PDA

View Full Version : Guns drawn on gun owners for 12031 "e" loaded inspections EXCESSIVE FORCE?


Liberty1
07-27-2009, 8:07 AM
For an example of what happens when it's not novel, A week or so ago Judge Reinhardt did the federal judiciary branch version of ripping a law enforcement officer a new one in Hopkins v. Bonvicino (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/16/07-15102.pdf) - a case regarding an illegal search (excessive force, ie: guns drawn) and arrest in San Carlos, CA.

-Gene

(red is my addition)

The excessive force decision (at the end of that document) is interesting: where one officer had his gun drawn during handcuffing.

Combine this excessive force case with Robinson v Solono County 278 F.3d 1007 (9th Circuit 2002) - pointing gun at a suspect can be excessive force - and People v. DeLong (CA) - loaded checks are an inspection ONLY not RAS to detain for investigation.

I wonder IF guns drawn during a mere 12031 "e" inspection, where there is NO other RAS to detain or evidence the individual is dangerous, is an excessive use of force transforming People v DeLong "e" inspections into 4th A. violating detentions or even into a criminal "brandishing" offense?

Untamed1972
07-27-2009, 8:33 AM
Although I agree with you like more here would, I would say that the courts might likely say that because the person was armed they'd give the officers a pass on "officer safety" grounds. Because in both of those cases it was noted that the "suspect" was unarmed.

But it might be a way to get some scutiny on the "e" check period and perhaps get the overturned.

But it does seem ridiculous that someone in legal posession of a gun, minding his own business and not doing anything suspicious should be required to submit to such treatment, especially considering that in some states LOC is legal and the COPs aren't pulling guns on everyone they see in those states.

So that could possilbly used as a defense as well to show that absent any other factors that might cause an officer concern for his safety, the mere presense of a holstered handgun on the person of a law-abiding citizen is not a threat by itself.

Decoligny
07-27-2009, 9:18 AM
(red is my addition)

The excessive force decision (at the end of that document) is interesting: where one officer had his gun drawn during handcuffing.

Combine this excessive force case with Robinson v Solono County 278 F.3d 1007 (9th Circuit 2002) - pointing gun at a suspect can be excessive force - and People v. DeLong (CA) - loaded checks are an inspection ONLY not RAS to detain for investigation.

I wonder IF guns drawn during a mere 12031 "e" inspection, where there is NO other RAS to detain or evidence the individual is dangerous, is an excessive use of force transforming People v DeLong "e" inspections into 4th A. violating detentions or even into a criminal "brandishing" offense?

The San Diego District Attorney has already told the San Diego Police in this training memo that ordering hands over head, and drawing a gun, etc. turns a simple 12031(e) inspection into a detention. That being said, they absolutely need RAS for a detention.

Quote from Robert Amador in D.A. Liaison Training Bulletin Vol 2, No. 2: "If this is going to be a detention e.g. guns drawn, commands to freeze, raise your hands etc. then you need to write in your report why you are doing this. As foolish as it seems to you to have to justify this, it will be the key to your success if this results in a prosecution or a civil suit."

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/SD-DA-OC-Memo-2009-03.pdf
__________________

AHRIMAN
07-27-2009, 9:22 AM
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/car...mo-2009-03.pdf


this link is bad, or at least it won't work for me....

gun toting monkeyboy
07-27-2009, 9:25 AM
So what you are saying is that the San Diego DA's office has told the cops that drawing on us and telling us to put our hands over our heads without cause (i.e. hostile or suspicious behavior on our part) is considered an illegal detention?

cactustactical
07-27-2009, 9:46 AM
I would consider that aggrivated assault.

There is NO reason to draw on a citizen lawfully carrying according to the law!

ACLU suit! ACLU Suit!!

Art
www.SecondAmendmentTaskForce.com


.

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 9:58 AM
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/car...mo-2009-03.pdf


this link is bad, or at least it won't work for me....

Look here for SD DA and more memos:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 10:07 AM
Although I agree with you like more here would, I would say that the courts might likely say that because the person was armed they'd give the officers a pass on "officer safety" grounds. Because in both of those cases it was noted that the "suspect" was unarmed.



Armed and Dangerous. Armed is not dangerous in and of itself and even then Terry v Ohio deals with RAS to detain and then reasonable suspicion to pat down for belief of being Armed and Dangerous. People v. DeLong: loaded inspections are not detentions so UOC/LUCCers are not "suspects" under T v O.

But your point is taken.

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 10:09 AM
I would consider that aggrivated assault.
.

No propbably just 417 brandishing under color of authority ;)

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 10:17 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/17/officer.sex.assault/

Here is a case of an LA officer who "had his hand on his weapon" during a civil rights violation. He pled guilty. I don't know if having his "hand on his weapon" will effect the sentencing like in the Romos and Compion case.

added: he pled to 10 years so we will not know how the "hand on the gun" would have been treated at sentensing.

cactustactical
07-27-2009, 10:32 AM
No propbably just 417 brandishing under color of authority ;)


Lol color of authority?... what color is that? Blue? :D


Cops gotta be careful, they are subject to the same laws as we are. If I pull a gun on someone it is considered aggrivated assault.

I guess cops just pull them in McDonalds drive thru's and they think they can pull em anywhere now! ;):p


Art

.

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 10:38 AM
Lol color of authority?... what color is that? Blue? :D


Cops gotta be careful, they are subject to the same laws as we are. If I pull a gun on someone it is considered aggrivated assault.

I guess cops just pull them in McDonalds drive thru's and they think they can pull em anywhere now! ;):p


Art

.

Difference being a DA will charge you and not generally an officer otherwise doing their job (absent criminal activity).

Thats ok, I would not want otherwise good men to loose their jobs over behavior that until now has been SOP with armed individuals (usually armed real criminals). But I wish the benefit of the doubt was also extended to LACs where no other criminal activity was suspected too.:(

We'll get there. Times are a changing.

ls2monaro
07-27-2009, 2:13 PM
The department I work for does not consider drawing your gun/weapon or handcuffing using force. I also know every leo has a different comfort level when dealing with someone. Many things are taken into consideration, but 99% of the time leo's can justify their actions under the umbrella of officer safety.

I know it sucks to have a gun pointed at you and be placed in handcuffs but if you are not violating any laws you will be on your way. The problem is, as an leo you will be lied to 99% percent of the time while doing your job as well. Almost half of my arrests have been made from "fishing expeditions" on traffic stops, pedestrian checks, and calls of serivce. I know it sucks for the law abiding citizens I have inconvenienced, but I have but many criminals in jail as well.

Dealing with leo's is very difficult to gauge because their personalities and experiences mold how they deal with people. Personally, a little respect and a lot of honesty will go along way with me.

Untamed1972
07-27-2009, 2:16 PM
The department I work for does not consider drawing your gun/weapon or handcuffing using force.

So screw the law and court precident and just do what you want to anyway huh?

ls2monaro
07-27-2009, 2:56 PM
So screw the law and court precident and just do what you want to anyway huh?

No, people sue police/sheriff departments all the time for legitimate but mostly bs reasons and get big money for it. I just know if I act in accordance with department policy I will not be held liable for any wrongdoing.

Roadrunner
07-27-2009, 3:52 PM
The department I work for does not consider drawing your gun/weapon or handcuffing using force. I also know every leo has a different comfort level when dealing with someone. Many things are taken into consideration, but 99% of the time leo's can justify their actions under the umbrella of officer safety.

I know it sucks to have a gun pointed at you and be placed in handcuffs but if you are not violating any laws you will be on your way. The problem is, as an leo you will be lied to 99% percent of the time while doing your job as well. Almost half of my arrests have been made from "fishing expeditions" on traffic stops, pedestrian checks, and calls of serivce. I know it sucks for the law abiding citizens I have inconvenienced, but I have but many criminals in jail as well.

Dealing with leo's is very difficult to gauge because their personalities and experiences mold how they deal with people. Personally, a little respect and a lot of honesty will go along way with me.

Respect works both ways and in neither case can it be demanded, it must be earned. Because you carry the authority of the government, you have chosen to be a servant, not an overseer. I personally don't care how you justify your actions, if you pull a gun on me and handcuff me without any cause other than I was at the wrong place at the wrong time, you can bet I'm going to be pissed, I will tell you to go screw yourself, and won't give you anything but the middle finger, figuratively speaking. This is not some third world country where police have absolute authority, if you want that kind of authority, go to Cuba.

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 3:59 PM
The department I work for does not consider drawing your gun/weapon or handcuffing using force.

That is for when we deal with individuals lawfully detained for RAS (reasonable articulated suspicion or as you know the "Terry" investigative stop).

People v. DeLong, dealing with the application of 12031 "e" "inspections", says "e" is only to see if there is a round in the chamber and not a detention for investigation. We don't get to run the serial number or run wants/warrants on the individual during the "inspection" except with RAS or consent.

Would your department find pointing a firearm at an individual wearing a Rolex which could be stolen absent RAS to be within policy?

We're saying that the same should apply to otherwise law-a-binding citizens who are committing NO crime while OCing where otherwise not prohibited.

and welcome Is2monaro to calguns!


And gentlemen, go easy on Is2 at first. Explain why he is wrong so he can understand. Most officers apply "Terry" detentions for legitimate investigations and are used to applying that to all calls for service (and certainly one involving guns). If one doesn't yet know of the unique interplay of "e" checks, OC, LUCC being different then detaining a suspect for a criminal investigation please pass along the correct info. to help a new poster (and officers/deputy) to understand before running him out on the unconstitutional figurative rail. He must be a good guy generally, he signed up here after all (if he's not with us after 6 mos. start boiling the oil and pluckin the chickens!).

ls2monaro
07-27-2009, 4:14 PM
Respect works both ways and in neither case can it be demanded, it must be earned. Because you carry the authority of the government, you have chosen to be a servant, not an overseer. I personally don't care how you justify your actions, if you pull a gun on me and handcuff me without any cause other than I was at the wrong place at the wrong time, you can bet I'm going to be pissed, I will tell you to go screw yourself, and won't give you anything but the middle finger, figuratively speaking. This is not some third world country where police have absolute authority, if you want that kind of authority, go to Cuba.

That's fine with me, you have every right to do that. I believe one of the biggest things an leo has is discretion. I am personally all for citizens to exercise their rights. I have had many calls where I could have arrested for a firearm violation but I let it slide. I recall I stopped an older fellow who had a loaded 1911 in his glovebox that I saw when he tried to pull his registration out. He was visiting from out of state and I let him go because he was very courteous to me. Had he been an ahole about it, I probably would have hooked him for it and he would be screwed. Just a suggestion, I know many people who have tried your approach, and although perfectly legal, you're just going to have the book thrown at you.

Roadrunner
07-27-2009, 4:16 PM
That's fine with me, you have every right to do that. I believe one of the biggest things an leo has is discretion. I am personally all for citizens to exercise their rights. I have had many calls where I could have arrested for a firearm violation but I let it slide. I recall I stopped an older fellow who had a loaded 1911 in his glovebox that I saw when he tried to pull his registration out. He was visiting from out of state and I let him go because he was very courteous to me. Had he been an ahole about it, I probably would have hooked him for it and he would be screwed. Just a suggestion, I know many people who have tried your approach, and although perfectly legal, you're just going to have the book thrown at you.

Right back at ya bud.

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 4:20 PM
The department I work for does not consider drawing your gun/weapon...using force.

But the federal courts do. And it needs to be justified and usually is when dealing with potentially violent detainees/arrestees but it can not just be used on ALL detainees/arrestees. And I would guess it can't be used at all on individuals who are not "suspects" under the "Terry" doctrine like those stopped for a simple loaded "e" inspection only.

Also there may be a fine point of difference between holding a firearm in one hand, pointing it straight down, with the finger not on the trigger (an act which I don't consider brandishing in and of itself) and pointing it at someone who is not a legit suspect. (the low ready would be somewhere in between but likely on the brandishing side of the issue which would then require an articulated self defense need)

ls2monaro
07-27-2009, 4:27 PM
That is for when we deal with individuals lawfully detained for RAS (reasonable articulated suspicion or as you know the "Terry" investigative stop).

People v. DeLong, dealing with the application of 12031 "e" "inspections", says "e" is only to see if there is a round in the chamber and not a detention for investigation. We don't get to run the serial number or run wants/warrants on the individual during the "inspection" except with RAS or consent.

