2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: ren on September 17, 2023, 03:52:22 PM
-
Is it OK to do it? I'd like to set up my SCATT with a target in my yard and dry fire at it. Everything will be on my property
-
Since u said "your yard" assuming u own it or live with famly who owns it?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Is it OK to do it? I'd like to set up my SCATT with a target in my yard and dry fire at it. Everything will be on my property
Stay out of any adjoining cemeteries, and you'll be fine. if there are no actual projectiles, then there's nothing illegal going on.
Best not to be in plain view of everybody, or they will probably call the cops. If they do, memorize your lines:
"I do not consent!"
"I am not resisting!"
'Do you know who I am?!"
:thumbsup: :geekdanc:
-
Stay out of any adjoining cemeteries, and you'll be fine. if there are no actual projectiles, then there's nothing illegal going on.
Best not to be in plain view of everybody, or they will probably call the cops. If they do, memorize your lines:
"I do not consent!"
"I am not resisting!"
'Do you know who I am?!"
:thumbsup: :geekdanc:
You never talk to cops
PERIOD!
:grrr:
-
Since u said "your yard" assuming u own it or live with famly who owns it?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
yes
-
Depends on your risk tolerance. If someone sees you outside of your home with a firearm, especially if it looks like you’re getting ready to shoot it, I think you can expect a visit from the police. Would they be able to successfully hang a charge on you? Hard to say; but as “they” say, “the process IS the punishment.”
-
You never talk to cops
PERIOD!
:grrr:
You really need a caveat with that advice...
-
Ask The Mayor on his iHeart Podcast. It says it gives people direct access to Mayor Blangiardi where he engages with people and answers their questions.
It should make for an interesting discussion.
-
You really need a caveat with that advice...
No, that phrase is straight forward. Unless you are talking about "I do not answer any questions without a lawyer" statement, which means you are now talking to the cops.
-
Depends on your risk tolerance. If someone sees you outside of your home with a firearm, especially if it looks like you’re getting ready to shoot it, I think you can expect a visit from the police. Would they be able to successfully hang a charge on you? Hard to say; but as “they” say, “the process IS the punishment.”
This.
I would say as long as you're not pointing it at anyone that can see you doing so. So if your yard is fenced and no one can see what you're doing. Because although you may be dry firing, your neighbor doesn't know that and all they see is someone pointing a gun in their direction. I know a guy who was dry firing in his garage with the door open. HPD was called and was across the street from open door garage watching. They didn't make contact or do anything.
-
This.
I would say as long as you're not pointing it at anyone that can see you doing so. So if your yard is fenced and no one can see what you're doing. Because although you may be dry firing, your neighbor doesn't know that and all they see is someone pointing a gun in their direction. I know a guy who was dry firing in his garage with the door open. HPD was called and was across the street from open door garage watching. They didn't make contact or do anything.
Curious to know as to why he would want to practice with the door open. It seems like it would draw a lot of needless attention.
-
Curious to know as to why he would want to practice with the door open. It seems like it would draw a lot of needless attention.
==============
again...I wanna make a joke about tik-tok videos, but I'll just shut up.
:rofl: :rofl:
-
No, that phrase is straight forward. Unless you are talking about "I do not answer any questions without a lawyer" statement, which means you are now talking to the cops.
You are correct. Never answer questions.
Make statements, ask questions.
I need a lawyer.
Am I free to go?
Am I being detained?
Obviously you have to comply with directions.
They like to shoot people and get away with that,
but you don't have to help them do their job.
>:D
-
==============
again...I wanna make a joke about tik-tok videos, but I'll just shut up.
:rofl: :rofl:
Ha ha! Just go for it! :shaka:
-
==============
again...I wanna make a joke about tik-tok videos, but I'll just shut up.
:rofl: :rofl:
https://youtu.be/b3kBDtjRtB0?si=Nr6SEsYhYU3wTaQk
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
-
Curious to know as to why he would want to practice with the door open. It seems like it would draw a lot of needless attention.
As someone who has dry fired in his garage… because it gets facking HOT in there with the door closed.
For the record, I kept the door closed and just dropped a bunch of water weight.
-
.
-
https://youtu.be/b3kBDtjRtB0?si=Nr6SEsYhYU3wTaQk
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
:grrr:
-
As someone who has dry fired in his garage… because it gets facking HOT in there with the door closed.
