- I only hold on to it long enough to either copy info or run it directly (I'll usually ask if they mind if I take it to my car...) either in my car or over the radio, because as long as I hold onto their property, they're not free to leave.  After that, I'd explain my concerns and roll with things.  There's a bit of an art to maintaining a consensual encounter -- but unless I have or develop reasonable suspicion to authorize more, I have to work it that way.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2013)

The thing with these "open carry types" is that they WANT you to contact them..they WANT you to ask for ID so that they can refuse. And they WANT you to put yourself into a @#$%%#$ that may cost you your job. Fortunately, the word is getting out to most officers the game these guys are playing.

I think the thing that sticks in my craw the most with these games is that they depend on scaring passing citizens into calling 911 so that they can get a "victim cop" to show up on the scene. These officers are rarely just coming across an OC person during patrol. So the officer is being dispatched to deal with these turkeys.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 24, 2013)

I'm sorry guys but I've had mostly bad experiences; it just not worth the risk in my opinion to believe in what your saying is true off the paper that its written on, and I would urge people to assume that an officer could and would fabricate reasonable suspicion if they felt like it. Once you get arrested, those charges can only come off your public record - not your criminal record, and that can be a lifetime scar that can affect you future. Good luck trying to convince a judge that you were a victim in an arrest scenario. What is going on in those videos is not the norm that I have seen practiced on the street, this is being done purposefully (and rightfully so) to avoid negative national attention that could cause escalation. Hopefully, the guys walking around with their AR-15s will stop showcasing before somebody else on the street feels threatened enough to pull out a gun on them and a real situation happens.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 24, 2013)

Tgace said:


> The thing with these "open carry types" is that they WANT you to contact them..they WANT you to ask for ID so that they can refuse. And they WANT you to put yourself into a @#$%%#$ that may cost you your job.



Yup. Just being jerks for the sake of it.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> I'm sorry guys but I've had mostly bad experiences; it just not worth the risk in my opinion to believe in what your saying is true off the paper that its written on, and I would urge people to assume that an officer could and would fabricate reasonable suspicion if they felt like it. Once you get arrested, those charges can only come off your public record - not your criminal record, and that can be a lifetime scar that can affect you future. Good luck trying to convince a judge that you were a victim in an arrest scenario. What is going on in those videos is not the norm that I have seen practiced on the street, this is being done purposefully (and rightfully so) to avoid negative national attention that could cause escalation. Hopefully, the guys walking around with their AR-15s will stop showcasing before somebody else on the street feels threatened enough to pull out a gun on them and a real situation happens.



It only stays on your record if you agree to take a plea to a lesser charge or get convicted. I know that often times people are convinced to take a plea vs the time/expense of a trial. But if you REALLY believe that an officer just walked up to you for no reason, demanded ID and arrested you, you can get a dismissal after a suppression hearing. Hell, I've seen what I believed to have been slam dunk cases dismissed..but much may depend more on the DA's office in your jurisdiction...


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 24, 2013)

Regardless of any "law" written after the fact, it is unconstitutional to stop and search a person without justification. And, I know many of you disagree and hate the idea... but carrying a weapon is not justification because it is another protected constitutional Right.

Believe it or not, there was a time in this country where nobody would have thought twice about somebody else walking around with a rifle... unless they had blood all over them... then that would be a different story. In fact, most people exercised their 2nd Amendment Right daily and carried... either in the "open" or "concealed." The idea was not nearly as "alien" as it is today as it was a "given" that you had the right to protect yourself and your property. 

Remember, the police aren't there to protect you; that's your responsibility. LE here on MT have admitted to that fact in other threads. 

Kudos to the cop though. I echo his praise as he was a true professional in handling this situation.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2013)

Im not ignorant of the differences between how things are supposed to go and how things actually go with SOME police officers/departments. The fact remains that the way the law is written is clear...a police officer cannot just walk up to you and demand ID simply because he has a "hunch" or because he simply wants to.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tgace said:


> The thing with these "open carry types" is that they WANT you to contact them..they WANT you to ask for ID so that they can refuse. And they WANT you to put yourself into a @#$%%#$ that may cost you your job. Fortunately, the word is getting out to most officers the game these guys are playing.
> 
> I think the thing that sticks in my craw the most with these games is that they depend on scaring passing citizens into calling 911 so that they can get a "victim cop" to show up on the scene. These officers are rarely just coming across an OC person during patrol. So the officer is being dispatched to deal with these turkeys.