Would your department find pointing a firearm at an individual wearing a Rolex which could be stolen absent RAS to be within policy?

We're saying that the same should apply to otherwise law-a-binding citizens who are committing NO crime while OCing where otherwise not prohibited.

and welcome Is2monaro to calguns!


And gentlemen, go easy on Is2 at first. Explain why he is wrong so he can understand. Most officers apply "Terry" detentions for legitimate investigations and are used to applying that to all calls for service (and certainly one involving guns). If one doesn't yet know of the unique interplay of "e" checks, OC, LUCC being different then detaining a suspect for a criminal investigation please pass along the correct info. to help a new poster (and officers/deputy) to understand before running him out on the unconstitutional figurative rail. He must be a good guy generally, he signed up here after all (if he's not with us after 6 mos. start boiling the oil and pluckin the chickens!).

I understand what you are saying, I have responded to a few open carry calls myself. If the person is cooperative, I check their gun, make sure it is unloaded, and send them on their way. However if they start getting mouthy, waving their hands arounds, not listening to my instructions, I place the cuffs on. If they are within the law, they are free to go. Unfortunately, many law abiding firearm owners don't like cops and get very confrontational during interactions with the police. However, I come across many more people breaking the law with firearms. For every 10 firearm encounters I come across, 9 will be a violation of law. (Convicted felon, loaded gun, concealed carry) So it is the first reaction of many leo's to believe the person is in violation of law unless proven otherwise. I know it sucks, just trying to give you guys an insight from the other side of the fence, not trying to start a war or anything.

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 4:34 PM
However if they start getting mouthy, waving their hands arounds, not listening to my instructions, I place the cuffs on.

Well if you've asked for an "e" check and don't get compliance then the individual might be into PC 148 (resisting peace officer) territory. But in reading People v DeLong it is rather clear (well to me anyway) the officer must ask first and get a refusal to allow the inspection before invoking 148 or the arrest clause of 12031.

That is why some of our UOCers will say, "I don't consent to the search but will comply with all orders". This way they maintain their 4th A. protections and standing.

Roadrunner
07-27-2009, 4:35 PM
I understand what you are saying, I have responded to a few open carry calls myself. If the person is cooperative, I check their gun, make sure it is unloaded, and send them on their way. However if they start getting mouthy, waving their hands arounds, not listening to my instructions, I place the cuffs on. If they are within the law, they are free to go. Unfortunately, many law abiding firearm owners don't like cops and get very confrontational during interactions with the police. However, I come across many more people breaking the law with firearms. For every 10 firearm encounters I come across, 9 will be a violation of law. (Convicted felon, loaded gun, concealed carry) So it is the first reaction of many leo's to believe the person is in violation of law unless proven otherwise. I know it sucks, just trying to give you guys an insight from the other side of the fence, not trying to start a war or anything.

And you work where.....so I can stay the hell out of there?

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 4:37 PM
And you work where.....so I can stay the hell out of there?

Roadrunner more sugar less bitters please
:rolleyes:

Roadrunner
07-27-2009, 4:42 PM
Roadrunner
:rolleyes:

Liberty, I don't need the grief. If his whole department is like that, I would just prefer to avoid them altogether. I'm a very easy going person, but when someone draws first blood, stand by.

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 4:45 PM
Liberty, I don't need the grief. If his whole department is like that, I would just prefer to avoid them altogether.

The whole state is like that generally. Lets start to sway some to our side or at least keep them once we get'em. And really what are your chances of running into Is2? Do you UOC often? And after this thread I would think Is2 would BE the leo you'd want to encounter. He has most of the info now. ;)

pnkssbtz
07-27-2009, 4:46 PM
I understand what you are saying, I have responded to a few open carry calls myself. If the person is cooperative, I check their gun, make sure it is unloaded, and send them on their way. However if they start getting mouthy, waving their hands arounds, not listening to my instructions, I place the cuffs on. If they are within the law, they are free to go. Unfortunately, many law abiding firearm owners don't like cops and get very confrontational during interactions with the police. However, I come across many more people breaking the law with firearms. For every 10 firearm encounters I come across, 9 will be a violation of law. (Convicted felon, loaded gun, concealed carry) So it is the first reaction of many leo's to believe the person is in violation of law unless proven otherwise. I know it sucks, just trying to give you guys an insight from the other side of the fence, not trying to start a war or anything.By what RAS do you justify turning an inspection into a detention? Is "being mouthy" or "waving their hands around" enough to satisfy RAS that a crime could be occurring? Is disobeying unlawful orders grounds for RAS in your estimation?


The issue that is trying to be discussed her is the DISTINCTION between an Inspection and a Detention.

Threatening the use of Lethal Force for an inspection exceeds the scope and nature of the inspection, as it is not a detention. Thus, going into a 12031(e) check with guns drawn and pointed is aggravated assault on the part of the officer. That is the distinction that is trying to be made.

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 4:48 PM
but when someone draws first blood, stand by.

There is no blood on the net, just bruised egos :) :p

Roadrunner
07-27-2009, 4:55 PM
The whole state is like that generally. Lets start to sway some to our side or at least keep them once we get'em. And really what are your chances of running into Is2? Do you UOC often? And after this thread I would think Is2 would BE the leo you'd want to encounter. He has most of the info now. ;)

I live in a very quiet town in a gated community. Most of the time the Stanislaus sheriff frequency that I'm most interested in is silent and I don't see that much activity which tells me that I am in the perfect place. There's no way I would move back to Urbania, not for all of the money in the world. I know quite a few of the Stanislaus deputies, and so far Is2 is nothing like them. As for UOC'ing, I can see the point of doing it in an area where there is more of a likelihood of being attacked in L.A., San Diego or Oakland. Since I don't live in a place like that (Modesto has its moments) I don't see the need. But if I did, I don't see the deputies I know acting like that.

Ishoot
07-27-2009, 4:55 PM
Interesting read..I didn't realize the fine distinction between an Inspection and a Detention until now. Thanks. And to Ls2monaro..welcome to the forum. I'm sure you have good intentions and do see your point of view, but it is frustrating for law abiding citizens to be treated like criminals, especially on gun issues. Nothings perfect but the more information everyone has, the better. Good luck

ls2monaro
07-27-2009, 5:21 PM
By what RAS do you justify turning an inspection into a detention? Is "being mouthy" or "waving their hands around" enough to satisfy RAS that a crime could be occurring? Is disobeying unlawful orders grounds for RAS in your estimation?


The issue that is trying to be discussed her is the DISTINCTION between an Inspection and a Detention.

Threatening the use of Lethal Force for an inspection exceeds the scope and nature of the inspection, as it is not a detention. Thus, going into a 12031(e) check with guns drawn and pointed is aggravated assault on the part of the officer. That is the distinction that is trying to be made.

I can easily justify with 148pc. If I tell a person to put their hands on their head, sit on the curb, or whatever the situation calls for and they do not do it. If I am going to inspect a firearm on a person, I am the only one touching it until I can verify it is unloaded. Like I said if they cooperate, no handcuffing, no weapon drawn, I will be very courteous, even talk guns if they want, but when you can't follow directions and I feel unsafe, the cuffs come on.

Roadrunner
07-27-2009, 5:25 PM
I can easily justify with 148pc. If I tell a person to put their hands on their head, sit on the curb, or whatever the situation calls for and they do not do it. If I am going to inspect a firearm on a person, I am the only one touching it until I can verify it is unloaded. Like I said if they cooperate, no handcuffing, no weapon drawn, I will be very courteous, even talk guns if they want, but when you can't follow directions and I feel unsafe, the cuffs come on.

I really do want to know what city to avoid.

kermit315
07-27-2009, 5:37 PM
interesting approach Liberty1......tagged to watch.

ls2monaro
07-27-2009, 5:41 PM
I work for a local county s.o., and I'll be honest, I work in some pretty crappy areas. I can honestly tell you that I average 1 felony arrest per shift. I've been shot at plenty of times, it's kind of scary the first few times. I know it's nothing to be proud of, but keep in mind there are leo's of all types.

I don't think I've written a traffic ticket in over a year, but I have put away a few murderers and rapists. Assault w/ deadly weapon, domestic violence, drugs, stolen cars, and felony warrants fall into my lap all night long. Not trying to impress anyone here, but many have the impression that cops just go around giving tickets and messing with people for fun.

BTW, I love the calguns site, and I sincerely believe that loosening restrictions on ccw's will bring the crime down greatly in this state.

anthonyca
07-27-2009, 5:47 PM
I work for a local county s.o., and I'll be honest, I work in some pretty crappy areas. I can honestly tell you that I average 1 felony arrest per shift. I've been shot at plenty of times, it's kind of scary the first few times. I know it's nothing to be proud of, but keep in mind there are leo's of all types.

I don't think I've written a traffic ticket in over a year, but I have put away a few murderers and rapists. Assault w/ deadly weapon, domestic violence, drugs, stolen cars, and felony warrants fall into my lap all night long. Not trying to impress anyone here, but many have the impression that cops just go around giving tickets and messing with people for fun.

BTW, I love the calguns site, and I sincerely believe that loosening restrictions on ccw's will bring the crime down greatly in this state.

Sounds like a good cop so far. I think it is hard on here to tell exactly where someone is coming from and I doubt anyone on calguns fits into the type of person you would cuff in a loaded weapon check. At least I hope.

Thanks for not ruining people's driving records, jobs (if they drive for work) and insurance rates by not just writing petty tickets all day.

Welcome to Calguns.:)

Roadrunner
07-27-2009, 6:03 PM
I work for a local county s.o., and I'll be honest, I work in some pretty crappy areas. I can honestly tell you that I average 1 felony arrest per shift. I've been shot at plenty of times, it's kind of scary the first few times. I know it's nothing to be proud of, but keep in mind there are leo's of all types.

I don't think I've written a traffic ticket in over a year, but I have put away a few murderers and rapists. Assault w/ deadly weapon, domestic violence, drugs, stolen cars, and felony warrants fall into my lap all night long. Not trying to impress anyone here, but many have the impression that cops just go around giving tickets and messing with people for fun.

BTW, I love the calguns site, and I sincerely believe that loosening restrictions on ccw's will bring the crime down greatly in this state.

Well, let's see, I was forced to live in L.A. for a while because of work, thank God I no longer have to endure that hell hole. And then there is San Bernardino where it seems like all of the cops are trying to get some kind of hard *** reputation. San Diego Sheriff's Department seemed like nice people to deal with, and Orange County were easy going. L.A. County Sheriff's acted as if they were above the law and I caught one sleeping behind the sound studio that I did some work at in west Hollywood.

I'm a people watcher as a kind of hobby, and I perceive your posts as arrogant. To me a combination of arrogance coupled with your kind of authority scares the hell out of me, and so I would prefer to avoid places where that mixture is the rule.

pnkssbtz
07-27-2009, 6:04 PM
I can easily justify with 148pc. If I tell a person to put their hands on their head, sit on the curb, or whatever the situation calls for and they do not do it.You have just described a detention.

By what "Reasonably Articulated Suspicion" can you give to justify a detention for what is otherwise a perfectly legal activity?

If you cannot come up with a RAS your orders are unlawful and in violation of the person whom you are unlawfully detaining Civil Right's.

They are not obligated to comply with your unlawful orders.


Just because you have a badge you do not get to order people around at a whim.

If I am going to inspect a firearm on a person, I am the only one touching it until I can verify it is unloaded. Like I said if they cooperate, no handcuffing, no weapon drawn, I will be very courteous, even talk guns if they want, but when you can't follow directions and I feel unsafe, the cuffs come on.

Again, there is a distinction in which you seem to be ignoring.


There is a difference with arresting someone for interfering whom refuses to submit to a 12031(e) check and you approaching them and ordering them at gun point to put their hands on their head and comply with your demands prior to notifying them of your intent of a 12031(e) check.


The first is grounds for arrest the second is an unlawful detention, and as argued here, excessive use of force.

Decoligny
07-27-2009, 6:07 PM
I can easily justify with 148pc. If I tell a person to put their hands on their head, sit on the curb, or whatever the situation calls for and they do not do it. If I am going to inspect a firearm on a person, I am the only one touching it until I can verify it is unloaded. Like I said if they cooperate, no handcuffing, no weapon drawn, I will be very courteous, even talk guns if they want, but when you can't follow directions and I feel unsafe, the cuffs come on.

