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!   

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!   

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,

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.