2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: kevlar on July 10, 2013, 03:05:12 PM
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f4_1373487378 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f4_1373487378)
Interesting encounter.
-
Ive seen many videos like this. Usually it is a very similar incident. Officer does not know the laws...superiors get called to the scene and they usually say you are free to go. Many people look at this and think it gives open carriers a bad name.. just trying to get attention.. etc.. but it is true. If we do not stand up for our rights they will be taken. A right unexercised is a right lost. Unfortunately the sheeple in this country just dont really 'get it'
-
I understand the point of open carrying and standing up for your rights. I also understand the cop's point of view. How are they supposed to know the difference between a law-abiding, firearm carrying citizen, and a crazy person with a gun? Are they supposed to stand there and wait to see if they're going to shoot someone? They'd be accused of harassment. Are they supposed to assume that every person walking around with a gun is sane and law abiding?
-
I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.
I believe and want open carry rights and concealed rights.
However when all is said and done, I also believe that the LEO should have the ability without harassment to check someone's ID.
What if the person has a restraining order? What if the person is an escaped convict, or an ex convict?
What if the person is on medical psych drugs?
What if the person is a known terrorist?
If you are clean, then you can carry on, have a nice day.
-
When guys like this do these types of things to prove a point, they are really pushing their luck. In the wrong neighborhood and depending on physical appearance and how one is dressed, the outcome can be completely different. Maybe his point would still be valid but he might be dead in the process. Police have shot and killed many people that they shouldn't have and none of them are coming back to life. Here is a recent case that the family was awarded $6.5M for police negligence. "Long Beach police officers opened fire on Douglass Zerby without any warning. Douglass Zerby was sitting on a balcony intoxicated and holding a water nozzle. Police say a 911 caller had led them to believe the metal object was a small handgun."
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=9054853 (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=9054853)
-
I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.
I believe and want open carry rights and concealed rights.
However when all is said and done, I also believe that the LEO should have the ability without harassment to check someone's ID.
What if the person has a restraining order? What if the person is an escaped convict, or an ex convict?
What if the person is on medical psych drugs?
What if the person is a known terrorist?
If you are clean, then you can carry on, have a nice day.
I feel the same....In many Detroit neighborhoods in the evening police routinely stop people walking and ask what they're doing and often for ID, in an effort to deter crime. If one is a law abiding citizen, this is no big deal because it serves the better good IMO, but if one is a criminal, it may end up being a bad day for them.
-
"Man Legally Carrying Gun Robbed at Gunpoint"
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html (http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html)
-
Why all the apologist. Michigan has no stop and ID law, the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, open carry is a right in Michigan and it is never ok to justify violating someone's rights because they "may" have something or be someone.
And yes, I am a LE in the greater Detroit area..... Do I know how bad it can be around here.
-
I understand the point of open carrying and standing up for your rights. I also understand the cop's point of view. How are they supposed to know the difference between a law-abiding, firearm carrying citizen, and a crazy person with a gun? Are they supposed to stand there and wait to see if they're going to shoot someone? They'd be accused of harassment. Are they supposed to assume that every person walking around with a gun is sane and law abiding?
It is a dangerous game just to get your 15 minutes of Youtube fame...
-
Why all the apologist. Michigan has no stop and ID law, the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, open carry is a right in Michigan and it is never ok to justify violating someone's rights because they "may" have something or be someone.
And yes, I am a LE in the greater Detroit area..... Do I know how bad it can be around here.
Is this a recent decision? I was just there within the last six months and was stopped everyday while taking walks. Yes, I know exactly how bad it is there...born and raised there and father is retired Detroit LEO. Just curious if you don't mind the question...is Detroit where you were raised and your preferred choice to serve or a federal assignment?
-
Is this a recent decision? I was just there within the last six months and was stopped everyday while taking walks. Yes, I know exactly how bad it is there...born and raised there and father is retired Detroit LEO. Just curious if you don't mind the question...is Detroit where you were raised and your preferred choice to serve or a federal assignment?
No this is not a recent decision, open carry has been legal in Michigan since each Hawaiian Island was their own royal kingdom. The police just don't like it because their unions fought shall-issue tooth and nail and now they can't believe open carry is legal since people are not afraid to do so and record and report any intimidation (i.e. Port Huron in June of 2010).
Open carry became pretty big in Michigan because when the shall-issue law passed, they put places off limits; however, none of those places off limits apply to pistols carried openly.
The State Police put out MULTIPLE updates over the years regarding open carry and the latest known as State Police update 86.
Even if it was a recent decision, ignorance of the law is not an excuse and plenty of gun owners have had their lives ruined over not knowing all 20,000+ gun laws. The least the police could do is actually know and abide by the law that they are paid to enforce.
Michigan Open Carry has reached out to law enforcement agencies for years now and they all know. Especially this cop in this video, the town he is employed by had their city council chambers packed with people open carrying pistols a few years ago.
A lot of these guys complain that they record them, but the truth is that if cops actually followed the law and did what they are paid to do, then they wouldn't be recorded because they wouldn't be hassling and intimidating OC'ers.
People in Michigan do not cooperate with police on open carry because of years of bad faith efforts on numerous police departments. It's pretty discouraging when someone hands their ID to the officer to "cooperate" and a week later they receive a misdemeanor disorderly conduct court summons in the mail, (this actually happened).