According to the San Diego District Attorney, this (Put your hand on your head!) is the type of order that turns an inspection into a detention.

When the San Diego Police did their e-check on me at Pacific Beach, they simple said to me, please keep your hands away from your firearm. I complied by crossing my arms in front of me. One officer stood in front of me, and the other went behind me to remove my gun from its holster.

I wasn't told to put my hands in the air, or put my hands on my head, I was treated like a law abiding citizen, not a criminal, as I had not been engaged in any criminal activity.

They were courteous, I complied with their orders.

ls2monaro
07-27-2009, 6:13 PM
You have just described a detention.

By what "Reasonably Articulated Suspicion" can you give to justify a detention for what is otherwise a perfectly legal activity?

If you cannot come up with a RAS your orders are unlawful and in violation of the person whom you are unlawfully detaining Civil Right's.

They are not obligated to comply with your unlawful orders.


Just because you have a badge you do not get to order people around at a whim.


Again, there is a distinction in which you seem to be ignoring.


There is a difference with arresting someone for interfering whom refuses to submit to a 12031(e) check and you approaching them and ordering them at gun point to put their hands on their head and comply with your demands prior to notifying them of your intent of a 12031(e) check.


The first is grounds for arrest the second is an unlawful detention, and as argued here, excessive use of force.

I agree with you, I would definitely notify the person that I need to check their firearm before I pulled the gun out and/or cuff. Verbal contact is a skill most leo's lack and can usually avoid many problems.

ls2monaro
07-27-2009, 6:18 PM
According to the San Diego District Attorney, this (Put your hand on your head!) is the type of order that turns an inspection into a detention.

When the San Diego Police did their e-check on me at Pacific Beach, they simple said to me, please keep your hands away from your firearm. I complied by crossing my arms in front of me. One officer stood in front of me, and the other went behind me to remove my gun from its holster.

I wasn't told to put my hands in the air, or put my hands on my head, I was treated like a law abiding citizen, not a criminal, as I had not been engaged in any criminal activity.

They were courteous, I complied with their orders.

I think that is awesome, it is rare to hear people with positive encounters with law enforcement.

packnrat
07-27-2009, 7:04 PM
If one is open carring unloaded, doing nothing wrong.

Why should any Leo bother them?

A stop and let me have your gun, sounds like

stop and give me your money.

If one is other wise doing nothing not legal, why should a Leo even go there?

Sure if one has a gun and acting just not quite right. But who defines "right"???

If I am just standing on the boardwalk eating a icecream and eyeing the girls, not borthing anyone. Why should a Leo need to look at my gun???

.

postal
07-27-2009, 7:51 PM
If one is open carring unloaded, doing nothing wrong.

Why should any Leo bother them?

...

If I am just standing on the boardwalk eating a icecream and eyeing the girls, not borthing anyone. Why should a Leo need to look at my gun???

.


They're jealous- Yours is bigger. (better, and more expensive too)

This is the big point though-

So what you're armed- not doing anything wrong why would a contact *HAVE* to be made in the first place?

"Oh no! a law abiding citizen exercising their rights!!!! We gotta stick our noses up his @$$ and take a BIG WHIFF!!!!"

Maestro Pistolero
07-27-2009, 8:56 PM
Don't all new California firearms have loaded chamber indicators? I'm not a resident any more, but I thought that was a required feature. I don't know how they work , but are they not visible on a holstered gun? If so, couldn't the LE tell just by looking?

gun toting monkeyboy
07-27-2009, 9:10 PM
No, they are not usually visable from the holster. Nor do most guns have them. Almost all of the older pistols here in California lack them. And some of them require actually looking down into the chamber area to be sure.

ls2monaro, welcome to the board. Don't let the flames bother you. We always like to have new members, and look forward to bringing you up to speed on all the ins and outs of our OC obsession. Also, Liberty1, who is one of the more level-headed and knowledgeble people answering this thread, is well worth listening to. At our last UOC event, he ended up explaining how to do the 12031 check to the police who interacted with our particular band of scavengers. That was MOST entertaining. Realize that many of the people on here have had bad encounters with police regarding legally carrying a firearm, so they are a mite touchy about what they see as police overstepping their legal bounds. So please bear with us for a bit, and don't take it personally. One of the most important reasons we UOC is to educate the local law enforcement about what is and is not legal. We ultimately hope to get the to the point that their first response to a "man with a gun" call isn't "Where?" but "Is he doing anything illegal with it?" I know that you get to deal with some of the worst people out there. And that many of them are more than happy to lie, cheat, or shoot you if given half an oppertunity. But I can pretty much guarranty that most of them aren't going to wander in here. Most of the posters here are just frustrated that we have to put up with unconstitutional laws like 12031, and CLEOs that refuse to issue CCWs for anybody but their cronies.

Now, as for Wile E. Coyote's favorite treat, play nice. EXPLAIN your point of view. Don't go chasing off a potential convert to our cause by thumping him for things that have happened to you in the past. HE didn't do it. And he has been a remarkably good sport with some of your ruder comments. Chill out, go have a beer, take a deep breath, whatever it takes. And try to keep things civil. This is an adult forum, and I am sure the moderators expect adult behavior out of us. And even if they don't, the rest of us on here do.

-Mb

pullnshoot25
07-27-2009, 9:18 PM
Full size photo link of the SD reader article. You can see his gun drawn in one of them.

I consider this excessive force since I watched him come from 30yds out and I even greeted him with a smile while not moving at all.

https://pullnshoot25.sugarsync.com/getfiles/dovz57tcdd6q5

Roadrunner
07-27-2009, 9:55 PM
Full size photo link of the SD reader article. You can see his gun drawn in one of them.

I consider this excessive force since I watched him come from 30yds out and I even greeted him with a smile while not moving at all.

https://pullnshoot25.sugarsync.com/getfiles/dovz57tcdd6q5

You guys can have Urbania, and I'll stay in the sticks with Yosemite, the Delta and all that the rural life has to offer.

IrishJoe3
07-27-2009, 10:06 PM
Originally Posted by ls2monaro
I can easily justify with 148pc. If I tell a person to put their hands on their head, sit on the curb, or whatever the situation calls for and they do not do it. If I am going to inspect a firearm on a person, I am the only one touching it until I can verify it is unloaded. Like I said if they cooperate, no handcuffing, no weapon drawn, I will be very courteous, even talk guns if they want, but when you can't follow directions and I feel unsafe, the cuffs come on.


I really do want to know what city to avoid.

What is unreasonable with his last statement?

Roadrunner
07-27-2009, 10:10 PM
What is unreasonable with his last statement?

What do you mean?

pullnshoot25
07-27-2009, 10:14 PM
I can easily justify with 148pc. If I tell a person to put their hands on their head, sit on the curb, or whatever the situation calls for and they do not do it. If I am going to inspect a firearm on a person, I am the only one touching it until I can verify it is unloaded. Like I said if they cooperate, no handcuffing, no weapon drawn, I will be very courteous, even talk guns if they want, but when you can't follow directions and I feel unsafe, the cuffs come on.

Keeping in mind gun toting monkeyboy's statement about playing nice and not taking things personally... I advise everyone I know to never cooperate with police, only comply.

elsensei
07-27-2009, 11:43 PM
the 12031 check has absolutely nothing to do with officer safety or public safety. No criminal is dumb enough to open carry a gun loaded or not. Therefore, anyone OCing is not a criminal.

Therefore, there is no "need" to do a 12031 check.

Therefore, any time a cop does a 12031 check it's to maintain the accrual of power in favor of the cop.

This is not to say that some police don't manufacture criminals. That's easy enough. But if all cops took seriously the oath they swore, there would be no 12031 checks at all.

mk19
07-28-2009, 1:22 AM
I understand what you are saying, I have responded to a few open carry calls myself. If the person is cooperative, I check their gun, make sure it is unloaded, and send them on their way. However if they start getting mouthy, waving their hands arounds, not listening to my instructions, I place the cuffs on. If they are within the law, they are free to go. Unfortunately, many law abiding firearm owners don't like cops and get very confrontational during interactions with the police. However, I come across many more people breaking the law with firearms. For every 10 firearm encounters I come across, 9 will be a violation of law. (Convicted felon, loaded gun, concealed carry) So it is the first reaction of many leo's to believe the person is in violation of law unless proven otherwise. I know it sucks, just trying to give you guys an insight from the other side of the fence, not trying to start a war or anything.

I read the whole post and out of all the bold statement above bothered me the most. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Just because you deal with the bad 1% most of the time does not mean the other 99% of human population should be treated the same. Really bothers me to see those who have taken oaths to serve and protect do neither, but think of themselves as the masters of those they are supposed to serve. Truely we are moving towards the wrong path.

artherd
07-28-2009, 3:18 AM
The department I work for does not consider drawing your gun/weapon or handcuffing using force.

The United States District Court disagrees :)


Almost half of my arrests have been made from "fishing expeditions" on traffic stops, pedestrian checks, and calls of serivce. I know it sucks for the law abiding citizens I have inconvenienced, but I have but many criminals in jail as well.

I salute you for your work and service, and have several good friends in law enforcement. One of the reasons I have such respect for LEOs is...

The uncomfortable truth is that your job is supposed to be difficult

"...better to let 100 guilty men go free than to wrongly imprision one innocent" - Benjamin Franklin.

It is supposed to be very tough to put people away, even real criminals. The greater crime is that the law abiding citizens be inconvenienced or otherwise mistreated.

Pikachu711
07-28-2009, 3:25 AM
It makes sense that a criminal wouldn't be foolish enough to OC in the first place. It makes sense that the local LEO's would only want to check the average OC person to be sure he were carrying an unloaded firearm all the same.

I OC to & from work here in Las Vegas. I work as an unarmed security officer. I OC as a matter to help educate the average "sheep" I may encounter who may have issues with my OC policy. I've only had a few problems here in Vegas in some stores in my travels. I had a problem with an Asst. Manager who requested I remove my firearm & secure it in my vehicle. I asked for & was provided with his name as well as the managers name.

I then contacted a District Manager and the problem was quickly resolved. The manager at the store was IN ERROR of the current corporate policy. I just firmly but courteously requested the info I needed for a complaint. Problem solved!

artherd
07-28-2009, 3:26 AM
No, people sue police/sheriff departments all the time for legitimate but mostly bs reasons and get big money for it. I just know if I act in accordance with department policy I will not be held liable for any wrongdoing.

Acting within department policy alone will not secure you Qualified Immunity if the policy itself is found by the courts to be in violation.

The courts look to the Reasonable Person standard, and they look to the question of obviously violating existing law. Not wether it was policy or not.

EG: if your policy is to felony stop all stop sign violations, expect to loose your house.

ls2monaro
07-28-2009, 7:14 AM
Acting within department policy alone will not secure you Qualified Immunity if the policy itself is found by the courts to be in violation.

The courts look to the Reasonable Person standard, and they look to the question of obviously violating existing law. Not wether it was policy or not.

EG: if your policy is to felony stop all stop sign violations, expect to loose your house.

I understand the whole liability issue with the job about being sued and the reasonable person standard. However, in my particular department, every single lawsuit where the deputy acted within department policy, the deputy has never lost a single penny because the department will pay the bill.

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 7:22 AM
I understand the whole liability issue with the job about being sued and the reasonable person standard. However, in my particular department, every single lawsuit where the deputy acted within department policy, the deputy has never lost a single penny because the department will pay the bill.

So your okay with costing the taxpayer money because of your screw ups?

ls2monaro
07-28-2009, 7:33 AM
So your okay with costing the taxpayer money because of your screw ups?

Of course not, I pay taxes myself, I have never had a civil suit brought against me. I do the job to put the bad guys away, not to act like some cowboy with a badge and gun.

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 7:39 AM
I understand the whole liability issue with the job about being sued and the reasonable person standard. However, in my particular department, every single lawsuit where the deputy acted within department policy, the deputy has never lost a single penny because the department will pay the bill.

Of course not, I pay taxes myself, I have never had a civil suit brought against me. I do the job to put the bad guys away, not to act like some cowboy with a badge and gun.