For the record, I kept the door closed and just dropped a bunch of water weight.
Understand completely. I work out in my garage and yes it gets fricken hot. But most if not all garages have side doors. I open that one a bit and my garage door I open only a foot or so off the ground.
Fresh air passes through and still no one can see me.
-
yeah, it would be nice to do gun cleaning on the lanai in back of my house, fresh breeze and all, but HI being fervent anti-gun, anti-2A, I don't want to invite the penalty process by an ignorant paranoid neighbor who happens to look over the fence, which unfortunately is only chest-high, even for short HI people.
and then the neighbors consider you to be The Gun Nut, and Red Flag laws and all... :shake:
too much down-side risk. JMHO.
ETA: I guess that makes me the paranoid person.
-
yeah, it would be nice to do gun cleaning on the lanai in back of my house, fresh breeze and all, but HI being fervent anti-gun, anti-2A, I don't want to invite the penalty process by an ignorant paranoid neighbor who happens to look over the fence, which unfortunately is only chest-high, even for short HI people.
and then the neighbors consider you to be The Gun Nut, and Red Flag laws and all... :shake:
too much down-side risk. JMHO.
ETA: I guess that makes me the paranoid person.
A neighbor cannot file a red flag.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
A neighbor cannot file a red flag.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Is your neighbor a police officer? Doctor? Nurse?
Just throwing that out there. Lots of people work within the system, so it's possible a neighbor can report you via red flag laws, whether or not it's appropriate based on their lack of association with you.
-
You are correct. Never answer questions.
Make statements, ask questions.
I need a lawyer.
Am I free to go?
Am I being detained?
Obviously you have to comply with directions.
They like to shoot people and get away with that,
but you don't have to help them do their job.
>:D
It should not be never answer any questions because refusing to answer certain basic questions could make the situation worse for you in some instances.
-
Its a free country.
-
It should not be never answer any questions because refusing to answer certain basic questions could make the situation worse for you in some instances.
stop derailing this thread. Id like to go to Perry next year and this is a vital part of my plan - to dryfire and practice.
-
Why do you need to do it in your yard? Distance needed?
I dry fire all indoors, lately with reduced scale/size targets. Not Camp Perry style targets tho (USPSA).
I used to shoot air guns in the back yard growing up. Maybe only a couple neighbors uphill could see, but none complained. Not sure about nowadays at my parents' house though. My buddies' kids often shoot airsoft in their yards, no complaints. Their neighbors are all super cool though, and in some cases are family.
-
SCATT needs light and my scope can't focus on shorter distances
-
It should not be never answer any questions because refusing to answer certain basic questions could make the situation worse for you in some instances.
How? You failed to explain your conclusion with any laws, examples or facts. You just made a general and vague comment that basically equates you your standard, "Not necessarily."
If you are not a suspect in a crime, then the interaction is considered voluntary. Unless you are detained, you are always free to leave and answer no questions.
If you are being detained as part of an investigation, the only thing the law requires is that you identify yourself, which can be done nonverbally by showing ID. While that can be called answering the question "What's your name," you are not making any statements that may be used against you.
if you are under arrest, then you are protected by the 5th amendment, and the "right to remain silent" spelled out in the Miranda warning means just that. They can't get you in trouble for exercising your rights.
Cops try to get everyone to identify themselves "for their report," but it's also an attempt to do a search on your info to check for wants, warrants, etc. If you have the right to not answer any questions, then even "basic" answers should be avoided.
Of course, if you are the victim, then talking to the police is a requirement. Hard to make a complaint without giving details -- that is, if you are interested in getting their help.
-
It should not be never answer any questions because refusing to answer certain basic questions could make the situation worse for you in some instances.
You are 100% correct. Some cops don't like it when you know your rights. So they will puff their chest and then look for a reason to charge you with something, that may then end up being dropped by the prosecutors office. The process is the punishment.
-
How? You failed to explain your conclusion with any laws, examples or facts. You just made a general and vague comment that basically equates you your standard, "Not necessarily."
If you are not a suspect in a crime, then the interaction is considered voluntary. Unless you are detained, you are always free to leave and answer no questions.