Yep... that's their game.  And my return game is to know my job and the law better than they do, so that they're frustrated.  Officer Jim Estes did a fantastic job of that, no doubt about it.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> Regardless of any "law" written after the fact, it is unconstitutional to stop and search a person without justification. And, I know many of you disagree and hate the idea... but carrying a weapon is not justification because it is another protected constitutional Right.
> 
> Believe it or not, there was a time in this country where nobody would have thought twice about somebody else walking around with a rifle... unless they had blood all over them... then that would be a different story. In fact, most people exercised their 2nd Amendment Right daily and carried... either in the "open" or "concealed." The idea was not nearly as "alien" as it is today as it was a "given" that you had the right to protect yourself and your property.
> 
> ...



I don't think you'll find anywhere that I've said anything about making any sort of detention SOLELY on the basis of someone carrying a gun.  In my jurisdiction, a suburban bedroom type community with no legal hunting within its bounds, I may well have a chat if I see someone strolling about with a rifle.  And if they tell me to pound sand, they walk away unless they break the law.  Couple months back, I notice a guy who doesn't fit the neighborhood.  I start chatting with him, and learn a few things that raise more concerns -- but don't equal reasonable suspicion.  I ask him if he has any ID, and he says he doesn't want to give it to me.  Or tell me his name.  OK... Off he went.  If I'd really wanted to be persnickety, he crossed a street illegally and I could have then detained him -- but I didn't.  Would have been a little too much like manufacturing cause...

I think you'll find that most cops do their level best to do their jobs properly and within the law and Constitution.  In some places, a guy walking around with a gun is a normal sight.  In others... it'll get a bit of attention.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 24, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> * #1* That reasonable, articulable suspicion may be based on things that wouldn't mean anything to an ordinary citizen, like the way that they stand, details about their dress, recognizing tattoo styles, or even knowing the person.
> 
> * #2* If I take their ID -- I only hold on to it long enough to either copy info or run it directly (I'll usually ask if they mind if I take it to my car...) either in my car or over the radio, because as long as I hold onto their property, they're not free to leave.



Thank you for posting this.

#1 Profiling based on fashion and the way people stand?

#2 What crime would they be committing if they left while you had something that belonged to them?








VERSUS


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2013)

Yes...how someone is standing:


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Thank you for posting this.
> 
> #1 Profiling based on fashion and the way people stand?


Yes.  If I see a couple guys standing in a way that I recognize as being something people develop and learn in a prison environment, or in a way that is consistent with someone carrying a concealed weapon or other contraband, or a style of dress consistent with gang members, or see the precursors to an attack, I can certainly consider that information as part what makes up my reasonable, articulable suspicion and decide whether I've crossed the line between mere suspicion and reasonable suspicion.  We all profile.  It's illegal to take action solely upon a profile based upon race... but a profile based on other behaviors is perfectly acceptable and has been upheld by the US Supreme Court.


> #2 What crime would they be committing if they left while you had something that belonged to them?


I never said they'd be committing a crime.  I said that they would be detained; a reasonable person would not feel free to leave as long as a cop was holding onto their property, especially an ID.  Hey, a cop can slap the cuffs on someone without any reason or justification, and effect an arrest.  It'd be illegal as all hell, and the cop would be held liable for it... but they have the ability to do it.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 24, 2013)

So its an opinion then?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 24, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Yes...how someone is standing:



X-RAY VISION? Cool ....

BTW I usually carry a travel-sized Bible in my pocket, so I'm glad you posted this in case I'm stopped for looking suspicious while I'm standing in line next to the guy carrying his AR-15


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2013)

Are you interested in a serious discussion? Or circular questioning based on your seemingly preset opinion?  

Again:

http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/59



> *Reasonable Suspicion*
> 
> "Reasonable Suspicion:" Less than "probable cause," but more than no evidence (i.e., a "hunch.") at all.
> back to top
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2013)

_"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, *taking into account his or her training and experience*, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or &#8216;hunch' of criminal activity."

__"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. *The officer must be able to articulate* more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or &#8216;hunch' of criminal activity."

__"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate *more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or &#8216;hunch' of criminal activity*."


_


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 24, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> I never said they'd be committing a crime.  I said that they would be detained; a reasonable person would not feel free to leave as long as a cop was holding onto their property, especially an ID.