The statement in bold seems rather cavalier about the fact that the department (taxpayer) will pay the bill if you screw up. Like I said, what county do you work in so i can avoid it like the plague.

bodger
07-28-2009, 8:02 AM
I read the whole post and out of all the bold statement above bothered me the most. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Just because you deal with the bad 1% most of the time does not mean the other 99% of human population should be treated the same. Really bothers me to see those who have taken oaths to serve and protect do neither, but think of themselves as the masters of those they are supposed to serve. Truely we are moving towards the wrong path.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply to UOC.
It would appear that most LE in this state see:

Person with gun.
Is criminal or has criminal intent.
Must be approached and dealt with in a manner that is unlawful for a police officer in that situation, but unlawful behavior is justified because there is a gun involved.

I have been pulled over for running a stop sign. Pretty dangerous business considering the amount of damage or injury a vehicle can cause.

The cop did not pull his gun as he approached to write the ticket.

If I were to UOC in the area of Los Angeles where I live, I would expect to be treated as a felony stop and possibly shot.

gun toting monkeyboy
07-28-2009, 8:12 AM
Roadrunner, could you please dial it down a notch? The guy is trying to have a rational discussion with you. There are decaff brands out there that taste just as good as the real thing. Honest. Instead of being rude, talk to him. Don't ask leading or loaded questions. Explain. And don't hold him responsable for the ills of the entire system. Most of us have had issues with cops over the years. But here is one that is going out of his way to come in here and talk. Would you get off your testosterone-laden high horse and freakin' talk with the guy instead of doing your best impression of a street corner lunatic screaming at the masses? TALK. BE RATIONAL. Explain your point of view without attacking him please. And if you can't have a rational discussion, please go someplace else where that kind of behavior is normal. There are a wide variety of anti-gun forums where you could go to be obnoxious, and fit right in...

-Mb (who is less than amused at your antics)

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 8:28 AM
Roadrunner, could you please dial it down a notch? The guy is trying to have a rational discussion with you. There are decaff brands out there that taste just as good as the real thing. Honest. Instead of being rude, talk to him. Don't ask leading or loaded questions. Explain. And don't hold him responsable for the ills of the entire system. Most of us have had issues with cops over the years. But here is one that is going out of his way to come in here and talk. Would you get off your testosterone-laden high horse and freakin' talk with the guy instead of doing your best impression of a street corner lunatic screaming at the masses? TALK. BE RATIONAL. Explain your point of view without attacking him please. And if you can't have a rational discussion, please go someplace else where that kind of behavior is normal. There are a wide variety of anti-gun forums where you could go to be obnoxious, and fit right in...

-Mb (who is less than amused at your antics)

He's been spouting garbage since he got here. His posts are the worst kind of arrogance, if his attitude is the norm amongst cops where he works, then God help the people that live there. Like I said, I have friends that are police, and I am gauging his posts by the standards of police that I consider friends. What's troubling about what he has posted is that he has no problem treating everyone as a suspect. He also seems to be okay with violating a persons rights because if he or one of his coworkers screw up, the department will smooth it over with taxpayer money. When I lived in L.A. I saw the arrogance of LAPD, but this guy scares the hell out of me. If you guys living in Urbania are willing to put up with that, then that's your choice. I am just interested in knowing what police department promotes that kind of thought process so that I can avoid it and keep that kind of grief out of my life. After all, his county is only a tiny piece of the world, and I can live without that.

IrishJoe3
07-28-2009, 8:46 AM
What do you mean?

I mean, UOC for 12031 check, subject is being squirrelly, (not following instructions, hostile, agitated, etc). At this point its still unknown if the weapon is loaded or unloaded. What is the issue with placing cuffs on until he can determine if the weapon is unloaded?

Most people here assume that UOC are the only "man with gun" calls, which is simply not the case. Because there is either dead, or not dead, man with gun calls will be approached with a high degree of caution until it can be determined that its a lawful UOC. Once that is determined; everyone is on their way.

Plus, the UOC really determines much of how he's treated. If you're civil, coop, follow instructions calmly etc, it'll be a much shorter, much less threatening contact. If you get worked up, are visibly and/or verbally agitated, do not follow instructions or do so with hesitation, you will be treated as more of a threat.

IrishJoe3
07-28-2009, 8:58 AM
Person with gun.
Is criminal or has criminal intent.
Must be approached and dealt with in a manner that is unlawful for a police officer in that situation, but unlawful behavior is justified because there is a gun involved. .

I wholeheartedly disagree. UOC are criminals or have criminal intent? No. Are a potential threat? Yes. It is unknown of the holstered weapon is loaded. Action is faster than reaction, that being the case, a criminal with a loaded holstered weapon can draw and fire before I can move to cover and/or draw and return fire. That being the case a UOC will be approached with a high degree of caution; I'm not paid enough to get shot on duty.




I have been pulled over for running a stop sign. Pretty dangerous business considering the amount of damage or injury a vehicle can cause.

The cop did not pull his gun as he approached to write the ticket..

Umm, you really can't even begin to compare a stop sign to a gun. But to humor you, for a stopped vehicle to pose a lethal threat to me, the driver would have to run me over. Based on where I stand and where my patrol vehicle is, that would be difficult. Plus, it would take a bit of maneuvering for the suspect to run me over, giving me ample time to move to cover and draw. If cars could pounce without warning and at a fraction of a second, then yes, they'd be approached with as much caution as a firearm.

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 9:14 AM
I mean, UOC for 12031 check, subject is being squirrelly, (not following instructions, hostile, agitated, etc). At this point its still unknown if the weapon is loaded or unloaded. What is the issue with placing cuffs on until he can determine if the weapon is unloaded?

Most people here assume that UOC are the only "man with gun" calls, which is simply not the case. Because there is either dead, or not dead, man with gun calls will be approached with a high degree of caution until it can be determined that its a lawful UOC. Once that is determined; everyone is on their way.

Plus, the UOC really determines much of how he's treated. If you're civil, coop, follow instructions calmly etc, it'll be a much shorter, much less threatening contact. If you get worked up, are visibly and/or verbally agitated, do not follow instructions or do so with hesitation, you will be treated as more of a threat.

Okay, let's look at this logically. Do you think a criminal is going to UOC after committing a crime? Do you think that a criminal is going to UOC before committing a crime? For that matter, do you think that a criminal is going to LOC before or after a crime? Or will a criminal conceal the gun he uses to commit a crime? As has been demonstrated in a number of posts, police approach a person who UOCs (a legal activity) with guns drawn, and then they start giving orders that turn a simple "e" check into a major confrontation. Prior to the encounter, the only thing the law abiding person was doing was legal. So essentially the police in these circumstances have intentionally escalated the encounter. Why is that? Do some escalate the encounter with the intent to discourage UOC? Do some escalate the encounter with the intent of getting the law abiding citizen to react and thereby justify getting more physical with the law abiding citizen? Why not just approach the person and ask to see the firearm much like Fish And Game does as a norm. Perhaps police should look to Fish And Game for guidance on how they manage to inspect a law abiding persons firearm without being shot. Or perhaps California cops could get guidance from cops in other states that deal with LOC citizens regularly and still manage to not be shot. California cops act as if this is some kind of unusual behavior that is unique to California. From my perspective it appears that they have less training with firearms than the majority of the country.

taladeganite
07-28-2009, 9:18 AM
To walk a mile in an Leo's shoes.. my hats off to them.. =)

IrishJoe3
07-28-2009, 9:57 AM
Okay, let's look at this logically. Do you think a criminal is going to UOC after committing a crime? Do you think that a criminal is going to UOC before committing a crime? For that matter, do you think that a criminal is going to LOC before or after a crime? Or will a criminal conceal the gun he uses to commit a crime? As has been demonstrated in a number of posts, police approach a person who UOCs (a legal activity) with guns drawn, and then they start giving orders that turn a simple "e" check into a major confrontation. Prior to the encounter, the only thing the law abiding person was doing was legal. So essentially the police in these circumstances have intentionally escalated the encounter. Why is that? Do some escalate the encounter with the intent to discourage UOC? Do some escalate the encounter with the intent of getting the law abiding citizen to react and thereby justify getting more physical with the law abiding citizen? Why not just approach the person and ask to see the firearm much like Fish And Game does as a norm. Perhaps police should look to Fish And Game for guidance on how they manage to inspect a law abiding persons firearm without being shot. Or perhaps California cops could get guidance from cops in other states that deal with LOC citizens regularly and still manage to not be shot. California cops act as if this is some kind of unusual behavior that is unique to California. From my perspective it appears that they have less training with firearms than the majority of the country.


Frankly I'm wasting my time here. I'm here to learn your perspective (and I've learned a lot). You refuse to see my perspective, you don't know what the calls I get are and you haven't seen what I see.

Before I sign out, I have helped arrest criminals who were carrying guns in their waistband. They look like UOC. The call is the same as that of a UOC. The difference theirs were loaded and they were on the way to a hit. Until I contact you and ask questions, as far as I know you could be criminal w a loaded weapon. Because of that, I will approach you with a high degree of caution. I will approach you with a high degree of caution because I don't want to get shot and because you look like all the others who DO carry loaded guns and would love to shoot me. I'm working an everyday JOB, not one I'm going to die for, (God knows the city/county/state and most every working Joe out there will forget my name before the ink is dry). Don't like it, I'm sorry, I'm not about to be cavalier with my life and I'm going home.

Its rather disheartening that you'd rather that I get shot that you be inconvenienced.

Out.

Decoligny
07-28-2009, 10:06 AM
I mean, UOC for 12031 check, subject is being squirrelly, (not following instructions, hostile, agitated, etc). At this point its still unknown if the weapon is loaded or unloaded. What is the issue with placing cuffs on until he can determine if the weapon is unloaded?

Most people here assume that UOC are the only "man with gun" calls, which is simply not the case. Because there is either dead, or not dead, man with gun calls will be approached with a high degree of caution until it can be determined that its a lawful UOC. Once that is determined; everyone is on their way.

Plus, the UOC really determines much of how he's treated. If you're civil, coop, follow instructions calmly etc, it'll be a much shorter, much less threatening contact. If you get worked up, are visibly and/or verbally agitated, do not follow instructions or do so with hesitation, you will be treated as more of a threat.

While that is true, why are the UOCers who aren't agitated in any way being treated as more of a threat?

When PullNShoot25 had his last e-check, he watched as the officers approached from about 30 yards away. He remained calm, he kept his hands well away from his gun. He readily complied (not cooperated) with the officer's demands. The officer STILL drew his weapon, the officer STILL ordered him to put his hands on his head. The officer STILL turned an inspection into a detention as described in detail by the San Diego District Attorney.

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 10:18 AM
Frankly I'm wasting my time here. I'm here to learn your perspective (and I've learned a lot). You refuse to see my perspective, you don't know what the calls I get are and you haven't seen what I see.

Before I sign out, I have helped arrest criminals who were carrying guns in their waistband. They look like UOC. The call is the same as that of a UOC. The difference theirs were loaded and they were on the way to a hit. Until I contact you and ask questions, as far as I know you could be criminal w a loaded weapon. Because of that, I will approach you with a high degree of caution. I will approach you with a high degree of caution because I don't want to get shot and because you look like all the others who DO carry loaded guns and would love to shoot me. I'm working an everyday JOB, not one I'm going to die for, (God knows the city/county/state and most every working Joe out there will forget my name before the ink is dry). Don't like it, I'm sorry, I'm not about to be cavalier with my life and I'm going home.

Its rather disheartening that you'd rather that I get shot that you be inconvenienced.

Out.

Then perhaps you should find something safer because it appears that being a cop is just too scary for you. Actually I do see your perspective now. Since criminals carry guns and want to shoot you, anyone with a gun gets the same treatment as a felon. I wonder how that will come out in a federal civil rights suit?

Liberty1
07-28-2009, 10:35 AM
Keep in mind that my OP was addressing the issue for all lawful gun carriers (not just UOC) as 12031 affects all unless exempt or where "a" doesn't apply. But UOCers will get the most obvious attention.

And as for threats, EVERYONE is a potential threat. I scan EVERY call for service and EVERY T-Stop for threats. But I can only point my gun at "suspects" for whom RAS exists to detain or PC to arrest AND who pose a danger (and that is case law).

A mere "e" inspection doesn't appear to satisfy those requirements. "e" says an officer MAY inspect. I like using my discretion and may means that I also may not.