If you are being detained as part of an investigation, the only thing the law requires is that you identify yourself, which can be done nonverbally by showing ID. While that can be called answering the question "What's your name," you are not making any statements that may be used against you.
if you are under arrest, then you are protected by the 5th amendment, and the "right to remain silent" spelled out in the Miranda warning means just that. They can't get you in trouble for exercising your rights.
Cops try to get everyone to identify themselves "for their report," but it's also an attempt to do a search on your info to check for wants, warrants, etc. If you have the right to not answer any questions, then even "basic" answers should be avoided.
Of course, if you are the victim, then talking to the police is a requirement. Hard to make a complaint without giving details -- that is, if you are interested in getting their help.
HI law states that during a traffic stop, one must ID, regardless if a crime or violation is suspected. Not sure how it applies to one walking or not driving.
-
HI law states that during a traffic stop, one must ID, regardless if a crime or violation is suspected. Not sure how it applies to one walking or not driving.
Traffic stops are different. You are required to show a valid drivers license when asked, along with registration and proof of insurance. Those are not "questions," but rather producing documentation that shows you are permitted to drive on public streets, that the car is properly tagged and registered, and that you have the required insurance coverage. None of those items will get you thrown in jail unless you also happen to have a warrant on file. Any infractions would be a ticket at worst.
Walking is 180 degrees from that situation. When driving you have a duty to cooperate simply because you are operating a vehicle on public roads. Unless the cops have probable cause to suspect you of a crime, you are under no obligation to ID yourself for just being on a sidewalk.
This is not the society which has officers going around saying, "Papers, please." At least not yet.
Yeah, cops with inflated egos can be jerks. They will lie, threaten, and intimidate you into giving up your rights when possible. Those pesky civil rights always get in the way of them trying to find out what you've done wrong.
-
You are 100% correct. Some cops don't like it when you know your rights. So they will puff their chest and then look for a reason to charge you with something, that may then end up being dropped by the prosecutors office. The process is the punishment.
Before time these kinds of potential applicants would be weeded out in the selection process. But now there are more and more of these kinds of cops with power attitudes because frankly, that's all get left and the vacancies need to be filled.
Just my opinion. More and more of the desirable candidates are not applying anymore. They feel it just isn't worth it.
From Honolulu's Finest to Honolulu's Ahh....Good enough.....
-
what the fuck do traffic stops have to do with my topic.
-
what the fuck do traffic stops have to do with my topic. You guys are a bumch of arguing clowns trying to figure out how many io you can fit in a fucking Yaris.
No one is going to do a fucking traffic stop in my own fucking yard so shut the fuck up with these bullshit derails.
i own no Yaris-es...
-
i own no Yaris-es...
wjy not? you drive your Mad Max polluting 200tree Tacoma lifted and changing the climate everyday.
Greta Thunberg is going to curb stomp yo ass and piss all over Darmok at Tenegra
-
wjy not? you drive your Mad Max polluting 200tree Tacoma lifted and changing the climate everyday.
Greta Thunberg is going to curb stomp yo ass and piss all over Darmok at Tenegra
I'd have to let her, or find myself on YouTube beating up an autistic female.
When the walls fell...
p.s. It's a 2014 Tacoma, and not lifted. #FakeNews
-
what the fuck do traffic stops have to do with my topic.
If you're dryfiring and a cop walks by and ask for your ID, you do not have to show it until they have articulated you have broken the law, about to break the law, or am breaking the law. Then the consequences of denying said cop your ID. Or you can show them your ID. You are supposed to have the right to choose to voluntarily provide ID if the cop walks by and ask you as you're dry firing.
-
If you're dryfiring and a cop walks by and ask for your ID, you do not have to show it until they have articulated you have broken the law, about to break the law, or am breaking the law. Then the consequences of denying said cop your ID. Or you can show them your ID. You are supposed to have the right to choose to voluntarily provide ID if the cop walks by and ask you as you're dry firing.
I live on a private road
-
Heres what you do, talk to your neighbors like human beings do. Let them know you are going to be doing dry fire practice in your yard.
-
I live on a private road
Private road as in, in the boonies or like a shared road , like the kind in Palolo.Cause if it's like boonie style, then no worry.
-
Heres what you do, talk to your neighbors like human beings do. Let them know you are going to be doing dry fire practice in your yard.
This is a good idea.
-
stop derailing this thread. Id like to go to Perry next year and this is a vital part of my plan - to dryfire and practice.