There was a bill last year to repeal places off limits for concealed carry but the governor vetoed the bill, so not more people open carry in schools and other Pistol Free Zones (apply to concealed handguns only).
-
However when all is said and done, I also believe that the LEO should have the ability without harassment to check someone's ID.
This opens a whole 'nother can of worms. Are we all required to carry ID? Are we all required to have ID? etc...
-
It is a can of worms.
The open carry has a wife. She commits adultery. Open carry threatens with violence to kill. Has a restraining order against him.
Decides to act on his threat. Has no car, so he walks the 5 miles with his rifle and pistol on his side.
If no ID is presented what can a LEO do?
With no ID the LEO CANNOT determine that he is breaking the law.
Ditto the ex convict who shows no ID... also on his way after finding out his wife had a child from someone else while he was away.
It only ends after the fact, when innocent is dead.
Can of worms or a man in a can?
-
However when all is said and done, I also believe that the LEO should have the ability without harassment to check someone's ID.
What if the person has a restraining order? What if the person is an escaped convict, or an ex convict?
What if the person is on medical psych drugs?
What if the person is a known terrorist?
If you are clean, then you can carry on, have a nice day.
I agree with this. I would give the cop my ID as a common courtesy. No skin off my nose.
Who doesn't carry ID or can legally acquire a firearm with having any ID ?
If you carry a gun, you should be required to carry ID.
Just my opinion.
-
I agree with this. I would give the cop my ID as a common courtesy. No skin off my nose.
Who doesn't carry ID or can legally acquire a firearm with having any ID ?
If you carry a gun, you should be required to carry ID.
Just my opinion.
If you want to carry a gun. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.
If you want to vote. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.
If you want to express a political opinion. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.
(repeat, lather, rinse, ...)
Substitute any right in the above statement, and you'll see how it becomes a debate about limiting a citizen's ability to exercise his rights.
-
I gather then,
that a small terrorist cell group could practice in the OPEN on your street corner with full weapons in plain view and not be questioned because they do not need to show ID (how else to know if they are on a watch list) and that they are exercising their full firearms rights.
How insane is that.
-
If you want to carry a gun. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.
roger that. Open carry. I'd be happy to let them know who I am. Heck, I'm carrying a gun out in the open.
If you want to vote. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.
roger that. Don't want people walking up to the voting booth picking a name off the list and voting 100 times fraudulently.
If you want to express a political opinion. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.
(repeat, lather, rinse, ...)
Substitute any right in the above statement, and you'll see how it becomes a debate about limiting a citizen's ability to exercise his rights.
??? Not sure I'm following this one. I have the right to free speech without ID. Right to assemble, right to due process, right to not have unreasonable search and seizure, etc...
-
I gather then,
that a small terrorist cell group could practice in the OPEN on your street corner with full weapons in plain view and not be questioned because they do not need to show ID (how else to know if they are on a watch list) and that they are exercising their full firearms rights.
How insane is that.
No more insane than selling 3,500 high power firearms and other weapons to drug cartels through US taxpayer-funded "sting" operations, then losing track of them until they are used to kill civilians and border patrol on both sides of the Mexican border.
First, people can't shoot guns in residential areas, assuming you mean discharging firearms as "practice".
Secondly, if you as a resident see anything suspicious, you should contact LE and have them investigate. Even without ID, LE can determine if there is suspicion enough to get a warrant to investigate and/or arrest anyone.
Third, there are terrorist cells operating in the US right now ... maybe on YOUR street corner, but behind closed doors, building bombs in their garage or basement. That is a bigger threat to your life and safety than a group that's operating in plain view.
-
roger that. Open carry. I'd be happy to let them know who I am. Heck, I'm carrying a gun out in the open.
roger that. Don't want people walking up to the voting booth picking a name off the list and voting 100 times fraudulently.
??? Not sure I'm following this one. I have the right to free speech without ID. Right to assemble, right to due process, right to not have unreasonable search and seizure, etc...
Every one of the rights I listed are protected under the Constitution in an Amendment. If you are okay with forcing ID for exercising some rights, then is should be okay for requiring ID to exercise all rights. That's why you are having a difficult time with it. You believe all rights are NOT equal under the Constitution. Some rights are absolute, while others require government controls and limits.
-
So you agree there should be no controls against fraudulent voting or stuffing the ballot box ?
Against armed criminal gang bangers walking the streets with their guns in full view ?
I believe in common sense.
And I believe we need to fight for our rights when the Government exceeds common sense. 8)
-
If you want to carry a gun. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.
If you want to vote. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.
If you want to express a political opinion. you have to carry (and present when asked) a valid, government-issued ID.
(repeat, lather, rinse, ...)
Substitute any right in the above statement, and you'll see how it becomes a debate about limiting a citizen's ability to exercise his rights.
Stop and ID was declared unconstitutional in the Kolender case in the 1980's and stopping someone to see if they are "legal" violates Delaware v Prouse.
Hawaii gun owners are so use to being beat in the ground that I can almost understand why they view sterile carry as dangerous and scary.
We had a guy who was nice and showed ID in Michigan, the police mailed him a disorderly conduct misdemeanor court summons that he had to spend $$$$$ to beat, where if he simply kept his mouth shut and did not show ID, the police would have had no way to entrap him and make up a bogus charge on him.
If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know :)
-
So you agree there should be no controls against fraudulent voting or stuffing the ballot box ?
Against armed criminal gang bangers walking the streets with their guns in full view ?