IrishJoe3
07-28-2009, 10:36 AM
Then perhaps you should find something safer because it appears that being a cop is just too scary for you.

Nope, I just got kids and a wife and am not interested in any folded flags.

pnkssbtz
07-28-2009, 10:57 AM
I mean, UOC for 12031 check, subject is being squirrelly, (not following instructions, hostile, agitated, etc). At this point its still unknown if the weapon is loaded or unloaded. What is the issue with placing cuffs on until he can determine if the weapon is unloaded?

Most people here assume that UOC are the only "man with gun" calls, which is simply not the case. Because there is either dead, or not dead, man with gun calls will be approached with a high degree of caution until it can be determined that its a lawful UOC. Once that is determined; everyone is on their way.

Plus, the UOC really determines much of how he's treated. If you're civil, coop, follow instructions calmly etc, it'll be a much shorter, much less threatening contact. If you get worked up, are visibly and/or verbally agitated, do not follow instructions or do so with hesitation, you will be treated as more of a threat.The point of a 12031(e) check is to determine if the firearm is LOADED. Not if the firearm is UNLOADED.

Ergo, it is an inspection and not a detention. The former presumes complicity with the law, while the later presumes illegal behavior until proven otherwise.

Given that it is an INSPECTION, there is no RAS to assume that there is criminal activity being committed until RAS has been generated which would negate the 12031(e) inspection and turn it into a loaded weapon charge.


Again, 12031(e) is an inspection, nothing more. If it, in of itself, is treated as RAS, then the inspection is an unlawful detention and a civil rights violation.

gun toting monkeyboy
07-28-2009, 11:26 AM
He's been spouting garbage since he got here. His posts are the worst kind of arrogance, if his attitude is the norm amongst cops where he works, then God help the people that live there. Like I said, I have friends that are police, and I am gauging his posts by the standards of police that I consider friends. What's troubling about what he has posted is that he has no problem treating everyone as a suspect. He also seems to be okay with violating a persons rights because if he or one of his coworkers screw up, the department will smooth it over with taxpayer money. When I lived in L.A. I saw the arrogance of LAPD, but this guy scares the hell out of me. If you guys living in Urbania are willing to put up with that, then that's your choice. I am just interested in knowing what police department promotes that kind of thought process so that I can avoid it and keep that kind of grief out of my life. After all, his county is only a tiny piece of the world, and I can live without that.

No, he hasn't been spouting garbage. He has been discussing his experiences. And his current views. And explaining why he does things the way he does. What we need to be doing is pointing him in what we feel is the right direction. Explaining why our way is better. And most of all, giving him some viable alternatives to help him interact with the public in a legal manner, while still giving him a chance to defend himself. It is all well and good to say that he has voluntarily become a servant of the people. But as he said, he has a wife and kids. He is risking his life on a daily basis for us. As are most LEOs. Cut him some slack, and try talk him over to our side. And also realize that the people he has to interact with DO try to kill him every so often. So he isn't just being paranoid. There really are people out there that want to get him. How many cops have we had killed here in California in the past few years? Oceanside, the city closest to where I live, has buried two of their own since I started working there in 2002. Both shot to death by bad guys. We just lost a Border Patrol Agent last week to a shooting. Quit whining that he is being arrogant. Show him other ways to handle the situation. Tell him what the boundries are.

And remember that when we get hit with a 12031 check, the cops are just doing their job. Blowing up in their faces out on the street only makes us look like reactionary a-holes. It aggrevates the cops, and makes the whole process take longer. And it doesn't win us any friends. Look at how N8 handled his checks, even when the cop was being a doofus. He was calm, and he complied with the officer's orders. He didn't throw a tantrum. He didn't start threatening them with laws suits or making comments about how he was their boss. Do you think that the average beat cops really gives a crap about that? They deal with slimeballs all day long. When we are UOCing, part of what we are trying to do is get them used to the fact that regular people can carry guns too. You need to be seen as a regular, friendly person. Not somebody that is there to be a PITA. Be polite. Be respectful. Don't try to butt heads with them if you don't have to. I am not saying roll over, or give up any of your rights. But demonstrate through your actions that you are a responsible citizen. Look at how far they have gotten with UOCing here in San Diego. The DA is actually issuing memos telling the SDPD NOT to draw their guns for the checks. The guys doing it down here have made huge inroads towards getting the local law enforcement to accept UOC as a fact of life.

Sgt Raven
07-28-2009, 11:32 AM
Frankly I'm wasting my time here. I'm here to learn your perspective (and I've learned a lot). You refuse to see my perspective, you don't know what the calls I get are and you haven't seen what I see.

Before I sign out, I have helped arrest criminals who were carrying guns in their waistband. They look like UOC. The call is the same as that of a UOC. The difference theirs were loaded and they were on the way to a hit. Until I contact you and ask questions, as far as I know you could be criminal w a loaded weapon. Because of that, I will approach you with a high degree of caution. I will approach you with a high degree of caution because I don't want to get shot and because you look like all the others who DO carry loaded guns and would love to shoot me. I'm working an everyday JOB, not one I'm going to die for, (God knows the city/county/state and most every working Joe out there will forget my name before the ink is dry). Don't like it, I'm sorry, I'm not about to be cavalier with my life and I'm going home.

Its rather disheartening that you'd rather that I get shot that you be inconvenienced.

Out.

That's the difference between you and I, I was an American Soldier and as Toby Keith says in his song of the same name.:rolleyes:


And I will always do my duty no matter what the price
Iíve counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice
Oh and I donít want to die for you, but if dyinís asked of me
Iíll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom donít come free.

IrishJoe3
07-28-2009, 11:44 AM
That's the difference between you and I, I was an American Soldier and as Toby Keith says in his song of the same name.:rolleyes:


And I will always do my duty no matter what the price
I’ve counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice
Oh and I don’t want to die for you, but if dyin’s asked of me
I’ll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don’t come free.

Good for you. I am in the military, am a Vet, been oversees. What is your point? Please, do tell me what this vast difference between you and I is? Oh yeah, other than you're not a cop, never worked the streets, and don't have a clue about what my job is about.

Decoligny
07-28-2009, 11:47 AM
I think that is awesome, it is rare to hear people with positive encounters with law enforcement.

What helped here is that the San Diego Police had been informed that 60-70 people would be open carrying at a certain place and time. They never approached me until I was away from the other UOCers and alone. Even when they KNEW we were law abiding citizens, and that we were there to participate in an UNLOADED open carry event they took every opportunity to e-check the stragglers.

The officer who drew his gun on PullNShoot25 was from the same station/precinct/whatever, that was made aware of all the legalities of unloaded open carry. He still pulled his gun, he still ordered hands above your head. :mad:

gun toting monkeyboy
07-28-2009, 12:12 PM
What helped here is that the San Diego Police had been informed that 60-70 people would be open carrying at a certain place and time. They never approached me until I was away from the other UOCers and alone. Even when they KNEW we were law abiding citizens, and that we were there to participate in an UNLOADED open carry event they took every opportunity to e-check the stragglers.

The officer who drew his gun on PullNShoot25 was from the same station/precinct/whatever, that was made aware of all the legalities of unloaded open carry. He still pulled his gun, he still ordered hands above your head. :mad:

Yes. Like I said, the officer was being a doofus. But PullNShoot25 didn't try to get into a pissing match with him there. The correct way to deal with this is to be the rational party, and then hammer them with legal action/ complaints after it is all said and done. Not get into a screaming match with the guy pointing the gun at you. You won't win that one, as the odds are stacked against you then and there. But if you end up going to court with a tape or video of you sounding polite, and complying with the officer's orders, and him drawing his weapon and violating department policy and the DA's memo on the subject, how do you think that is going to play out? My guess is that it will turn out significantly more in your favor. This is battles and wars here. Swallow your pride and take the abuse. Think of it as taking one for the team. Then get your recording or video to one of the big brains here, and let them pound the hell out of the offending officer and department. Don't lose sight of the big picture here. Yes it sucks that we have to put up with all of this crap. But part of the long-term stratagy here is to make it so legally uncomfortable for the police to misbehave that they decide chasing after legal UOCers isn't worth their time. And also get them educated as to how the 12031 checks need to be conducted. Both by familiarization through repeated exposure on our part, and by lawsuits for excessive force and brandishing by the legal gurus.

-Mb (who doesn't even pretend to speak for anybody else here)

matto
07-28-2009, 12:49 PM
I have to say this is a very interesting thread. I like that ls2monaro has stayed in the conversation, even with the attacks.

It seems to me that Open Carry in todayís environment - and even though it's legal - is opening the Open-carry person to some unpleasant confrontations (both LEO's and normal Citizens).

I thank ls2monaro for bringing the policies of his department to this Forum; which gives us better insight as to the policies that drive his decisions.

I think as a gun owner that wants to see his ability to exercise his rights fully, needs to rely on the organizations that are taking this fight to the state and federal authorities.

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 12:52 PM
You can put up with the abuse, I will stay up here with cops that aren't so eager to screw a gun in my ear.

Sgt Raven
07-28-2009, 12:57 PM
Good for you. I am in the military, am a Vet, been oversees. What is your point? Please, do tell me what this vast difference between you and I is? Oh yeah, other than you're not a cop, never worked the streets, and don't have a clue about what my job is about.

If you're a Vet, then you should know better than to ASSUME something.

Decoligny
07-28-2009, 1:02 PM
If you're a Vet, then you should know better than to ASSUME something.

Maybe you should't resort to shouting. It does nothing to bolster your position.

pullnshoot25
07-28-2009, 1:12 PM
I have to say this is a very interesting thread. I like that ls2monaro has stayed in the conversation, even with the attacks.

It seems to me that Open Carry in todayís environment - and even though it's legal - is opening the Open-carry person to some unpleasant confrontations (both LEO's and normal Citizens).

I thank ls2monaro for bringing the policies of his department to this Forum; which gives us better insight as to the policies that drive his decisions.

I think as a gun owner that wants to see his ability to exercise his rights fully, needs to rely on the organizations that are taking this fight to the state and federal authorities.

If and when we get LOC, it will be a hostile environment. Will you hesitate then or will you wait until every cop is educated?

matto
07-28-2009, 2:17 PM
If and when we get LOC, it will be a hostile environment. Will you hesitate then or will you wait until every cop is educated?

I'm not the kind of guy that hesitates at anything. The first rule i learned a long time ago is rescue work was not to incurr additional harm. Walking through Newport Beach or Irvine with my Taurus strapped to my leg unloaded will cause more harm than good.

I'm ready when it's ready. :cool:

IrishJoe3
07-28-2009, 2:42 PM
If you're a Vet, then you should know better than to ASSUME something.



Daaaaaaaang! I don't know why you have a bone to pick with me, but no need to yell.

But once again, you fail to clarify your origional post, (did you have a point, or were you simply intent on flaming...) If you are mature enough for civil discourse, I'm all ears. If not, adios!

PS I don't see the conection between assuming and Vets. Vets don't assume? Really? I must have missed that bit of Army training. My bad. But dispite all the bluster, I'll bet top dollar my assumption was right, hence the yelling.....

Theseus
07-28-2009, 3:51 PM
You can put up with the abuse, I will stay up here with cops that aren't so eager to screw a gun in my ear.

Ok, we get it, you will stay in the country. . . Wonderful!
Now what will it take to keep you out of this thread and antagonizing a new member?

And for the rest, I respect the officers desire to stay alive. I share the same desire for myself. That is the very reason I wish that when UOC that no one touches my firearms for any reason. And mine does have a chamber load indicator that can be seen when the firearm is in the holster.

Doesn't make a difference. They will still want to touch my gun.

Sgt Raven
07-28-2009, 3:51 PM
Daaaaaaaang! I don't know why you have a bone to pick with me, but no need to yell.

But once again, you fail to clarify your origional post, (did you have a point, or were you simply intent on flaming...) If you are mature enough for civil discourse, I'm all ears. If not, adios!

PS I don't see the conection between assuming and Vets. Vets don't assume? Really? I must have missed that bit of Army training. My bad. But dispite all the bluster, I'll bet top dollar my assumption was right, hence the yelling.....

I wasn't yelling, all CAPS is yelling. You were in a different Army than I was if you don't know that 'Assumption is the Mother of all F@#% Ups' and to 'Assume is to make an ***** out of You and Me'. Among many saying they have.