Not trying to but I don't want someone reading Grovler's bad legal advice and acting on it.
-
How? You failed to explain your conclusion with any laws, examples or facts. You just made a general and vague comment that basically equates you your standard, "Not necessarily."
If you are not a suspect in a crime, then the interaction is considered voluntary. Unless you are detained, you are always free to leave and answer no questions.
If you are being detained as part of an investigation, the only thing the law requires is that you identify yourself, which can be done nonverbally by showing ID. While that can be called answering the question "What's your name," you are not making any statements that may be used against you.
if you are under arrest, then you are protected by the 5th amendment, and the "right to remain silent" spelled out in the Miranda warning means just that. They can't get you in trouble for exercising your rights.
Cops try to get everyone to identify themselves "for their report," but it's also an attempt to do a search on your info to check for wants, warrants, etc. If you have the right to not answer any questions, then even "basic" answers should be avoided.
Of course, if you are the victim, then talking to the police is a requirement. Hard to make a complaint without giving details -- that is, if you are interested in getting their help.
I said not necessarily because there are a million different things that can occur in an interraction between cops and the public and small details can make a difference. I would have to write you a whole book to lay out everything.
Let me give you an example where not identifying yourself could make things worse.
Scenario: Officers are looking for Kimo because they have a warrant to arrest him on. Officers see you and you look just like Kimo, same height, weight, and match the most recent photo so they stop you. They ask for your name, date of birth, basic stuff like that but you refuse to provide any information at all. The cops could arrest you for the warrant and be justified legally speaking for making a good faith effort. Eventually your finger prints would be taken and it could be verified that you weren't actually Kimo and you would be released with no charges. Quite the unnecessary inconvenience for you.
The reason that Grovler's advice is poor is because it is a blanket statement to never say anything to cops. If he had said something more specific, like don't answer cops questions about a crime you might be accused of, then that would be sound legal advice.
Refusing to answer even the most basic question, say for example "did you see who robbed that guy?" would raise the cops suspicion and give them some additional reason to dig further.
You are right, that cops will always try to get more information, it serves many different purposes. Not just as a victim or a suspect but also as a witness.
-
Not trying to but I don't want someone reading Grovler's bad legal advice and acting on it.
Of course you would think it's bad advise...
-
And if you talk to the cops, they will detain and possibly arrest you the first thing you say they believe was a contradiction in your earlier statements.
***
Where are you going?
Home.
Where is home?
<give him the address>
That's in the other direction.
Well, I have to run an errand first.
******
At this point, you have given the Cop cause to suspect you are possibly lying. had you chosen to not answer, you would not be causing yourself these problems.
-
https://youtu.be/5PZonyefBW4
-
Of course you would think it's bad advise...
Because it is....
-
And if you talk to the cops, they will detain and possibly arrest you the first thing you say they believe was a contradiction in your earlier statements.
***
Where are you going?
Home.
Where is home?
<give him the address>
That's in the other direction.
Well, I have to run an errand first.
******
At this point, you have given the Cop cause to suspect you are possibly lying. had you chosen to not answer, you would not be causing yourself these problems.
And what would cops here arrest you for if you made such a statement?
-
Why did I take him off ignore?
Back on ... :thumbsup:
-
I said not necessarily because there are a million different things that can occur in an interraction between cops and the public and small details can make a difference. I would have to write you a whole book to lay out everything.
Let me give you an example where not identifying yourself could make things worse.
Scenario: Officers are looking for Kimo because they have a warrant to arrest him on. Officers see you and you look just like Kimo, same height, weight, and match the most recent photo so they stop you. They ask for your name, date of birth, basic stuff like that but you refuse to provide any information at all. The cops could arrest you for the warrant and be justified legally speaking for making a good faith effort. Eventually your finger prints would be taken and it could be verified that you weren't actually Kimo and you would be released with no charges. Quite the unnecessary inconvenience for you.
The reason that Grovler's advice is poor is because it is a blanket statement to never say anything to cops. If he had said something more specific, like don't answer cops questions about a crime you might be accused of, then that would be sound legal advice.
Refusing to answer even the most basic question, say for example "did you see who robbed that guy?" would raise the cops suspicion and give them some additional reason to dig further.
You are right, that cops will always try to get more information, it serves many different purposes. Not just as a victim or a suspect but also as a witness.