I believe in common sense.
And I believe we need to fight for our rights when the Government exceeds common sense. 8)
Who's version of common sense? Yours? The Liberal/Progressive/Socialist administration's? The Senate's? The House of Representatives'? The voting majority? What's the definition of common sense these days?
As far as I can tell, the whole world, our nation included, has lost it's collective mind when it comes to government.
-
We had a guy who was nice and showed ID in Michigan, the police mailed him a disorderly conduct misdemeanor court summons that he had to spend $$$$$ to beat, where if he simply kept his mouth shut and did not show ID, the police would have had no way to entrap him and make up a bogus charge on him.
If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know :)
Wow !
Now there's something to think about. And I mean that sincerely.
-
Bottom line fellas for me on this and I think about it everyday when all said and done you cannot not sort between the things on the constitution that you like or dont like its either you support your right or dont! Cant pick and choose. You have to live with the good and bad, the lesser of 2evils for me and my rights is the lesser evil for me.
-
"Papers! Vehr arrr your papers?! Ah must see zee papers."
-
I am against the general consensus, If the law says I am not required to show you my ID then you are not going to see it. It is my right to privacy. So what If I am carrying a gun. Government does not give people rights, It only takes them away. And I'll be damned if they are going to get another freaking one of them. There are reasons why these laws exist. And personally I do not want to have any smidgen of information out in the world if it does not need to be.
-
Stop and ID was declared unconstitutional in the Kolender case in the 1980's and stopping someone to see if they are "legal" violates Delaware v Prouse.
Hawaii gun owners are so use to being beat in the ground that I can almost understand why they view sterile carry as dangerous and scary.
We had a guy who was nice and showed ID in Michigan, the police mailed him a disorderly conduct misdemeanor court summons that he had to spend $$$$$ to beat, where if he simply kept his mouth shut and did not show ID, the police would have had no way to entrap him and make up a bogus charge on him.
If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know :)
I know that this no "Stop and ID Law" is certainly not being strictly enforced across the board by all Michigan LEO, specifically in the Detroit Metropolitan area. When I was there recently I was stopped several times while walking and I believe only asked to present ID once, although many in the neighborhood have been asked for ID often, and I was not open carrying a firearm or in a car. So obviously some within the PDs and Sheriff Department's still do this and have been for a long time. It sounds like you are suggesting it's best not to comply with any request because LEO do not have the legal authority to stop a person and ascertain any information in the first place. I get it but I don't necessarily agree with the all or nothing concept but the law is the law. I personally don't have an issue with complying, especially if it deters crime, but that's just me.
Many elderly people are so afraid to go outside because of gang related activity and these same punks are canvassing the neighborhoods for easy victims and LEO can't even legally stop them on their bicycles or walking to inquire what they are doing, or where they live, or whom they're visiting, unless they have probable cause. From my experience, law abiding citizens in this particular geographical area that I know don't mind this minor inconvenience, or at least I have never heard anyone I know verbally complain about a police officer stopping them and asking a few simple questions or looking at their ID, and then they're on their way, especially when they know it actually cuts down on the undesirables (criminal element) in the neighborhood, and that is something the community can physically see…they know exactly who belongs in the area and who doesn’t. Most law-abiding citizens in these crime-ridden areas welcome the presence of LEO. I have personally heard nothing to the contrary.
IMO it's pretty hard to put a dent in these crime-infested neighborhoods when your hands are tied and the criminals know this, but then again the crime rate in these areas speak volumes, with no end in sight.
-
I know that this no "Stop and ID Law" is certainly not being strictly enforced across the board by all Michigan LEO, specifically in the Detroit Metropolitan area. When I was there recently I was stopped several times while walking and I believe only asked to present ID once, although many in the neighborhood have been asked for ID often, and I was not open carrying a firearm or in a car. So obviously some within the PDs and Sheriff Department's still do this and have been for a long time. It sounds like you are suggesting it's best not to comply with any request because LEO do not have the legal authority to stop a person and ascertain any information in the first place. I get it but I don't necessarily agree with the all or nothing concept but the law is the law. I personally don't have an issue with complying, especially if it deters crime, but that's just me.
Many elderly people are so afraid to go outside because of gang related activity and these same punks are canvassing the neighborhoods for easy victims and LEO can't even legally stop them on their bicycles or walking to inquire what they are doing, or where they live, or whom they're visiting, unless they have probable cause. From my experience, law abiding citizens in this particular geographical area that I know don't mind this minor inconvenience, or at least I have never heard anyone I know verbally complain about a police officer stopping them and asking a few simple questions or looking at their ID, and then they're on their way, especially when they know it actually cuts down on the undesirables (criminal element) in the neighborhood, and that is something the community can physically see…they know exactly who belongs in the area and who doesn’t. Most law-abiding citizens in these crime-ridden areas welcome the presence of LEO. I have personally heard nothing to the contrary.
IMO it's pretty hard to put a dent in these crime-infested neighborhoods when your hands are tied and the criminals know this, but then again the crime rate in these areas speak volumes, with no end in sight.
Detroit is a failed socialist experiment.
Many gun owners in Michigan stand up for their rights, you can view more at www.migunowners.org (http://www.migunowners.org) or Michigan Open Carry.
The Detroit PD is part of the problem and there is a reason why the FBI tells people who transfer in to the Detroit Field Office to not identify themselves as FBI to Detroit Police unless absolutely necessary since they are constantly being investigated by the FBI.