You said.
I'm working an everyday JOB, not one I'm going to die for, (God knows the city/county/state and most every working Joe out there will forget my name before the ink is dry). Don't like it, I'm sorry, I'm not about to be cavalier with my life and I'm going home.

Out.

Well if you're going to take a job that requires that you 'Go in Harms Way' then you have to take a chance that you may get hurt or killed 'on the job'. Your job isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs. I can't remember any of my LEO friends or relatives talking about 'going home safe at the end of their shift', but it sure comes up a lot from Internet Cops.

Irrational Voice
07-28-2009, 3:59 PM
I wasn't yelling, all CAPS is yelling.

You weren't yelling? Yeah right, and you can have a gun show without guns and you can move out of Chicago if you want second amendment rights.....

Decoligny
07-28-2009, 4:03 PM
I wasn't yelling, all CAPS is yelling.

OK, since all caps is yelling, then the largest font size available must be screaming

SO, WHICH ON IS MORE ANNOYING - YELLING,

Or Screaming at the Top of your Lungs?

I say screaming is much more annoying.

IrishJoe3
07-28-2009, 4:19 PM
I wasn't yelling, all CAPS is yelling. You were in a different Army than I was if you don't know that 'Assumption is the Mother of all F@#% Ups' and to 'Assume is to make an ***** out of You and Me'. Among many saying they have.

You said.


Well if you're going to take a job that requires that you 'Go in Harms Way' then you have to take a chance that you may get hurt or killed 'on the job'. Your job isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs. I can't remember any of my LEO friends or relatives talking about 'going home safe at the end of their shift', but it sure comes up a lot from Internet Cops.

With all due respect, sir, debating with you is like arguing with a rock: pointless. With that in mind, shall disengage as I have much better and more productive things to do with my time.

gun toting monkeyboy
07-28-2009, 4:21 PM
What was that? Sorry, I had the volume on my screen turned down... Speak up, don't mumble.

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 4:26 PM
Ok, we get it, you will stay in the country. . . Wonderful!
Now what will it take to keep you out of this thread and antagonizing a new member?

And for the rest, I respect the officers desire to stay alive. I share the same desire for myself. That is the very reason I wish that when UOC that no one touches my firearms for any reason. And mine does have a chamber load indicator that can be seen when the firearm is in the holster.

Doesn't make a difference. They will still want to touch my gun.

I'm pretty much done with this thread. With the exception of not knowing what department Is2 works for, all of my questions are satisfied. The more I hear examples of life in Urbania, the more I'm glad I chose living here. Of course, if Urbania invades my little corner of the world, then I will search for greener pastures elsewhere.

bodger
07-28-2009, 4:26 PM
...well, there goes another thread into the sheeter...I'm sure Kestryll will be along to turn out the lights any time now...

Decoligny
07-28-2009, 4:26 PM
What was that? Sorry, I had the volume on my screen turned down... Speak up, don't mumble.

http://www.hlade.org/images/ear-horns.jpg

Patrick Aherne
07-28-2009, 4:40 PM
Also there may be a fine point of difference between holding a firearm in one hand, pointing it straight down, with the finger not on the trigger (an act which I don't consider brandishing in and of itself) and pointing it at someone who is not a legit suspect. (the low ready would be somewhere in between but likely on the brandishing side of the issue which would then require an articulated self defense need)

I am not aware of any case law where the courts have made a bright line definition regarding the position of the officer's firearm. In Robinson, the officers pointed their guns at the individual's head.

I instruct a low-ready, with no part of the firearm covering the suspect's body, not only to avoid legal issues, but also for officer safety reasonsbecause you cannot see a suspect's hands if your weapon is pointed at their upper body/head. Also, no fingers on triggers unless sights are on target and the decision to fire has been made.

Federal judges, legal deities that they might be, have little experience taking folks into custody. It would be interesting to see a case involving this issue, what with all the recent research from the Force Science Institute regarding armed encounters and reaction times.

pullnshoot25
07-28-2009, 4:45 PM
What was that? Sorry, I had the volume on my screen turned down... Speak up, don't mumble.

Rad.

Ron-Solo
07-28-2009, 5:17 PM
(red is my addition)

The excessive force decision (at the end of that document) is interesting: where one officer had his gun drawn during handcuffing.

Combine this excessive force case with Robinson v Solono County 278 F.3d 1007 (9th Circuit 2002) - pointing gun at a suspect can be excessive force - and People v. DeLong (CA) - loaded checks are an inspection ONLY not RAS to detain for investigation.

I wonder IF guns drawn during a mere 12031 "e" inspection, where there is NO other RAS to detain or evidence the individual is dangerous, is an excessive use of force transforming People v DeLong "e" inspections into 4th A. violating detentions or even into a criminal "brandishing" offense?

This decision from the 9th circuit deals with a totally different set of circumstances and does not apply to persons that are known to be armed. I understand where you are trying to go with this but it just isn't there. sorry.

Ron-Solo
07-28-2009, 5:25 PM
That's the difference between you and I, I was an American Soldier and as Toby Keith says in his song of the same name.:rolleyes:


And I will always do my duty no matter what the price
I’ve counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice
Oh and I don’t want to die for you, but if dyin’s asked of me
I’ll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don’t come free.

And Toby Keith is just a singer/entertainer. Nice song, but we don't ask our soldiers to die for their country either. As George Patton said, you win a war by making the other dumb &*&*^*^ die for HIS country.

Theseus
07-28-2009, 5:50 PM
And Toby Keith is just a singer/entertainer. Nice song, but we don't ask our soldiers to die for thier country either. As George Patton said, you win a war by making the other dumb &*&*^*^ die for HIS country.

There is no good and easy way to say it, but the threat to liberty that many officers make every day to me is more dangerous than any physical threat to an officer.

And for the comment above, I do not ask officers or soldiers to die, but I do ask them to risk their lives protecting and defending freedom. When the time comes that their safety is more important than the freedom they swore to protect then I take issue with it.

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 5:52 PM
There is no good and easy way to say it, but the threat to liberty that many officers make every day to me is more dangerous than any physical threat to an officer.

And for the comment above, I do not ask officers or soldiers to die, but I do ask them to risk their lives protecting and defending freedom. When the time comes that their safety is more important than the freedom they swore to protect then I take issue with it.

Well said.

Sgt Raven
07-28-2009, 7:32 PM
And Toby Keith is just a singer/entertainer. Nice song, but we don't ask our soldiers to die for thier country either. As George Patton said, you win a war by making the other dumb &*&*^*^ die for HIS country.

Tell that to all the fine Marines that gave their lives on places like Sugar Loaf Hill. One afternoon my father's reinforced Infantry Company of Marines went up on Sugar Loaf Hill, the next morning there was 28 that came back down alive.

Tell that to a Commander that has to send his men into an area contaminated by a CBR agent, knowing that some or most won't last a month, but the area needs to be taken.

Ron-Solo
07-28-2009, 7:51 PM
There is no good and easy way to say it, but the threat to liberty that many officers make every day to me is more dangerous than any physical threat to an officer.

Oh please. Come back to reality. We have laws in place and a system of checks and balances. I disagree with many of the gun laws in this state and until we can get them changed we're stuck with them. Just because you wish something to be unconstitutional, won't make it so.

And for the comment above, I do not ask officers or soldiers to die, but I do ask them to risk their lives protecting and defending freedom.

I do that every time I put the uniform on, and as recently as today, and have for the last 31 years.


When the time comes that their safety is more important than the freedom they swore to protect then I take issue with it.

You are living in a fairy tale world. My safety is always my first priority - period. I take calculated risks and have risked my life on many occasions to help others, so don't insult me or thousands of others who serve every day. We don't do Kamakaze runs or suicide bombings, we enforce the laws of this country. We are not superheros or invincible. I swore to protect you and yours, and will do so regardless of your political views or opinions.


Sadly, our soldiers and police do die performing their duties, but we don't send them out on suicide missions. It has happened in the past, and a calculated decision was made by their leaders, sometimes it is the wrong decision.

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 8:05 PM
Tell that to all the fine Marines that gave their lives on places like Sugar Loaf Hill. One afternoon my father's reinforced Infantry Company of Marines went up on Sugar Loaf Hill, the next morning there was 28 that came back down alive.

Tell that to a Commander that has to send his men into an area contaminated by a CBR agent, knowing that some or most won't last a month, but the area needs to be taken.

Ron Solo doesn't get it. To him, his life is more important than the Constitution. What a sad commentary on the state of our government.

Sgt Raven
07-28-2009, 8:43 PM
Sadly, our soldiers and police do die performing their duties, but we don't send them out on suicide missions. It has happened in the past, and a calculated decision was made by their leaders, sometimes it is the wrong decision.

Tell that to the brave men of the USS Johnston, USS Hoel, and USS Samuel B. Roberts, who gave their lives and their ships to save the rest of Tafy 3 and the men landing on Leyte.

1911su16b870
07-28-2009, 9:57 PM
Or the brave officers who gave all for US on this page: http://www.odmp.org/

1911su16b870
07-28-2009, 10:03 PM
Ron Solo doesn't get it. To him, his life is more important than the Constitution. What a sad commentary on the state of our government.

Totality of the circumstances in each and every encounter as a LEO. You can not judge him without walking in his shoes.

The LEOs that work in Ingelwood or Compton would proceed with extreme caution if they ever saw someone OC-ing!

locosway
07-28-2009, 10:19 PM
Are you considered armed if your firearm is unloaded?

Theseus
07-28-2009, 10:22 PM
Sadly, our soldiers and police do die performing their duties, but we don't send them out on suicide missions. It has happened in the past, and a calculated decision was made by their leaders, sometimes it is the wrong decision.

I never said anything to the contrary. Their safety is important, but not more important than the ideals they are supposed to be fighting for.

I would never expect a soldier or an officer to take needless risks, but if they trample the very rights they are trusted to protect then I care little for and will not honor them.

Roadrunner
07-28-2009, 10:58 PM
Totality of the circumstances in each and every encounter as a LEO. You can not judge him without walking in his shoes.

The LEOs that work in Ingelwood or Compton would proceed with extreme caution if they ever saw someone OC-ing!

Perhaps I don't have the same experiences, but I can draw from other cops points of view. I would suggest reading Liberty1's comments. Just a thought though, when 12031 is repealed and people start carrying LOC again, will they screw a gun in everyone's ear regardless of the circumstances? See, my problem is simply this; If a person is sitting on a park bench eating his or her lunch and not bothering anyone, but they are UOCing, guns are drawn and the person is viewed as a dangerous criminal. How insane is that? I used examples of Fish and Game and police in states that deal with LOC on a daily basis, who seem to get through their day safely without drawing their guns when approaching these lawful gun owners. So how do they manage? Pullnshoot sees a cop approaching from 30 yards away, yet the police still draw their guns when he has made no provocative action toward them. Why? The San Diego DA has said that pointing a gun at a person just because they have a gun on them is unwarranted use of force unless they can justify their actions beyond the person simply having a gun. I may not have ever been a cop, but I can read and comprehend what other cops say about the same circumstances. Cops like Is2 and RonSolo seem to be okay with stepping on the rights of people so long as they feel safe. If that's the case how far will they go to "feel safe"? I can't tell how much I hate feeling like this, but how can I ignore what I've just read?

Doheny
07-28-2009, 11:26 PM
I have to say this is a very interesting thread. I like that ls2monaro has stayed in the conversation, even with the attacks.


I agree. He remained level headed and didn't get worked up like some here. Hopefully he'll post more.

ls2monaro
07-29-2009, 12:52 AM
I agree. He remained level headed and didn't get worked up like some here. Hopefully he'll post more.

I am still here. I enjoy good conversations/debates, especially when it comes to the law. Many laws are open to interpretation, and ever evolving with the case law as well. Unfortunately, peace officers do not have law degrees, and it is impossible to know every single law of the land. There is just too much info to retain, Federal laws, State laws, Local ordinances, miranda issues, forgery laws, civil matters, citizens rights, traffic issues, all of these are changing all the time. I personally try my best to stay on top of it, but many leo's have the attitude of arresting the person and letting the da sort it out.