For every example you give, there are others that can be given to support don't talk to cops.
-
And what would cops here arrest you for if you made such a statement?
Cops in HI during the covid proclamation when you could only go to and from essential places.
-
Cops in HI during the covid proclamation when you could only go to and from essential places.
The reason I asked him that question is because I knew he couldn't point to a law which would allow a cop to arrest someone in his silly scenario. The closest thing is false reporting and that has to do with making a false statement to a cop about a crime, such as making a false claim that someone attacked you.
-
For every example you give, there are others that can be given to support don't talk to cops.
Thats why you have to know what to not talk about. A blanket statement of don't talk to cops will just lead you into trouble. The difference is in asking basic identifying information (not in interrogation) compared to asking details related to an incident. The 5th amendment protects against interrogation, not against asking for name and date of birth.
Plus, if someone is a witness to a crime, you would hope that they would come forward and tell the cop what happened right? Just saying don't talk to the cops could end up screwing over a victim from having justice be served.
What situation would there be where giving your name to cops would be bad?
-
what an arse GTFO with your arguments
-
what an arse GTFO with your arguments
.... no...
-
.... no...
what does any of your bullshit have anything to do with dry firing
-
what does any of your bullshit have anything to do with dry firing
Nothing. I was point out why Grovler's legal advice is bad advice.
-
Nothing. I was point out why Grovler's legal advice is bad advice.
so take your shit with him and move to Green Acres.
-
Thats why you have to know what to not talk about. A blanket statement of don't talk to cops will just lead you into trouble. The difference is in asking basic identifying information (not in interrogation) compared to asking details related to an incident. The 5th amendment protects against interrogation, not against asking for name and date of birth.
Plus, if someone is a witness to a crime, you would hope that they would come forward and tell the cop what happened right? Just saying don't talk to the cops could end up screwing over a victim from having justice be served.
What situation would there be where giving your name to cops would be bad?
See how you stated "not against asking for name". So you are correct that the 5th applies because "asking" is different from demanding. When someone or a cop "ask" you something, you don't have to answer.
What situation would it be bad, maybe if someone had a warrant. They're walking down the street not breaking any law, about to break the law, or did break the law and a cop randomly ask for ID because they "look suspicious" or exercising a 1A right. This happens all the time across the nation, people make hundreds of youtube videos on various channels about this. THen say the person doesn't have a warrant, now the cop makes up a charge. Again hundreds of YT vids of this across the nation.So they're not isolated events. You should YT "police audits".
If someone witnesses a crime, I do hope they come forward, but I don't want to FORCE them to come forward. See the difference. Citizens do not implement "ask, tell, make" to other citizens.
Lets apply this to CCW where it's the law/ordinance to inform and produce an ID, CCW license and proof of registration when "interacting" with LEO. If 1 doesn't interact, then they don't have to produce anything, so 1 walks away as a cop approaches them. Then it's possible the person forgot their drivers license or CCW or registration as people change wallets or things that hold these documents. Now you've just commited a crime and might now be able to renew your CCW in the future, get it voided, and possible all guns taken away. So why take the change to "interact" with a cop. This is 1 specific example where someone might not want to be a witness to a crime due to having to "interact" and inform LEO they're CCWing.
-
Ren
The above has to do with this thread because if a cop approaches you, you have 2 options.
1) Comply when they ask for ID, even though you broke no law. Unless the cop articulates what law was broken. Example "your neighbor reported you pointed your gun at them". THen you will have to ID.
2) Say no if nothing is articulated to what law was broken. But be prepared for a hassle as cops don't like it when people know their rights.
EEF
B4 you use whataboutism, this has happened before. Someone was carrying a rifle case (not illegal) and was stopped by a cop (HPD). The cop detained him and asked for ID and frisked him. The chief (Logan) then showed up and he was released. At no time was his gun case opened and he was allowed to keep it. So the chief would get an A for this situation for protecting someones right. But the initial officer gets a F and so do the other 3 or 4 cops who showed up before the chief did.
-
:popcorn:
-
an archer was in our common area shooting arrows at a target with a compound bow. never mind this topic already.
mods lock this
-
Ren
The above has to do with this thread because if a cop approaches you, you have 2 options.