The crime problem isn't that bad outside of Detroit, it hasn't gone past Redford, nor has it passed Ecorse, and most of us don't care if Detroit rots and we are tired of Michigan being controlled by Detroit and Flint in the same way New York City controls New York State.
I have no problem with people voluntarily giving ID of asked, but it's not required, and it's our right, and the constitution and liberty are infinitely more important to me than a failed crap hole city. And these officers that have not fallen in line with state police training bulletins better learn that no means no and a consensual encounter is not another word for detention.
There are people in Detroit who care, I believe their group is called 300 or something and I know many of them-open carry.
-
Detroit is a failed socialist experiment.
Many gun owners in Michigan stand up for their rights, you can view more at www.migunowners.org (http://www.migunowners.org) or Michigan Open Carry.
The Detroit PD is part of the problem and there is a reason why the FBI tells people who transfer in to the Detroit Field Office to not identify themselves as FBI to Detroit Police unless absolutely necessary since they are constantly being investigated by the FBI.
The crime problem isn't that bad outside of Detroit, it hasn't gone past Redford, nor has it passed Ecorse, and most of us don't care if Detroit rots and we are tired of Michigwn being controlled by Detroit and Flint in the same way New York City controls New York State.
Sadly, I agree with everything you said and you're absolutely correct...many great places in Michigan, especially up north. It's just places like you mentioned that screw it up and I'd throw Inkster in that list for good measures, not to mention the economy and unemployment are terrible.
-
Well said.
If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know :)
Stop and ID is not an acceptable form of determining squat, it's simply a form of harassment. One cannot effectively determine the intent of an individual by knowing his or her name or what's filed on them in a data base. Thinking it can effectively solve potential issues is simply exercising well wishing nonsense. If the police are called because someone is exercising a right to carry arms and if the police feel there maybe a possible problem, they can drive by the person, go chat with them and walk along with them if desired (no id asked for), wave at them (let them know they are there) and if the police still feel it necessary - watch the person from a distance (this is all well within the law). Interrogative measures beyond simple observations are not necessary. It's really that simple.
And how many criminals with warrants would dare to walk down the street open carry and draw attention to themselves? More likely the person walking open carry is simply making a statement or simply doing what he or she always does in most cases. A criminal about to commit a crime in such a scenario - slim chance indeed.
-
Are you telling us that a daring ex-con could walk around with a gun (which is illegal) looking for their significant other and nobody can stop him/her because LEO cannot stop and ID the person? Until after the fact?
Ditto a person with a restraining order?
Are you also telling us that a LEO data base cannot determine if a person is a convict/ex-con or has a RO placed on them?
-
Well said.
Stop and ID is not an acceptable form of determining squat, it's simply a form of harassment. One cannot effectively determine the intent of an individual by knowing his or her name or what's filed on them in a data base. Thinking it can effectively solve potential issues is simply exercising well wishing nonsense. If the police are called because someone is exercising a right to carry arms and if the police feel there maybe a possible problem, they can drive by the person, go chat with them and walk along with them if desired (no id asked for), wave at them (let them know they are there) and if the police still feel it necessary - watch the person from a distance (this is all well within the law). Interrogative measures beyond simple observations are not necessary. It's really that simple.
And how many criminals with warrants would dare to walk down the street open carry and draw attention to themselves? More likely the person walking open carry is simply making a statement or simply doing what he or she always does in most cases. A criminal about to commit a crime in such a scenario - slim chance indeed.
Exactly.
The same arguments against open carry can be used against concealed carry. Anyone could have a concealed gun and they could kill me with it. That could justify a terry frisk on everyone without limit.
If ID'ing someone who open carries is necessary than the same holds true for concealed carry (along with a terry frisk).
-
Are you telling us that a daring ex-con could walk around with a gun (which is illegal) looking for their significant other and nobody can stop him/her because LEO cannot stop and ID the person? Until after the fact?
Ditto a person with a restraining order?
Are you also telling us that a LEO data base cannot determine if a person is a convict/ex-con or has a RO placed on them?
It would appear that you are suffering from "victim mentality". I say victim mentality because it's evident that you have fallen victim to the past 15 years of the present statist corporate news medias objective to put fear into the minds of the public in order to gain their acceptance for further statist agendas. Shock, Divide and Conquer. It's time to wake up and snap out of it.
"unreasonable search" means there is no reason for the search, a search that is conducted out of simple suspicion without a reason beyond simple suspicion is an unreasonable search. It would appear you're willing to toss the 4th amendment out the window to provide yourself with some false security. I'll leave you with a little homework on the matter :
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. This was written by Franklin, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.
-
Well said.
Stop and ID is not an acceptable form of determining squat, it's simply a form of harassment. One cannot effectively determine the intent of an individual by knowing his or her name or what's filed on them in a data base. Thinking it can effectively solve potential issues is simply exercising well wishing nonsense. If the police are called because someone is exercising a right to carry arms and if the police feel there maybe a possible problem, they can drive by the person, go chat with them and walk along with them if desired (no id asked for), wave at them (let them know they are there) and if the police still feel it necessary - watch the person from a distance (this is all well within the law). Interrogative measures beyond simple observations are not necessary. It's really that simple.
And how many criminals with warrants would dare to walk down the street open carry and draw attention to themselves? More likely the person walking open carry is simply making a statement or simply doing what he or she always does in most cases. A criminal about to commit a crime in such a scenario - slim chance indeed.