In my dream world California would follow the steps of Arizona's gun laws, but I do not believe the liberal politicians in California are going to allow that anytime soon.

dsmoot
07-29-2009, 9:45 AM
I am still here. I enjoy good conversations/debates, especially when it comes to the law. Many laws are open to interpretation, and ever evolving with the case law as well. Unfortunately, peace officers do not have law degrees, and it is impossible to know every single law of the land. There is just too much info to retain, Federal laws, State laws, Local ordinances, miranda issues, forgery laws, civil matters, citizens rights, traffic issues, all of these are changing all the time. I personally try my best to stay on top of it, but many leo's have the attitude of arresting the person and letting the da sort it out.

In my dream world California would follow the steps of Arizona's gun laws, but I do not believe the liberal politicians in California are going to allow that anytime soon.
What a sad commentary on the state of our "laws". If you and other LEOs, who are tasked with defending and upholding the laws cannot remember and comprehend them all because "there is just to much info to retain," then how in the world can the average citizen be able to know it all?

Ron-Solo
07-29-2009, 9:59 AM
Are you considered armed if your firearm is unloaded?

Yes. Like I've said before, Loco, you just can't seem to grasp some concepts.

Ron-Solo
07-29-2009, 10:10 AM
Ron Solo doesn't get it. To him, his life is more important than the Constitution. What a sad commentary on the state of our government.

Oh I get it, but what good is giving my life for YOUR interpretation of the Constitution? I follow what the legislature and courts have determined to be Constitutional, which is the way the legal system and our government is designed. I can do more to protect it by staying alive.

I've been shot at more times than I can count while working the streets of LA County. 5+ times in ONE DAY during the 92 riots. Sound tactics and logical decisions got me through those situations safely so I could return to protect people another day.

I've been doing this job for 31 years and have never had a case dismissed due to lack of probable cause or violations of search and seizure laws, so I think I know what I'm doing out there.

I repeatedly hear people in this forum say that the NFA, GCA, and AW bans are Unconstitutional, BUT until they are overturned in court, they are the law of the land. They have withstood many challenges so far, so deal with it.

I'm not saying I agree that they are Constitutional, I'm just saying that wishing it, doesn't make it so........

Theseus
07-29-2009, 10:57 AM
Oh I get it, but what good is giving my life for YOUR interpretation of the Constitution? I follow what the legislature and courts have determined to be Constitutional, which is the way the legal system and our government is designed. I can do more to protect it by staying alive.

I've been shot at more times than I can count while working the streets of LA County. 5+ times in ONE DAY during the 92 riots. Sound tactics and logical decisions got me through those situations safely so I could return to protect people another day.

I've been doing this job for 31 years and have never had a case dismissed due to lack of probable cause or violations of search and seizure laws, so I think I know what I'm doing out there.

I repeatedly hear people in this forum say that the NFA, GCA, and AW bans are Unconstitutional, BUT until they are overturned in court, they are the law of the land. They have withstood many challenges so far, so deal with it.

I'm not saying I agree that they are Constitutional, I'm just saying that wishing it, doesn't make it so........

Although I can respect some of what you say, many things are contrary to the Constitution that are the law of the land for some time before the system corrects it.

Separate but equal was wrong and many knew it.

If the legislature passed a law that said gay people attempting to meet others of the same sexual orientation are to be arrested for solicitation of sodomy you would enforce the law since it is the law of the land?

I doubt you feel that way.

Liberty1
07-29-2009, 11:07 AM
I am not aware of any case law where the courts have made a bright line definition regarding the position of the officer's firearm. In Robinson, the officers pointed their guns at the individual's head.

I instruct a low-ready, with no part of the firearm covering the suspect's body, not only to avoid legal issues, but also for officer safety reasonsbecause you cannot see a suspect's hands if your weapon is pointed at their upper body/head.


Yes I agree that the fine line has not been adjudicated and federal judges are quite removed from "street" reality.

But when a federal court has found a gun drawn during mere handcuffing of a 23152a,b/20002 CVC suspect for investigation to be "excessive force" then what is drawing a gun on a mere People v DeLong "e" inspection which the CA courts have determined to not be a detention involving 4th A. rights?

And I suspect the Fed Courts may very well interpret "e" to in fact be a 4th A. violating detention especially when dealing with a constitutional right (still waiting to be full defined and we may never get "e" decided if the whole of 12031 get thrown out:)).

Why do you think an officer gets to use any level of force on someone for whom RAS doesn't exist for even a Terry investigative detention assuming the "e" inspection has not been refused?

Gun carriers subject to a People v DeLong "e" inspection are not detained "suspects" needing to be safely brought into custody for investigation. The SD DA memo gets this part right.

(and I reserve the right to be wrong when dealing with the CA criminal courts;))

I do not possess any crystal balls and engage in thses conversations for entertainment purposes only...

Roadrunner
07-29-2009, 12:52 PM
Oh I get it, but what good is giving my life for YOUR interpretation of the Constitution? I follow what the legislature and courts have determined to be Constitutional, which is the way the legal system and our government is designed. I can do more to protect it by staying alive.

I've been shot at more times than I can count while working the streets of LA County. 5+ times in ONE DAY during the 92 riots. Sound tactics and logical decisions got me through those situations safely so I could return to protect people another day.

I've been doing this job for 31 years and have never had a case dismissed due to lack of probable cause or violations of search and seizure laws, so I think I know what I'm doing out there.

I repeatedly hear people in this forum say that the NFA, GCA, and AW bans are Unconstitutional, BUT until they are overturned in court, they are the law of the land. They have withstood many challenges so far, so deal with it.

I'm not saying I agree that they are Constitutional, I'm just saying that wishing it, doesn't make it so........

So what part of the United States Constitution (http://constitutionus.com/) don't you agree with? What part do you think I interpret differently from you? When I joined the Air force, I promised to protect and defend the Constitution. None of my oath gave me the option of defending only those parts I agreed with. My oath didn't give me the option of interpreting the Constitution as I saw fit. Unfortunately, government is doing just that. The Bill of Rights has been interpreted more as a Bill of Restrictions on the American People when the Constitution as it is written is inconvenient. So please interpret this for me.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."

Since you claim to have 31 years more of insight than me in interpreting the law, please enlighten me and interpret the supreme law of the land for me.

GuyW
07-29-2009, 1:17 PM
When I joined the Air force, I promised to protect and defend the Constitution.

Exactly - its "defend the Constitution" - NOT defend the laws, ordinances, regulations, bureaucrats, government drones, etc.
.

Decoligny
07-29-2009, 1:35 PM
The oath of office is shown below. There might be some minor variations depending upon the city involve, or county.

I, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance, to the Constitution of the State Of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties, of the office of Police Officer of the City of ___________ to the best of my ability.

Roadrunner
07-29-2009, 1:42 PM
The oath of office is shown below. There might be some minor variations depending upon the city involve, or county.

I, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance, to the Constitution of the State Of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties, of the office of Police Officer of the City of ___________ to the best of my ability.

I saw this (http://www.culcom.net/~lake/policecodeofethics.html) at a police department once and asked a deputy about it. He just laughed and said "yeah right". So I wonder if these oaths and ethics are taken seriously, or are they there as mere formalities and for public display.

Theseus
07-29-2009, 1:43 PM
Exactly - its "defend the Constitution" - NOT defend the laws, ordinances, regulations, bureaucrats, government drones, etc.
.

All you need to do is simply not enforce the unconstitutional ones. Yes, that might put your job at jeopardy.

Ron-Solo
07-29-2009, 2:20 PM
All you need to do is simply not enforce the unconstitutional ones. Yes, that might put your job at jeopardy.

This is the part you don't get. The laws are written by the legislature, they are reviewed and upheld by the judicial branch, and enforced by law enforcement. The Constitution gives them that authority.

When the courts rule something is unconstitutional, we follow their ruling, regardless of our personal opinion. Just because you or I may believe soemthing to be unconstitutional, doesn't make it so.

Roadrunner
07-29-2009, 2:25 PM
This is the part you don't get. The laws are written by the legislature, they are reviewed and upheld by the judicial branch, and enforced by law enforcement. The Constitution gives them that authority.

When the courts rule something is unconstitutional, we follow their ruling, regardless of our personal opinion. Just because you or I may believe soemthing to be unconstitutional, doesn't make it so.

Except that police are pointing their guns at people who are carrying an unloaded gun legally. Yeah that makes a whole lot more sense to me now.

GuyW
07-29-2009, 3:03 PM
This is the part you don't get. The laws are written by the legislature, they are reviewed and upheld by the judicial branch, and enforced by law enforcement. The Constitution gives them that authority.

When the courts rule something is unconstitutional, we follow their ruling, regardless of our personal opinion. Just because you or I may believe soemthing to be unconstitutional, doesn't make it so.

So, your oath is actually:

I, Ron-Solo, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the legislature's and judiciary's interpretations of the Constitution of the United States, and the legislature's and judiciary's interpretations of the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic, including citizens that don't buy the legislature's and judiciary's interpretations of the Constitution; that I will bear true faith and allegiance, to the the legislature's and judiciary's interpretations of the Constitution of the State Of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties, of the office of Police Officer of the City of ___________ to the best of my ability.

OR, TO BOIL IT DOWN TO THE BASICS:

I, Ron-Solo, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the government, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the government; that I take this obligation freely; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties, of the office of Police Officer of the City of ___________ to the best of my ability.

Sounds reasonable - its not like the Constitution is cast in stone or anything - its a living document, to be continually dissected, reassembled, and reinterpreted for modern life...


"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
--Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our Fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
-Abraham Lincoln-


.

locosway
07-29-2009, 3:06 PM
Classic... that's all I have to say...

Ron-Solo
07-29-2009, 4:26 PM
Loco and Roadrunner,

Well, I've tried to explain to you how our system of government works and how things become laws, and a little bit of police procedure added in. You don't seem to get it so I'm done trying to explain it to you.

I follow the law, which is derived from the Constitution. Period.

I was just trying to keep you from doing stupid things that could get you a trip to jail or shot because of stupid moves.

I tried. You're on your own.

We can have a difference of opinion but when you throw in personal insults because YOUR OPINION does not agree with MY OPINION, it is fruitless to continue this discussion.

I will be happy to answer individual questions to the best of my ability via PMs.

Aloha,

Ron

Roadrunner
07-29-2009, 5:26 PM
Except that police are pointing their guns at people who are carrying an unloaded gun legally. Yeah that makes a whole lot more sense to me now.

Loco and Roadrunner,

Well, I've tried to explain to you how our system of government works and how things become laws, and a little bit of police procedure added in. You don't seem to get it so I'm done trying to explain it to you.

I follow the law, which is derived from the Constitution. Period.

I was just trying to keep you from doing stupid things that could get you a trip to jail or shot because of stupid moves.

I tried. You're on your own.

We can have a difference of opinion but when you throw in personal insults because YOUR OPINION does not agree with MY OPINION, it is fruitless to continue this discussion.

I will be happy to answer individual questions to the best of my ability via PMs.

Aloha,

Ron

Then answer the question. You claim that police do the things they do because the law says they can do it. So why are police pointing guns at people who are doing something the law says they can do? Is that question so hard to answer?

locosway
07-29-2009, 5:32 PM
Ron, I didn't direct anything at you, sorry you took offense to such a vague statement.

What I'm still not understanding is why cops draw down on people who UOC. Wait, it's because any gun should be treated as if it's loaded, and the only way to know if it IS unloaded is to physically check the firearm right?

These same people say that UOC is stupid because everyone will know the gun is unloaded.

Well, which is it?

Patrick Aherne
07-29-2009, 5:47 PM
Yes I agree that the fine line has not been adjudicated and federal judges are quite removed from "street" reality.

But when a federal court has found a gun drawn during mere handcuffing of a 23152a,b/20002 CVC suspect for investigation to be "excessive force" then what is drawing a gun on a mere People v DeLong "e" inspection which the CA courts have determined to not be a detention involving 4th A. rights?

And I suspect the Fed Courts may very well interpret "e" to in fact be a 4th A. violating detention especially when dealing with a constitutional right (still waiting to be full defined and we may never get "e" decided if the whole of 12031 get thrown out:)).

Why do you think an officer gets to use any level of force on someone for whom RAS doesn't exist for even a Terry investigative detention assuming the "e" inspection has not been refused?