1) Comply when they ask for ID, even though you broke no law. Unless the cop articulates what law was broken. Example "your neighbor reported you pointed your gun at them". THen you will have to ID.
2) Say no if nothing is articulated to what law was broken. But be prepared for a hassle as cops don't like it when people know their rights.
EEF
B4 you use whataboutism, this has happened before. Someone was carrying a rifle case (not illegal) and was stopped by a cop (HPD). The cop detained him and asked for ID and frisked him. The chief (Logan) then showed up and he was released. At no time was his gun case opened and he was allowed to keep it. So the chief would get an A for this situation for protecting someones right. But the initial officer gets a F and so do the other 3 or 4 cops who showed up before the chief did.
You might give the Chief an "A", but since he's also responsible for everything his Cops do, he gets a generous "C-" from me. He might have gotten the answer right on the quiz, but it's also his job to train his officers so they also understand the law.
In that instance, he only passed half the quiz. If he were just a patrol officer, then he would have scored 100. As the Chief, he gets points deducted for each of the 4 or 5 officers on the scene. He's basically cleaning up a mess he could have very easily prevented.
-
You might give the Chief an "A", but since he's also responsible for everything his Cops do, he gets a generous "C-" from me. He might have gotten the answer right on the quiz, but it's also his job to train his officers so they also understand the law.
In that instance, he only passed half the quiz. If he were just a patrol officer, then he would have scored 100. As the Chief, he gets points deducted for each of the 4 or 5 officers on the scene. He's basically cleaning up a mess he could have very easily prevented.
another reason to lock this thread
-
Heres what you do, talk to your neighbors like human beings do. Let them know you are going to be doing dry fire practice in your yard.
Theres no way that would work in a million years. lay off the drugs buddy.
-
Theres no way that would work in a million years. lay off the drugs buddy.
This is a good idea.
-
See how you stated "not against asking for name". So you are correct that the 5th applies because "asking" is different from demanding. When someone or a cop "ask" you something, you don't have to answer.
What’s the practical difference between “asking” and “demanding?” If they say “please?” ???
Lets apply this to CCW where it's the law/ordinance to inform and produce an ID, CCW license and proof of registration when "interacting" with LEO. If 1 doesn't interact, then they don't have to produce anything, so 1 walks away as a cop approaches them. Then it's possible the person forgot their drivers license or CCW or registration as people change wallets or things that hold these documents. Now you've just commited a crime and might now be able to renew your CCW in the future, get it voided, and possible all guns taken away. So why take the change to "interact" with a cop. This is 1 specific example where someone might not want to be a witness to a crime due to having to "interact" and inform LEO they're CCWing.
As I read Act 052, you only have a duty to inform if you’re STOPPED by an officer. Otherwise, say if you’re a witness to a crime and approached the officer of your own free will to make a statement, you don’t have to inform and only have to produce the documentation if the officer requests it. At least that’s how I understand it.
-
What’s the practical difference between “asking” and “demanding?” If they say “please?” ???
As I read Act 052, you only have a duty to inform if you’re STOPPED by an officer. Otherwise, say if you’re a witness to a crime and approached the officer of your own free will to make a statement, you don’t have to inform and only have to produce the documentation if the officer requests it. At least that’s how I understand it.
ROH says says "contacted". So when u come into contact with an officer regardless the reason. U pass by ur friend whos in uniform and u chit chat, u are supposed to inform ur friend immediatly.
Diff between asking and demanding is 1 u can refuse without conequence. Theres a YT vid of a cop asking an open carrier to show him the rifle and his reply was "were an open carry state, i dont have to show it to u". The cops reply was "thats why im asking, ur free to say no".
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I live on a private road neighborhood.
I shoot pellet gun in the front yard. (Don’t have much of a backyard.) Replica Sig Scorpion .45.
Can’t tell it’s a pellet gun by looking at.
Got a backstop behind target.
I’m courteous to neighbors when they cruise by. And of course all firearm safety rules still apply.
No one has complained and no cops have stopped by. And it’s not quiet. Blowback and all.
As always. Could depend on your neighbors. But if your cool with immediate neighbors next door and across the street. I’d do it.
-
ROH says says "contacted". So when u come into contact with an officer regardless the reason. U pass by ur friend whos in uniform and u chit chat, u are supposed to inform ur friend immediatly.