So they would be detained if they had some other place to go, and got tired of talking to you if you chose to hold onto their ID; because in your opinion, that would be unreasonable of them to be upset with the encounter and want to leave? Could you define "detained"? Because it seems to me that word implies that it would be against their will. What if I said "keep the ID, I got stuff to do, I'll get another one." Makes me remember back to when I said no to the officer who requested mine, and then blocked my car door when I said that I'll be leaving now.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 24, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Are you interested in a serious discussion? Or circular questioning based on your seemingly preset opinion?



I guess I'll be leaving now


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2013)

One of the most important skills for an officer is articulation: being able to explain, to an outside, objective observer, what you did and why you did it.  It's something I practice constantly; if something raises my hackles, I ask myself why?  If something makes me stop and look twice -- I practice explaining it.  If something makes me change lanes unexpectedly -- I figure out what I saw, heard, or felt that made me do that.  And so on.  I like how Rory Miller explains this: if you practice it regularly, you develop a superpower as you learn to listen to your intuition, and it learns that you trust it -- so it tells you more.

So, what does that mean?

It means that, when I walked out of a stop and rob a few months back, and a kid stopped to finish his smoke before he went in, I waited for him to commit a crime... and he did.

What told me that he would?  His wide-eyed stare at me.  His use of a trash can as a barrier between us.  The way he didn't enter the store until I left.  His lack of response to my casual greeting as I passed him.  The nervous way he sucked on his cigarette.  They way he walked in, skirting the register, moving to hidden areas, pausing as if working on a lottery ticket without having grabbed the form...  Then, when he exited, the way he was walking, almost running...  All of that is something that anyone could have seen -- but only had meaning because of my experience and my training.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> So they would be detained if they had some other place to go, and got tired of talking to you if you chose to hold onto their ID; because in your opinion, that would be unreasonable of them to be upset with the encounter and want to leave? Could you define "detained"? Because it seems to me that word implies that it would be against their will. What if I said "keep the ID, I got stuff to do, I'll get another one." Makes me remember back to when I said no to the officer who requested mine, and then blocked my car door when I said that I'll be leaving now.



No.  It means that, in the eyes of the law, I have effected a detention as long as I hold their property, because a reasonable person would not feel free to leave without that property being returned.  I am saying that I have functionally detained them -- even if I didn't say a word about not being free to leave.  Even if they don't think they're detained.  

Maybe I can explain this with kind of a timeline and list of actions for a consensual contact:
An officer stops someone, and asks them to speak voluntarily.  This isn't a detention; they haven't obstructed their travel and they haven't been physically restrained.
As they talk, the officer asks the person for their ID, and they *voluntarily *surrender it.  This might be a detention; depends on how long the officer holds the ID and how the officer asks for it.  There's a big difference between "give me your ID" and "do you mind if I look at your ID?"  But -- in Virginia -- as long as that officer has possession of the ID, a court is going to find that the person was detained -- even if they didn't know it at the time.
The officer quickly returns the ID, and continues to talk.  No detention; the subject is free to leave at any time.  The officer hasn't done anything to restrain them, and has returned their property after the stated purpose.  A consensual encounter may end at anytime from this point on...

Or it may become a non-consensual encounter.  Let's say that, while talking to the subject, the officer notices something that raises their suspicions.  Let's just pretend it's something that everyone agrees is an indication of possible criminal activity, but let's not be specific to avoid a whole mess of argument.  The suspect decides to walk away, and the cop says "no, actually, I need you to stay."  Detained.  Even if the cop doesn't touch the suspect.  

One thing leads to another, and the cop develops probable cause to believe that the offense in question is happening.  On go the cuffs; arrest.  Most definitely detained.

Probably clear as mud...  Let me give another example.

I was on patrol recently, and I noticed an occupied car sitting on the side of the street at a late hour.  There aren't many houses on the street, and none on the side where the car is parked.  There were two people in the car.  Now, there's a whole host of things that could be going on here.  Anything from a couple winding up a date to a drug deal going down or some burglars waiting for the owner of a small business to return home with the day's receipts.  (Yes, that's happened. A lot in our immigrant community, because they don't always trust or use banks.)  So... I made contact.  Turned out to be a guy and a girl finishing up a date.  Consensual at first, since had they driven away and I didn't really have grounds to stop them.  One problem... as he rolled down the window to make contact, I noticed an odor of marijuana.  I asked him, and he volunteered a search.  (I was going to anyway... look up the Carroll Doctrine)  They were detained as soon as I smelled the weed; I wasn't going to let them drive away.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 25, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Probably clear as mud...