You may give criminals more credit than many deserve. if criminals were that smart, I bet the jails would be displaying a VACANCY sign!
Sacramento motorist in disabled parking spot awakens to his arrest
http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2013/05/sacramento-motorist-in-disabled-parking-spot-awakens-to-of-his-arrest.html (http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2013/05/sacramento-motorist-in-disabled-parking-spot-awakens-to-of-his-arrest.html)
I also read of a guy who ARGUED with a cop about moving the car he was in from the handicapped spot. After refusing to move, the cop ID'ed the guy and found he had warrants!! The guy was arrested because he decided to give the cop attitude and not move from where he was ILLEGALLY PARKED.
I can see a guy reasoning: the cops will NEVER suspect him of being a felon or a fugitive AND carrying a loaded weapon openly. No cop would ever imagine someone being that stupid!
-
Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search?
When you go to a bar or buy cig's you gotta show your ID.
Why is it so hard to comply?
I guess a terrorist could run up and down a street everyday full on camo, gun and gear with no fear of being stopped.
All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," if you are, hey great, now I'm not worried, you can run in front of my house all day if you want.
As far as a pedophile, if a child is taken, they have an Amber alert, and if you suspect something you should report it anyway.
-
Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search?
When you go to a bar or buy cig's you gotta show your ID.
Why is it so hard to comply?
I guess a terrorist could run up and down a street everyday full on camo, gun and gear with no fear of being stopped.
All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," if you are, hey great, now I'm not worried, you can run in front of my house all day if you want.
As far as a pedophile, if a child is taken, they have an Amber alert, and if you suspect something you should report it anyway.
The thing you don't seem to get is this concept of "probable cause." An officer may ask for your ID as a matter of investigating a complaint, checking on why you are carrying a gun, etc. However, unless he has probable cause to suspect you of a crime, he can't force you to cooperate with his investigation. He's just doing what he was trained to. He must write a report, and to do that, he needs to record names, places, times, and other details.
His problem is not your problem. While it's okay to feel like cooperating, there are bad things that can happen if you give up your right to remain silent. Anything you say can, AND WILL, be used against you in a court of law. That is called a WARNING for a reason. Too many people assisted the Cops in locking their butts up, so the Miranda Warning was instituted to make sure you aren't ignorant of your rights and the consequences of volunteering information.
If you feel compelled to always answer when a Cop asks you something, then YOU ARE FREE to do so. I, however, may not feel the same way. It isn't because I'm afraid he'll discover I have warrants. It's because that officer represents the state. The state will screw you, sometimes completely unintentionally, if you give it a chance.
Depending on the situation, the circumstances, and the rationale at the moment, I may feel obligated to volunteer information to help him do his job. But, I won't make being cooperative an automatic rule!
-
Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search?
When you go to a bar or buy cig's you gotta show your ID.
Why is it so hard to comply?
I guess a terrorist could run up and down a street everyday full on camo, gun and gear with no fear of being stopped.
All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," if you are, hey great, now I'm not worried, you can run in front of my house all day if you want.
As far as a pedophile, if a child is taken, they have an Amber alert, and if you suspect something you should report it anyway.
"Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search?"
That's an entirely subjective question. When you buy cigarettes at the store; is there a "reason" to ask for your ID? Answer: Yes, the store is subject to a law that forbids them to sell cigs to those under the age of 18 and it's the law to "card" them. If you ask to buy cigs, they have a "reason" to ask for you to prove your age via legal identification and if they fail to ask, they may be fined by an undercover cop instead. A reasonable request by the store when your intent is to purchase a controlled substance and they are subject to a fine by law if they fail to ask for your ID. The store is not the State conducting an investigation.
When you walk down the street in a place where it is legal to open carry and you open carry there is no "reason" to ask for your ID. Find a legitimate reason beyond unsupported suspicions and you have a reason, until then you're acting only on unsupported suspicion.
"All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," Does this mean your running an entire background check, will it include the current mind intent of the suspected also? If not your "legit" assumption is a fallacy. A false state of security indeed.
:"As far as a pedophile..." Amber alerts are only possible when someone places a report under particular circumstances... very few abducted children are noticed missing at the moment they are abducted and by the time a report is made many minutes or even hours have past, so your reliance on the state just failed you there. Each of your arguments are full of holes and contain no consistency with anything short of one who "thinks" the State will do everything for you (a very dangerous mistaken mindset indeed). I would recommend taking a deep breath and looking the other way, focus your mind on your business instead of someone else's stroll down the street. Are you our keeper and do you really want to be? When you can determine reasonable suspicion then you have an in. Does the person who is practicing open carry look under age, are they staggering, are they shouting crazy talk, are they aiming the firearm at you, are they drooling or frothing at the mouth, was there a gun fired moments before hand, is there someone running away from them? Do you have a reasonable suspicion or are you simply after a false sense of security... think about it a little more deeply and if you still come to the same assumption, you're only fooling you still.
-
I don't get when you say "I have a false sense of security."
I actually am backing up the open carry and welcome open carry.
On one of my other post I complain that we here in Hawaii cannot even take our guns when we check on our mailbox next to the street that is at the edge of our yards.
If I have a false sense of security, where does that leave everyone else, we all live on these islands and we don't even have open carry, not even CCW. If you have a gun in your car you cannot even stop at 7-11 to buy a soda, or stop at McD for some fries.