Diff between asking and demanding is 1 u can refuse without conequence. Theres a YT vid of a cop asking an open carrier to show him the rifle and his reply was "were an open carry state, i dont have to show it to u". The cops reply was "thats why im asking, ur free to say no".
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I was referring to the HRS; acknowledged that the ROH may have different language.
The correct answer to my first question is “there is no practical difference.” If you’re legally required to provide info to a LEO (for example name and address, when legally required), it doesn’t matter if they say “would you pretty please tell me your name?” or “GIMME YOUR NAME RIGHT NOW!” If the law says you’re required to answer, you face the consequence either way. If you’re not required to answer by law, it doesn’t matter how they ask, you still don’t have to answer.
-
I was referring to the HRS; acknowledged that the ROH may have different language.
The correct answer to my first question is “there is no practical difference.” If you’re legally required to provide info to a LEO (for example name and address, when legally required), it doesn’t matter if they say “would you pretty please tell me your name?” or “GIMME YOUR NAME RIGHT NOW!” If the law says you’re required to answer, you face the consequence either way. If you’re not required to answer by law, it doesn’t matter how they ask, you still don’t have to answer.
We were not talking abt being legally required to show an ID. Which is why i used the when driving, ur legally required to show a license when asked/told to. Since ren wouldnt be driving, but in his yard, if hes asked for an ID, he can say no. Then the cop can tell him to show his ID and now ren would be in trouble cause the cop is puffing his chest. Assuming no articulation of what law was broken, about to be broken, or is being broken.
So again, there is a diff when being asked for an ID and being told to provide one. Or asked for anything.
In the end, u can freely provide your ID when asked. Me on the other hand, i value my 4th amendment and wont provide it unless I have to. I also value my right to remain silent and wont answer any questions without consulting a lawyer 1st.
Same goes when i ask a cop "am i being detained, or am i free to go". If im not detained, i wont be hanging around as im not obligated to do so.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
We were not talking abt being legally required to show an ID. Which is why i used the when driving, ur legally required to show a license when asked/told to. Since ren wouldnt be driving, but in his yard, if hes asked for an ID, he can say no. Then the cop can tell him to show his ID and now ren would be in trouble cause the cop is puffing his chest. Assuming no articulation of what law was broken, about to be broken, or is being broken.
So again, there is a diff when being asked for an ID and being told to provide one. Or asked for anything.
In the end, u can freely provide your ID when asked. Me on the other hand, i value my 4th amendment and wont provide it unless I have to. I also value my right to remain silent and wont answer any questions without consulting a lawyer 1st.
Same goes when i ask a cop "am i being detained, or am i free to go". If im not detained, i wont be hanging around as im not obligated to do so.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Just to analyze the situation:
1. Someone calls the cops and reports seeing a man with a gun at your address.
2. Cops arrive and see a man with a gun.
3. Do you really think the first thing the cops will do is ask for ID?
I'm pretty sure they are going to present their side arms and order you to drop yours before anything else happens.
Next step would be to cuff you for their safety before they even try to have a conversation.
Best thing is to remain calm, comply with orders, and when they are at ease let them know what's going on.
At that stage, I'm sure most of us would be perfectly happy to identify ourselves, otherwise the Cops will have no way to know you actually live there.
Hopefully we look like our license photos! :rofl:
-
Move to an area like where I live. You can live fire and the neighbors don't give a shit because they do the same thing.
-
We were not talking abt being legally required to show an ID. Which is why i used the when driving, ur legally required to show a license when asked/told to. Since ren wouldnt be driving, but in his yard, if hes asked for an ID, he can say no. Then the cop can tell him to show his ID and now ren would be in trouble cause the cop is puffing his chest. Assuming no articulation of what law was broken, about to be broken, or is being broken.
So again, there is a diff when being asked for an ID and being told to provide one. Or asked for anything.
In the end, u can freely provide your ID when asked. Me on the other hand, i value my 4th amendment and wont provide it unless I have to. I also value my right to remain silent and wont answer any questions without consulting a lawyer 1st.
Same goes when i ask a cop "am i being detained, or am i free to go". If im not detained, i wont be hanging around as im not obligated to do so.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I feel like we’re starting from different premises, and I don’t want to keep up the threadjack. Happy to discuss in a dedicated thread, if somebody wants to start one.