Yes. My ways and the way that I move are not most people's ways, and I would look suspicious to most cops; therefore, I now try to look at it from an officer's perspective instead of my innocence. In conclusion, based on my opinion formed from personal experiences, my advice to anybody reading this is to allow an officer to prove your innocence to himself; because you may have done something that set off his intuition and made him suspicious of you. *If an officer asked for your ID its because he is already suspicious of you, and has the authority to detain or arrest you.*


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 25, 2013)

So, can I go now *LOL*


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 25, 2013)

Tgace said:


> _"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, *taking into account his or her training and experience*, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch' of criminal activity."
> 
> __"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. *The officer must be able to articulate* more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch' of criminal activity."
> 
> ...



Haha, circle questioning is frustrating on the receiving end isn't it?


----------



## Skpotamus (Mar 25, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Are you sure this is right? If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and a cop ask for ID and I refuse/am unable to comply, it's off to jail I go? Because "Let me see your papers" isn't really the system here.



Unfortunately, we ARE required to do so.  Officers are given a LOT of leeway with the "good faith" clause.  They could stop you for suspicion of Jay walking to check your ID.  

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar28/ch5.html


*IC 34-28-5-3*
* Detention
*  Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
        (1) inform the person of the allegation;
        (2) obtain the person's:
            (A) name, address, and date of birth; or
            (B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
        (3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
_As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24._
*IC 34-28-5-3.5*
* Refusal to identify self
*  Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
        (1) name, address, and date of birth; or
        (2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2013)

Everyone is an armchair expert in law enforcement....


----------



## Skpotamus (Mar 25, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Everyone is an armchair expert in law enforcement....



If that is directed at me, I posted the actual code for the state of Indiana.  The state arnisador and I both live in.  I have also been asked to show ID by police officers before and informed of the consequences if I did not.  I consulted the officers I worked with about it as well.  They were the ones that informed me that they could, in good faith, stop me for pretty much anything they wanted to check my ID (infraction or ordinance violation, in IN we have ordinances and laws against spitting on the sidewalk for instance).  

Are the officers incorrect?  If I refuse to show ID when an officer asks me, can't they arrest and charge me with a class C misdemeanor as the Indiana Code says?  Or is the state law incorrect?


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2013)

I'm not intimately familiar with Indiana law, but I suspect part of that "believes in good faith" is the same as I would describe as having probable cause to believe that an individual committed an offense.  What that code section seems to be describing is the equivalent of releasing a suspect on a summons or written promise to appear in Virginia.  We're required by law to release most misdemeanors and traffic infractions on the accused written promise to appear, unless there are other circumstances that justify a custodial arrest.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 26, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> I'm not intimately familiar with Indiana law, but I suspect part of that "believes in good faith" is the same as I would describe as having probable cause to believe that an individual committed an offense.



This is my guess too--certainly, I hope so.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 18, 2013)

This is why we can't have nice things:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/18/starbucks-guns-unwelcome-but-not-banned-from-stores/

Idiots.

I'm ALL for protecting our Second Amendment Rights...but just like I'm against the "down your throat" political shenanigans the left plays, I'm against stupid political theater for causes I support as well.


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> I think in the second video the officer may be too nice? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but all that officer has to say is "let me see your ID", and if they refuse, then he could arrest them for disobeying a lawful order? It makes me wonder if these videos were arranged (ie *B.S.*)? Because to be honest, this is what I'm used to seeing: here I guess those guys with the AR-15s were lucky they didn't get caught Jaywalking?


No.  A man walking with an openly carried firearm is not probable cause for a police officer to demand ID, just like driving a car is not probable cause for a stop to check if the driver is licensed.  The fifth amendment protects everyone.  If you are not suspected of having committed a crime, you have no legal requirement to present ID.  If a cop has to ask, then they have no right to that information.  They will try to make you feel guilty by saying things like "how do I know you're not a criminal?"  If you volunteer information, you will likely be detained.  If you walk away and are detained, sue and get rich.  In Wisconsin, Act 35, which is law, states that the mere presence of a firearm is not justification for a stop or detainment by police officers.  Most open carry states have similar provisions.  You can take my experience while out hunting, as proof that these laws do exist.  On November 25th, I was stopped (while wearing blaze orange, with a deer rifle slung over my shoulder and valid deer tags on my back) walking home from hunting.  The first officer (city LEO) asked for ID, I politely declined, citing that I was within my rights to carry a firearm and have no legal requirement to provide ID.  The city cop observed my rights and wished me well.  A few minutes later, a county deputy demanded ID, which I did not provide, and continued to harass me all the way home.  She was disciplined.