Hawaii is a police state and we are living in it, and we must love it because we ain't leaving. Do you feel secure?
I have guns, yet I don't feel safe, I feel like I am wasting my money buying guns, so much for that false sense of security, I honestly feel they are going to be confiscated, and not a dam thing we can do about it.
If you feel that you can out shoot the LEO and military than go ahead, I don't have that confidence, but in the mean time, you surely must know that Hawaii is ranked in the bottom 5 for least amount of personal freedom.
-
Hawaii rank #47 in Personal Freedom
http://freedominthe50states.org/ (http://freedominthe50states.org/)
Hawaii rank #47 in Personal Freedom
-
The thing you don't seem to get is this concept of "probable cause." An officer may ask for your ID as a matter of investigating a complaint, checking on why you are carrying a gun, etc. However, unless he has probable cause to suspect you of a crime, he can't force you to cooperate with his investigation. He's just doing what he was trained to. He must write a report, and to do that, he needs to record names, places, times, and other details.
His problem is not your problem. While it's okay to feel like cooperating, there are bad things that can happen if you give up your right to remain silent. Anything you say can, AND WILL, be used against you in a court of law. That is called a WARNING for a reason. Too many people assisted the Cops in locking their butts up, so the Miranda Warning was instituted to make sure you aren't ignorant of your rights and the consequences of volunteering information.
If you feel compelled to always answer when a Cop asks you something, then YOU ARE FREE to do so. I, however, may not feel the same way. It isn't because I'm afraid he'll discover I have warrants. It's because that officer represents the state. The state will screw you, sometimes completely unintentionally, if you give it a chance.
Depending on the situation, the circumstances, and the rationale at the moment, I may feel obligated to volunteer information to help him do his job. But, I won't make being cooperative an automatic rule!
"Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search?"
That's an entirely subjective question. When you buy cigarettes at the store; is there a "reason" to ask for your ID? Answer: Yes, the store is subject to a law that forbids them to sell cigs to those under the age of 18 and it's the law to "card" them. If you ask to buy cigs, they have a "reason" to ask for you to prove your age via legal identification and if they fail to ask, they may be fined by an undercover cop instead. A reasonable request by the store when your intent is to purchase a controlled substance and they are subject to a fine by law if they fail to ask for your ID. The store is not the State conducting an investigation.
When you walk down the street in a place where it is legal to open carry and you open carry there is no "reason" to ask for your ID. Find a legitimate reason beyond unsupported suspicions and you have a reason, until then you're acting only on unsupported suspicion.
"All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," Does this mean your running an entire background check, will it include the current mind intent of the suspected also? If not your "legit" assumption is a fallacy. A false state of security indeed.
:"As far as a pedophile..." Amber alerts are only possible when someone places a report under particular circumstances... very few abducted children are noticed missing at the moment they are abducted and by the time a report is made many minutes or even hours have past, so your reliance on the state just failed you there. Each of your arguments are full of holes and contain no consistency with anything short of one who "thinks" the State will do everything for you (a very dangerous mistaken mindset indeed). I would recommend taking a deep breath and looking the other way, focus your mind on your business instead of someone else's stroll down the street. Are you our keeper and do you really want to be? When you can determine reasonable suspicion then you have an in. Does the person who is practicing open carry look under age, are they staggering, are they shouting crazy talk, are they aiming the firearm at you, are they drooling or frothing at the mouth, was there a gun fired moments before hand, is there someone running away from them? Do you have a reasonable suspicion or are you simply after a false sense of security... think about it a little more deeply and if you still come to the same assumption, you're only fooling you still.
Both excellent posts. If there was a call regarding a bald Asian male wearing a black tshirt and blue jeans who robbed someone at gunpoint and I fit the description, I'd absolutely expect a police officer to take my ID, cuff, and detain me. That, in my opinion, is reasonable search and seizure (true story, happened to me). If I'm just a regular Joe walking about and someone complains about a man with a gun (and I'm in a state where open carry is legal), I wouldn't consent to anything and would definitely be recording the entire encounter.
-
Stop and ID was declared unconstitutional in the Kolender case in the 1980's and stopping someone to see if they are "legal" violates Delaware v Prouse.
Hawaii gun owners are so use to being beat in the ground that I can almost understand why they view sterile carry as dangerous and scary.
We had a guy who was nice and showed ID in Michigan, the police mailed him a disorderly conduct misdemeanor court summons that he had to spend $$$$$ to beat, where if he simply kept his mouth shut and did not show ID, the police would have had no way to entrap him and make up a bogus charge on him.
If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know :)
You are 100% required to identify yourself if they have PC to stop you for a crime. If you fail to identify yourself, they can arrest you and hold you until they figure out who you are.
One of my recent bails was a female who refused to ID herself for a citation, so she got arrested and got a few more citations as well lol.
-- Why stop with I.D.? Why not run the serial number of your gun, check some fingerprints, swab some DNA? This way, we can find out if you have committed a crime we don't know about! (Or don't have a 'named' suspect).
What's the difference? Many of you are trying to use the name to "catch criminals" so why not go all the way?
-
You are 100% required to identify yourself if they have PC to stop you for a crime. If you fail to identify yourself, they can arrest you and hold you until they figure out who you are.
One of my recent bails was a female who refused to ID herself for a citation, so she got arrested and got a few more citations as well lol.