Gun carriers subject to a People v DeLong "e" inspection are not detained "suspects" needing to be safely brought into custody for investigation. The SD DA memo gets this part right.

(and I reserve the right to be wrong when dealing with the CA criminal courts;))

I do not possess any crystal balls and engage in thses conversations for entertainment purposes only...

I have pursued 23152 and 20002 suspects with a drawn gun and a K9 before and I believe it was reasonable, i.e. DUI crash and foot pursuit into various back yards, late at night, suspect refusing to show his hands, etc. This incident in San Carlos was, clearly, a different kind of situation. Generally, DUI investigations are conducted without weapons drawn and with the cooperation of the suspect in order to complete the interview and field sobriety tests.

A 12031 e inspection is clearly an animal of a different sort. I would advise all LOC proponents to follow the example set by other civil rights demonstrators and to establish a good rapport with the police in the area they are exercising their rights in. A call to the watch commander and an explanation of the day's activities will prevent any misunderstanding.

It bears mentioning, that any call I go to where a weapon is mentioned, I pull out a rifle. We have had a number of scary incidents with airsofters. I think the 9th circuit is wrong in this regard because officers who are dispatched to a call are frequently not given enough information to make an informed choice between a possible robbery suspect with a gun and a LOC proponent, based on the reporting party's description of what is happening. For example, is the description of what is happening, "OH MY GOD, MAN WITH A GUN! Send the police; help us!" Or, "There are a couple of guys, who look like taxpaying nerds, having a cappuchino and they have holstered pistols. They are not bothering anyone and they are real polite."

The taxpaying nerds is not an insult; I just don't see LOC guys like the dirty hippies that are most civil rights demonstrators. You all probably have jobs, pay taxes and contribute to the Republic. I am a happy, well not so happy about the taxes, sorta-nerdy cop.

My ultimate resolution to this problem would be that open carry would be a 415 type offense and that concealed carry would be shall-issue in CA. More decent folks with pistols is just what California needs.

Roadrunner
07-29-2009, 6:18 PM
I have pursued 23152 and 20002 suspects with a drawn gun and a K9 before and I believe it was reasonable, i.e. DUI crash and foot pursuit into various back yards, late at night, suspect refusing to show his hands, etc. This incident in San Carlos was, clearly, a different kind of situation. Generally, DUI investigations are conducted without weapons drawn and with the cooperation of the suspect in order to complete the interview and field sobriety tests.

A 12031 e inspection is clearly an animal of a different sort. I would advise all LOC proponents to follow the example set by other civil rights demonstrators and to establish a good rapport with the police in the area they are exercising their rights in. A call to the watch commander and an explanation of the day's activities will prevent any misunderstanding.

It bears mentioning, that any call I go to where a weapon is mentioned, I pull out a rifle. We have had a number of scary incidents with airsofters. I think the 9th circuit is wrong in this regard because officers who are dispatched to a call are frequently not given enough information to make an informed choice between a possible robbery suspect with a gun and a LOC proponent, based on the reporting party's description of what is happening. For example, is the description of what is happening, "OH MY GOD, MAN WITH A GUN! Send the police; help us!" Or, "There are a couple of guys, who look like taxpaying nerds, having a cappuchino and they have holstered pistols. They are not bothering anyone and they are real polite."

The taxpaying nerds is not an insult; I just don't see LOC guys like the dirty hippies that are most civil rights demonstrators. You all probably have jobs, pay taxes and contribute to the Republic. I am a happy, well not so happy about the taxes, sorta-nerdy cop.

My ultimate resolution to this problem would be that open carry would be a 415 type offense and that concealed carry would be shall-issue in CA. More decent folks with pistols is just what California needs.

Okay, you seem like a sensible kind of guy, so please answer this for me. Why are police pointing guns at people who are doing something (carrying an unloaded firearm) that the law says is legal? Do the operators that are taking the calls ask enough questions to give you enough information? Are police using their senses (seeing, hearing) and determining that these law abiding citizens aren't committing a crime? Or are they drawing their guns just because that's how they were trained? As I said in previous posts, California Fish and Game checks firearms without drawing theirs on a regular basis and I don't hear a massive amount killings of Fish and Game police. And states that have LOC don't see to be losing cops in droves because of law abiding citizens with loaded guns. So what makes California so different? What is a 415 offense, and why would you make open carry illegal? These are things that I don't understand, and so far the cops that I guess I have ruffled a few feathers on have seemed to give me their best impression of Sonia Sotomayor. So please give it to me straight. Is this question really so difficult to answer?

Liberty1
07-29-2009, 6:22 PM
My ultimate resolution to this problem would be that open carry would be a 415 type offense and that concealed carry would be shall-issue in CA.


You from Texas? Because nearly the whole country has legal open carry (in some form).

http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html

Decoligny
07-29-2009, 6:41 PM
My ultimate resolution to this problem would be that open carry would be a 415 type offense and that concealed carry would be shall-issue in CA. More decent folks with pistols is just what California needs.

That would not be acceptable to the majority of OCers. Unless of course, concealed carry were along the lines of Alaska or Vermont.

I for one DO NOT want to have to pay the Government for a permission slip to exercise any right.

Patrick Aherne
07-29-2009, 6:58 PM
That would not be acceptable to the majority of OCers. Unless of course, concealed carry were along the lines of Alaska or Vermont.

I for one DO NOT want to have to pay the Government for a permission slip to exercise any right.

There are reasonable restrictions on many rights. I would think that the ability to pass the HSC test and your 4473 check would be enough for me. Open carry tends to disturb many people. Not saying I agree with their opinions, it just is a fact. Causing a public disturbance will get you arrested in most states. An exemption allowing open carry in times of natural disaster, like earthquakes or fires, would be nice. This is just my wishful thinking.

Patrick Aherne
07-29-2009, 7:06 PM
You from Texas? Because nearly the whole country has legal open carry (in some form).

http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html

I know that open carry disturbs the peace of some folks. I do not agree with it, but, given that the ultimate purpose of carry of a firearm is self-defense, first, and overthrow of tyranny, second, I believe that shall-issue CCW would allow folks to protect themselves and prevent alarming the sheep. Exceptions for hunting, hiking and natural disasters would allow open carry.

Irrational Voice
07-29-2009, 7:07 PM
There are reasonable restrictions on many rights. I would think that the ability to pass the HSC test and your 4473 check would be enough for me. Open carry tends to disturb many people. Not saying I agree with their opinions, it just is a fact. Causing a public disturbance will get you arrested in most states. An exemption allowing open carry in times of natural disaster, like earthquakes or fires, would be nice. This is just my wishful thinking.

Filthy hippies screaming about the G8 disturb lots of people too. Bike riders who "mass" demonstrate in SF really bug the crap out of me. Should we make them pass a test to exercise their 1st amendment rights as well?

And by the way, concealed guns are no less "dangerous" than open carried weapons. Ignorance shouldn't be bliss; out of sight shouldn't be out of mind.

Decoligny
07-29-2009, 7:12 PM
I know that open carry disturbs the peace of some folks. I do not agree with it, but, given that the ultimate purpose of carry of a firearm is self-defense, first, and overthrow of tyranny, second, I believe that shall-issue CCW would allow folks to protect themselves and prevent alarming the sheep. Exceptions for hunting, hiking and natural disasters would allow open carry.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anyone has a right to "peace". If my carrying a firearm "disturbs" someone, then that is a problem for them and their granola eating therapist.

Patrick Aherne
07-29-2009, 7:14 PM
Filthy hippies screaming about the G8 disturb lots of people too. Bike riders who "mass" demonstrate in SF really bug the crap out of me. Should we make them pass a test to exercise their 1st amendment rights as well?

And by the way, concealed guns are no less "dangerous" than open carried weapons. Ignorance shouldn't be bliss; out of sight shouldn't be out of mind.

Just my opinion. It's the great thing about being an American. We can agree to disagree.

Either, way, I am in fabor of gun rights and shall-issue CCW. The problem with many folks on this site is that they see any regulation of the 2nd amendment as unreasonable. The truth is that many rights have "reasonable" restrictions. I wish the 2nd was incorporated and had "reasonable" restrictions like the 1st amendment. It would mean a whole lot more freedom for most people.

Remember, I am pro-gun rights. I find it odd that cities will allow horrendous wastes of revenue and resources to build golf courses and similarly construct skate parks for "youths," yet the mere mention of building a municipal range brings outcry when the activity is one protected by our Constitution.

Theseus
07-29-2009, 7:32 PM
Just my opinion. It's the great thing about being an American. We can agree to disagree.

Either, way, I am in fabor of gun rights and shall-issue CCW. The problem with many folks on this site is that they see any regulation of the 2nd amendment as unreasonable. The truth is that many rights have "reasonable" restrictions. I wish the 2nd was incorporated and had "reasonable" restrictions like the 1st amendment. It would mean a whole lot more freedom for most people.

Remember, I am pro-gun rights. I find it odd that cities will allow horrendous wastes of revenue and resources to build golf courses and similarly construct skate parks for "youths," yet the mere mention of building a municipal range brings outcry when the activity is one protected by our Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment in my opinion was the one of the rights that could bear not even the slightest of "reasonable" restrictions. These "reasonable" restrictions are what starts pushing the line to allow more "reasonable" restrictions.

The entire purpose and wording of the 2nd Amendment supports my assertion.

just4fun63
07-29-2009, 7:46 PM
Okay, you seem like a sensible kind of guy, so please answer this for me. Why are police pointing guns at people who are doing something (carrying an unloaded firearm) that the law says is legal?

The answer seems Very clear to me. They point guns at People carrying guns because in California, at this time, It is not a normal or common occurrence. In the short time I lived in Az the cops never did this because they were used to it, it was normal. My job puts me on the streets with the LEOs all the time. At this time in Cal most of the people carrying guns are violating some law or are planning to violate some law. As you get more and more people carrying guns the occurrence of problems will decrease. I hate to say it but if you walk down the street in most cities in Calif carrying a gun you will get the Police called on you, and they will respond as if you are a criminal because they don't know if you are or not. Your rural Deputies like Fish and Game wardens will handle gun issues differently than an Oakland cop because they deal with it more.

artherd
07-29-2009, 8:04 PM
We have an issue here of cultural indoctrination and (not unfounded) prejudice.

In CA, a dude walking around with a gun ALMOST ALWAYS JUST SHOT SOMEONE!

It's a fact.

In AZ, it's just a dude walking around with a gun, seen it all the time, no big deal.


The cold reality is - a dude walking around with a gun, can escalate very quickly into a dead cop. That's what they are scared of, and not without cause in this state.

locosway
07-29-2009, 8:12 PM
What people aren't saying is what the person is doing with the gun. Someone with an exposed holster likely DID NOT just commit a crime. I don't know about you guys, but more criminals try and hide the fact that they are going to or did commit a crime.

I still stand by my statement that someone with an exposed gun in California is likely to be legally carrying it because:

1) Criminals don't openly carry guns
2) Cops and permitted people openly carry
3) Guns are expensive and so is your freedom
4) Did I mention criminals don't walk down the street with holstered guns?

just4fun63
07-29-2009, 8:24 PM
What people aren't saying is what the person is doing with the gun. Someone with an exposed holster likely DID NOT just commit a crime. I don't know about you guys, but more criminals try and hide the fact that they are going to or did commit a crime.

I still stand by my statement that someone with an exposed gun in California is likely to be legally carrying it because:

1) Criminals don't openly carry guns
2) Cops and permitted people openly carry
3) Guns are expensive and so is your freedom
4) Did I mention criminals don't walk down the street with holstered guns?

How does a police officer know that the person standing on the corner with a gun in a holster isn't a 5150

locosway
07-29-2009, 8:28 PM
How does a police officer know that the person standing on the corner with a gun in a holster isn't a 5150

I hope you aren't a LEO with that comment...

To answer your question. S/he doesn't, and it's not their job to police people who are NOT commiting a crime. It's no different than stopping every car they come across to ensure each person has a license, isn't drunk, or doesn't have anything else in their car that would otherwise make it illegal for them to drive.

While you're at it, might as well smog the car, check all of the lights and signals, make sure the exhaust isn't modified or the windows tinted.

Kestryll
07-29-2009, 8:33 PM
Well this has turned incredibly stupid thanks to the 'It's my way or the highway' crowd.

We're done with this.