The link to my story:http://www.newrichmond-news.com/content/deputies-question-hunter-walking-home

I assume that you are wary of openly carried firearms because of the actions of a few morons.  Please try to remember that gun owners are far more law abiding than police officers, and that to condemn all gun owners for the actions of a few is like blaming every cell phone owner for the death of a child hit by a texting teenager.  Also, an AR15 is just a tool, just like martial arts.  It's not the weapon, it's the person who uses it.  Let's not blame the object, please.


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

Skpotamus said:


> If that is directed at me, I posted the actual code for the state of Indiana.  The state arnisador and I both live in.  I have also been asked to show ID by police officers before and informed of the consequences if I did not.  I consulted the officers I worked with about it as well.  They were the ones that informed me that they could, in good faith, stop me for pretty much anything they wanted to check my ID (infraction or ordinance violation, in IN we have ordinances and laws against spitting on the sidewalk for instance).
> 
> Are the officers incorrect?  If I refuse to show ID when an officer asks me, can't they arrest and charge me with a class C misdemeanor as the Indiana Code says?  Or is the state law incorrect?


No.  You being in public is not a RAS that you have committed a crime.  File a complaint.  Or let them arrest you and sue.

Edit:  In the link to the news article I provided, you can read my story.  In an exercise of "editorial privelage," it was not reported that I was threatened with many many things by the deputy, but yet nothing happened.  They are much less likely to try to violate your rights if you are armed, but will likely run off at the mouth for a while and leave if you stand your ground. (I'm not saying all cops, just the ones who use their position to force their political beliefs on others.)  In my case, I was told "We are fielding a lot of complaints" and "If we continue to field calls about you, we are going to do something." which she later elaborated as "You will go to jail."  I told her that I would not be going to jail, to stop violating my constitutional rights, leave me alone and walked away.  All this occurred after she acknowledge to me that I was breaking no laws and was within my constitutional rights.  Tell them to leave you alone.  You have that right.  This is not a police state.  Never _ever_ surrender your constitutional rights.  If people keep doing it at large, these rights will be denied to us regardless of who we vote for.


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

Tgace said:


> This is why we can't have nice things:
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/18/starbucks-guns-unwelcome-but-not-banned-from-stores/
> 
> ...


I agree.  By holding those rallies, they implied that Starbucks was taking a side.  That's why the CEO didn't ban open carry or firearms, he just "asked" people not to bring them.  He was trying to say, "leave Starbucks out of it!"

There's a huge difference between exercising a pre existing right and carrying to intimidate political opponents.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 31, 2013)

wimwag said:


> Please try to remember that gun owners *are far more law abiding than police officers*, and that to condemn all gun owners for the actions of a few is like blaming every cell phone owner for the death of a child hit by a texting teenager.  Also, an AR15 is just a tool, just like martial arts.  It's not the weapon, it's the person who uses it.  Let's not blame the object, please.



Im with you except for that. You say that all gun owners cant be condemned based on the actions of a few (and cell phone users) but say pretty much that cops can be....


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Im with you except for that. You say that all gun owners cant be condemned based on the actions of a few (and cell phone users) but say pretty much that cops can be....


Nope.  Not at all.  I was making a reference to a study that showed the number of crimes committed by criminals, gun owners and law enforcement.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 31, 2013)

wimwag said:


> Nope.  Not at all.  I was making a reference to a study that showed the number of crimes committed by criminals, gun owners and law enforcement.



I doubt the veracity of a study like that very much....source?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Dec 31, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I doubt the veracity of a study like that very much....source?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I'm a cop...am I not also a "gun owner"??