-- Why stop with I.D.? Why not run the serial number of your gun, check some fingerprints, swab some DNA? This way, we can find out if you have committed a crime we don't know about! (Or don't have a 'named' suspect).
What's the difference? Many of you are trying to use the name to "catch criminals" so why not go all the way?
I recommend you read Kolender and Hiibel. They cover these matters.
No state or territory can require you to "show ID" unless you need the ID to do something that is otherwise illegal, such as drive a car on a government road.
Hiibel upheld a Nevada law requiring a properly detained subject to identify themselves by first and last name.
Not all states have a law requiring people to identify themselves by name, I don't know if Hawaii does or not. I know Arizona does and Michigan does not.
-
Is asking to show your ID an unreasonable search?
When you go to a bar or buy cig's you gotta show your ID.
Why is it so hard to comply?
I guess a terrorist could run up and down a street everyday full on camo, gun and gear with no fear of being stopped.
All I want to do is ask is "are you legit," if you are, hey great, now I'm not worried, you can run in front of my house all day if you want.
As far as a pedophile, if a child is taken, they have an Amber alert, and if you suspect something you should report it anyway.
Bars and tobacco sales are private transactions, they are not government actors. The bar can demand ID as a condition to enter private property but cops can not legally come in and "ID" everyone in a bar "to be sure". It violates Kolender.
And yes, detaining someone for not showing ID (unless required for something like driving a car) is unconstitutional per SCOTUS, so yes, it's a big deal and the court rulings mean more than your opinion.
A "terrorist" hasn't done that in the other 45 states that do not prohibit or require a license to walk or run down the street with a rifle or shotgun.
Amber alerts have to be reported, I would be arresting, not reporting, Furthermore, it doesn't detract from the main point that any child could just have been stolen and every person on a $2,000 MacBook at Starbucks could be with a stolen Mac, but that doesn't give me the authority to detain you to run your Mac serial number by Apple or the state to see if it's stolen. This is quite common to see people with trunks full of stolen Mac Products. Last arrest I was on with Mac products was a trunk full of new iPads.
And I've already told you why many people do not want to "comply", it's because there are a ton of dirty cops out there who will make up charges on you, just like what happened in Michigan.
-
because there are a ton of dirty cops out there who will make up charges on you, just like what happened in Michigan.
There are also tons of dirty people out there who are intending to do dirty deeds, very dirty deeds and have full of dirty laundry.
It,s a shame that you have to show your ID to buy cig's,
but you can be the perfect nut under psych meds with an unregistered gun standing on the corner with a fully loaded rifle just waiting for that perfect time to crack and not be required to show an ID.
How convenient.
But either way, whether we show or not, in the end, God knows (I believe and justice is served.)
-
There are also tons of dirty people out there who are intending to do dirty deeds, very dirty deeds and have full of dirty laundry.
It,s a shame that you have to show your ID to buy cig's,
but you can be the perfect nut under psych meds with an unregistered gun standing on the corner with a fully loaded rifle just waiting for that perfect time to crack and not be required to show an ID.
How convenient.
But either way, whether we show or not, in the end, God knows (I believe and justice is served.)
And only if police could search peoples homes at will, it could have prevented the 10 year incarceration of those poor girls in that house in Cleveland, OH.
Damn that Bill of Rights. :)
The cigarette analogy was already torn apart and it was clearly stated how its a poor analogy.... Btw, smoking is a disgusting habit.... And stores are not required to ID you, they do it because they are liable if they sell to someone underage.
-
Damn the "Bill of Rights?'
That's misplaced animosity.
Damn Satan and his followers for placing evil in the world and misleading its inhabitants.
-
I’m not sure I would blame it on the “Bill of Rights”. ;D
Not to digress too much and Jared please correct me if I’m wrong. Is there not a fine line in the absence of probable cause to lawfully stop an individual depending on the circumstances, irregardless of whether they have a firearm visible in an open carry state or unarmed? A visible firearm should not be a factor; in less of course open carry is illegal in that state or there is a valid reason/concern. Carrying a firearm in an open carry state is not a valid reason for a stop.
I’m specifically talking about two law enforcement tools. A voluntary stop (consensual encounter), which doesn’t require reasonable suspicion or probable cause as long as a reasonable person would feel free to leave or decline to speak with the LEO. Basically there are no facts a LEO can use to explain or justify his or her feelings that criminal activity is afoot (just a hunch – mere suspicion). One does not have to answer questions or show ID during a voluntary stop. Everything is strictly voluntary.
Secondly, investigatory detention (Terry stop), which is articulable facts that would lead a reasonable LEO to conclude that criminal activity is afoot…more than an unsupported hunch but less than probable cause. In this case, the LEO can stop a suspect and investigate that person for a reasonable period of time, even though it’s not a formal arrest, it is considered a seizure, and the individual is not free to leave. If during the stop, probable cause to arrest is developed, the suspect will be arrested; otherwise they will be released. And there are many factors that determine a lawful Terry stop. Not saying this situation is a valid reason, just stating there are many lawful factors. A Terry stop can also lead to a Terry frisk. My point is I believe there are effective law enforcement tools that ‘good’ officers/agents can utilize when circumstances warrant their use.
I think for the purposes of this discussion, the problem arises when consensual encounters lead to investigatory detention, compounded by the fact that some LEO are corrupt to begin with. So, it may be in ones best interest to avoid a consensual encounter to begin with as Jared has kinda hinted at. It does make good sense when you factor in dirty cops.