-
Just to analyze the situation:
1. Someone calls the cops and reports seeing a man with a gun at your address.
2. Cops arrive and see a man with a gun.
3. Do you really think the first thing the cops will do is ask for ID?
I'm pretty sure they are going to present their side arms and order you to drop yours before anything else happens.
Next step would be to cuff you for their safety before they even try to have a conversation.
Best thing is to remain calm, comply with orders, and when they are at ease let them know what's going on.
At that stage, I'm sure most of us would be perfectly happy to identify ourselves, otherwise the Cops will have no way to know you actually live there.
Hopefully we look like our license photos! :rofl:
This is 1 possible outcome. Which is why i brought up my friend who was dry firing in his open garage with a cop across the street watching inside the cop car. I am going to assume someone called and it wasnt just a random cop driving by.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I was referring to the HRS; acknowledged that the ROH may have different language.
The correct answer to my first question is “there is no practical difference.” If you’re legally required to provide info to a LEO (for example name and address, when legally required), it doesn’t matter if they say “would you pretty please tell me your name?” or “GIMME YOUR NAME RIGHT NOW!” If the law says you’re required to answer, you face the consequence either way. If you’re not required to answer by law, it doesn’t matter how they ask, you still don’t have to answer.
Roh and HRS do have diff lang.
ROH u have to automatically show ur papers.
HRS u only have to if requested/asked/demanded etc...
HRS also uses the word "interact" vs. ROH "contacted". These also have diff meanings. Im sure u will ask whats the diff.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I feel like we’re starting from different premises, and I don’t want to keep up the threadjack. Happy to discuss in a dedicated thread, if somebody wants to start one.
We are in diff places. Im not going to voluntarily give up my info and you will.
Im not going to give a reason for a cop or the prosecutors office to find a charge. As in keep my mouth shut, as its my right to do so.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
We are in diff places. Im not going to voluntarily give up my info and you will.
Im not going to give a reason for a cop or the prosecutors office to find a charge. As in keep my mouth shut, as its my right to do so.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
This post makes it clear that I didn’t communicate my point effectively. Apologies, :shaka:
-
Ren
The above has to do with this thread because if a cop approaches you, you have 2 options.
1) Comply when they ask for ID, even though you broke no law. Unless the cop articulates what law was broken. Example "your neighbor reported you pointed your gun at them". THen you will have to ID.
2) Say no if nothing is articulated to what law was broken. But be prepared for a hassle as cops don't like it when people know their rights.
EEF
B4 you use whataboutism, this has happened before. Someone was carrying a rifle case (not illegal) and was stopped by a cop (HPD). The cop detained him and asked for ID and frisked him. The chief (Logan) then showed up and he was released. At no time was his gun case opened and he was allowed to keep it. So the chief would get an A for this situation for protecting someones right. But the initial officer gets a F and so do the other 3 or 4 cops who showed up before the chief did.
There are many situations where a person does not have to respond, the carrying of the rifle case case that you mention is one such case.
My comment was in response to Grovler's blanket statement of never talk to cops. There are times when it would be advised to say less not more but to have a blanket policy of never saying would just get you in trouble in certain situations because sometimes officers don't have a concrete crime yet but they have suspicion to detain.
-
We were not talking abt being legally required to show an ID. Which is why i used the when driving, ur legally required to show a license when asked/told to. Since ren wouldnt be driving, but in his yard, if hes asked for an ID, he can say no. Then the cop can tell him to show his ID and now ren would be in trouble cause the cop is puffing his chest. Assuming no articulation of what law was broken, about to be broken, or is being broken.
So again, there is a diff when being asked for an ID and being told to provide one. Or asked for anything.
In the end, u can freely provide your ID when asked. Me on the other hand, i value my 4th amendment and wont provide it unless I have to. I also value my right to remain silent and wont answer any questions without consulting a lawyer 1st.
Same goes when i ask a cop "am i being detained, or am i free to go". If im not detained, i wont be hanging around as im not obligated to do so.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You are correct. This falls into the realm of what is called a consensual encounter. That is where a cop is talking to a person but the cop is not detaining them and the conversations is occurring freely. Sometimes these can get a little gray due to people not sure whether they are free to leave the encounter or the cop just being very good at talking. Witness statements are consensual encounters and sometimes suspect encounters are consensual encounters.