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

wimwag said:


> Nope.  Not at all.  I was making a reference to a study that showed the number of crimes committed by criminals, gun owners and law enforcement.


http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html
According to this study, there were 44 CCL holders charged with a crime in 5 years in Kasas.
you can compare those stats to the stats in the link below (from the Cato institute) and see that CCL holders commit almost no crimes whereas police officers are committing almost as many as the general public.
http://www.policemisconduct.net/2010-npmsrp-police-misconduct-statistical-report/

I'm not cop bashing, just showing some stats about gun ownership and crime.  Maybe these can help put some of you at ease.  Again, it's not the tool.  It's the individual holding it.


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I'm a cop...am I not also a "gun owner"??
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


Only if you own the gun.  If it's department issue and you have none of your own, then no.


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I doubt the veracity of a study like that very much....source?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


Meh, i lost that one in the jumble of another forum.  It's a shame because I was going to blog it. I offered up a report from Kansas, and a Cato Institute link.  Take it or leave it.  I'm not going to argue.
I will however offer up some advice.  Don't get upset when someone quotes those statistics.  If a sworn LEO commits a crime, he is a criminal and not worthy of protection from other officers.  You have no need to toe the thin blue line for someone who breaks his oath.


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Everyone is an armchair expert in law enforcement....


And everyone in law enforcement assumes that we don't know our rights??  Can I make broad statements too?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 31, 2013)

wimwag said:


> Meh, i lost that one in the jumble of another forum.  It's a shame because I was going to blog it. I offered up a report from Kansas, and a Cato Institute link.  Take it or leave it.  I'm not going to argue.
> I will however offer up some advice.  Don't get upset when someone quotes those statistics.  If a sworn LEO commits a crime, he is a criminal and not worthy of protection from other officers.  You have no need to toe the thin blue line for someone who breaks his oath.



I was a gun owner long before I was a cop.

I have personally been involved in IA's that resulted in various cops fired or resigned.

A handfull of stats from Kansas compared to anything except that area of Kansas means squat about Cops as a whole.

....or "gun owners".

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Dec 31, 2013)

wimwag said:


> And everyone in law enforcement assumes that we don't know our rights??  Can I make broad statements too?



Nobody presumes to have knowledge about brain surgery when taking to physicians....but many people seem to think they know what I do for a living.

A comparison to your knowledge of your rights is a different topic. 

PS- Many people try to lecture me on their Miranda rights and what they mean....quite a few actually don't know what THAT means. But that's a different topic too.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## wimwag (Jan 1, 2014)

Tgace said:


> I was a gun owner long before I was a cop.
> 
> I have personally been involved in IA's that resulted in various cops fired or resigned.
> 
> ...


Since you brought it up, I have to ask: As a witness, investigator or suspect?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 1, 2014)

Witness once...investigator several times.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jan 1, 2014)

The thing with talking about "cops", is that my PD can be as different in every way from the PD in your area as you are from me. 


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 1, 2014)

Tgace said:


> The thing with talking about "cops", is that my PD can be as different in every way from the PD in your area as you are from me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Yep, I guarantee that your PD and community is night & day from mine, which is different than ballen's...  That's something a lot of people just don't get.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 1, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Yep, I guarantee that your PD and community is night & day from mine, which is different than ballen's...  That's something a lot of people just don't get.



Exactly...the impression I get from some people with their "cop stories" is that they almost seem to think we are some sort of uniform, nationalized force...and that when one officer #$%&@'s up that somehow means we all would do the same thing. Police service is very local in terms of quality. Large Metro PD's are nothing like my Mid-Size agency which is nothing like a small 8 man PD. 

The whole "thin blue cover up" thing is hackneyed too...while I wont join in with assumptions based on net/news articles that only know or show half the story...I want bad apples gone MORE than the "non cop". 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## wimwag (Jan 1, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Exactly...the impression I get from some people with their "cop stories" is that they almost seem to think we are some sort of uniform, nationalized force...and that when one officer #$%&@'s up that somehow means we all would do the same thing. Police service is very local in terms of quality. Large Metro PD's are nothing like my Mid-Size agency which is nothing like a small 8 man PD.
> 
> The whole "thin blue cover up" thing is hackneyed too...while I wont join in with assumptions based on net/news articles that only know or show half the story...I want bad apples gone MORE than the "non cop".
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



The first police officer I ever met gave me nightmares as a child.  He put his revolver in my mouth because I walked on the railroad tracks.  He is also a pedophile as he got a 16 year old pregnant while on duty.  Doesn't matter that he married her.  Maybe what he did to me made me a bit biased.  Maybe not.  Don't really know.


----------