However, IMO law abiding citizens should not immediately get defensive when a LEO asks a question during a voluntary stop…just listen to what they are saying; giving them a chance to explain why they have stopped you, which may actually be a good reason. I believe most legal experts would probably advise people to be polite and ask ‘Am I free to go?’ If they say yes, then leave…probably mostly because the dirty cop issue but it’s an individual’s choice. Not every law enforcement stop is intended to end in arrest, and there are often times when police interactions by ‘good’ LEOs may just be casual and attempting to deter criminal activity in a specific area or other valid reasons. JMHO
-
I thought it was interesting in the initial encounter when the OC'er asked if he was being detained. When the officer said "no" the OC'er turned and said "see ya." It was only then that the officer said he was being detained. Those few words, to me, indicated just the type of problems Jared is concerned with.....
-
I’m not sure I would blame it on the “Bill of Rights”. ;D
Not to digress too much and Jared please correct me if I’m wrong. Is there not a fine line in the absence of probable cause to lawfully stop an individual depending on the circumstances, irregardless of whether they have a firearm visible in an open carry state or unarmed? A visible firearm should not be a factor; in less of course open carry is illegal in that state or there is a valid reason/concern. Carrying a firearm in an open carry state is not a valid reason for a stop.
I’m specifically talking about two law enforcement tools. A voluntary stop (consensual encounter), which doesn’t require reasonable suspicion or probable cause as long as a reasonable person would feel free to leave or decline to speak with the LEO. Basically there are no facts a LEO can use to explain or justify his or her feelings that criminal activity is afoot (just a hunch – mere suspicion). One does not have to answer questions or show ID during a voluntary stop. Everything is strictly voluntary.
Secondly, investigatory detention (Terry stop), which is articulable facts that would lead a reasonable LEO to conclude that criminal activity is afoot…more than an unsupported hunch but less than probable cause. In this case, the LEO can stop a suspect and investigate that person for a reasonable period of time, even though it’s not a formal arrest, it is considered a seizure, and the individual is not free to leave. If during the stop, probable cause to arrest is developed, the suspect will be arrested; otherwise they will be released. And there are many factors that determine a lawful Terry stop. Not saying this situation is a valid reason, just stating there are many lawful factors. A Terry stop can also lead to a Terry frisk. My point is I believe there are effective law enforcement tools that ‘good’ officers/agents can utilize when circumstances warrant their use.
I think for the purposes of this discussion, the problem arises when consensual encounters lead to investigatory detention, compounded by the fact that some LEO are corrupt to begin with. So, it may be in ones best interest to avoid a consensual encounter to begin with as Jared has kinda hinted at. It does make good sense when you factor in dirty cops.
However, IMO law abiding citizens should not immediately get defensive when a LEO asks a question during a voluntary stop…just listen to what they are saying; giving them a chance to explain why they have stopped you, which may actually be a good reason. I believe most legal experts would probably advise people to be polite and ask ‘Am I free to go?’ If they say yes, then leave…probably mostly because the dirty cop issue but it’s an individual’s choice. Not every law enforcement stop is intended to end in arrest, and there are often times when police interactions by ‘good’ LEOs may just be casual and attempting to deter criminal activity in a specific area or other valid reasons. JMHO
Correct, if OC is lawful then it can not count towards RSIA for a detention. If the person is lawfully open carrying and at the same time yelling "I'm going to take care of you right now" into the phone, then that would be RSIA.
Look at it this way, every car being driven down the road is presumed to be driving illegally, becuse you need a drivers license to meet an exemption to the prohibition of driving on a public road, but at the same time, Delaware v Prouse was clear, SCOTUS said you can not detain someone just to see if they have a drivers license.
The Supreme Court was very clear in Florida v J.L. They said there is no firearms exception to the 4th amendment and it doesn't matter how many times 22LR brings Jesus, Satan, or cigarettes into the endless "what if" conversation.
-
I thought it was interesting in the initial encounter when the OC'er asked if he was being detained. When the officer said "no" the OC'er turned and said "see ya." It was only then that the officer said he was being detained. Those few words, to me, indicated just the type of problems Jared is concerned with.....
Very much, if the Royal Oak cop read the numerous State Police updates that they put out, he would have known that he violated that persons 4th amendment right. If the officer asked or a consensual encounter, things may have gone different.
Last time I checked, Michigan has Law Enforcement Officers... Not Opinion Enforcement Officers.
-
I thought it was interesting in the initial encounter when the OC'er asked if he was being detained. When the officer said "no" the OC'er turned and said "see ya." It was only then that the officer said he was being detained. Those few words, to me, indicated just the type of problems Jared is concerned with.....
Agree
-
Correct, if OC is lawful then it can not count towards RSIA for a detention. If the person is lawfully open carrying and at the same time yelling "I'm going to take care of you right now" into the phone, then that would be RSIA.
Look at it this way, every car being driven down the road is presumed to be driving illegally, becuse you need a drivers license to meet an exemption to the prohibition of driving on a public road, but at the same time, Delaware v Prouse was clear, SCOTUS said you can not detain someone just to see if they have a drivers license.
The Supreme Court was very clear in Florida v J.L. They said there is no firearms exception to the 4th amendment and it doesn't matter how many times 22LR brings Jesus, Satan, or cigarettes into the endless "what if" conversation.
Thanks Jared! Very good info and excellent first-hand insight into the issue.