Question for Cal LEOs

[pepsi2451]

Yes I am an LEO. What do I have wrong?

Maybe nothing, like I said I'm not an LEO or a lawyer it just doesn't seem right to me.

So from watching the video it seems like 1) some citizen called about someone carrying a gun. 2) Officer arrives and finds exactly that. 3)The man appears to be standing in front of a gas station in video. That is all the information I could gather from the video. There may be something else that the officer observed that led him to form his reasonable suspicion. Maybe he saw the guy looking around as if he was casing the gas station. Maybe the guy in the video had tattoos similar to gang tats. Maybe he saw some other behavior from the guy that helped him form his reasonable suspicion. I don't know. I wasn't there. Therefore, we really can't sit here and Monday morning quarterback the officer.

I would further argue that based on 1,2 and 3, that the officer HAD reasonable suspicion to detain the man to investigate whether or not he was a felon in possession of a firearm. The man asked if the officer suspected him of being a felon and the officer replied I don't know you. In my opinion, not knowing right away that the man is NOT a felon justifies a Terry stop to investigate. My reasoning is that the crime being suspected and investigated is not whether the man is a felon, but whether or not the man is suspected of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Since the man is openly carrying a pistol, 50% of the elements of the crime is already present. And since felons come in all shapes sizes and colors, the only reasonable way to determine that is by making contact with the man and investigating. The relevant question the man should have asked the officer is do you suspect me being a felon in possession of a firearm, to which I would answered with a resounding yes.

I don't see how 1, 2, or 3 add to the officers suspicion that he was a felon. 1 and 2 seem completely irrelevant since carrying a gun is legal in that state for everyone except felons.

I was under the impression that to check someone you would need some further reason to suspect they are a felon than "not knowing right away that the man is NOT a felon." Is "50% of the elements of the crime" really enough to detain someone? Can you stop someone just to make sure they have a drivers license without any reason to suspect they don't?

Does that mean I can be detained and disarmed anywhere (range, blm, private property, ect.) just because there is no way for the officer to know I'm not a felon?

Is that the consensus of Calguns LEOs?

[hitman13]

Yes I am an LEO. What do I have wrong?

True. But assuming it is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm in Maine, how does an officer distinguish between a citizen legally open carrying and a felon illegally possessing without making contact?

Should a LEO go to a public shooting range and detain everyone to see if they are legal?
Should a LEO go to a bar and detain everyone to make sure they are old enough to consume?
Should a LEO detain everyone operating a MV to ensure that they are licensed to drive?

[hitman13]

It amazes me how many LEOs are supposedly supporters of the second amendment, yet have no problem with trampling on people's rights....

[Eightythree]

Should a LEO go to a public shooting range and detain everyone to see if they are legal?
Should a LEO go to a bar and detain everyone to make sure they are old enough to consume?
Should a LEO detain everyone operating a MV to ensure that they are licensed to drive?

A citizen called in, and it doesn't state anywhere in this video what the caller said the man with the gun was doing. He could have said the guy was brandishing it for all we know. I think once someone calls the police it changes the frame, right?

[hitman13]

Then it's assumed that would have been addressed during the encounter if he was supposedly brandishing it.

But to clarify my points then:
Someone calls 911, stating people at the range are armed. Should a LEO go to a public shooting range and detain everyone to see if they are legal?
Someone calls 911, says there are intoxicated people at the bar.Should a LEO go to a bar and detain everyone to make sure they are old enough to consume?
Spmeone calls 911, says that there are people driving who may not be licensed. Should a LEO detain everyone operating a MV to ensure that they are licensed to drive?

I think you get my point...
Cop observed nothing illegal, cop still took action to detain for no reason.

[Eightythree]

Then it's assumed that would have been addressed during the encounter if he was supposedly brandishing it.

But to clarify my points then:
Someone calls 911, stating people at the range are armed. Should a LEO go to a public shooting range and detain everyone to see if they are legal?
Someone calls 911, says there are intoxicated people at the bar.Should a LEO go to a bar and detain everyone to make sure they are old enough to consume?
Spmeone calls 911, says that there are people driving who may not be licensed. Should a LEO detain everyone operating a MV to ensure that they are licensed to drive?

I think you get my point...
Cop observed nothing illegal, cop still took action to detain for no reason.

Well I'm pretty sure you can get pulled over in CA if someone calls the cops on you for drunk driving, and the officer obviously didn't witness it.

[Socaliente]

When open carry was legal in california, LE had the right to inspect a weapon when asked. This was to ensure it was unloaded. If it had a visable serial # (without disassembly) it could be ran. I have no clue about other states, but it wouldnt be a stretch to believe LE there have a right to inspect a gun.

As far as detention, all you need is reasonable suspicion. Dentention is anytime the person in question feels they can not leave (i.e taking of Dl or in this case the firearm) On a traffic stop you are technically detained.

Arrest needs Probable Cause.

With regards to the video, once LE are called they need to figure out what the hell is going on. I dont know about police, but Sheriffs are required to respond to all calls for service regardless of how pointless they may seem. This was a detention once the gun was taken, the officer knew why he took it, for safety reasons, but he was afraid to just come out and say it. It didnt help that the citizen is a jackass who gets off on trying to become famous on youtube. It would have been easier if he just said, "yes im walking because its a nice day and no im not a felon, heres my ID." The officer wasnt wrong, he just didnt want to say the wrong thing against a guy spouting case law. The supervisor was smart enough to just let the guy leave because he knew what was really going on.

I wont monday morning quarterback because I wasnt there. But if its legal in the state to carry, and you get a call of a man walking around with a gun, make contact, ask the guy what hes doing, tell him the concern, ask him for his weapon because you feel unsafe, ask him if hes a felon, and ask him for ID. (in California you are required to produce a form of ID). Tell him to have a nice day.

I really wish walking around with a gun in public wasnt a big deal, but the majority of people have made it a big deal. So when LE gets a call they need to respond and officer safety is Always the #1 concern.

[hitman13]

A good officer would locate the vehicle, then observe for any driving behavior to support the claim before stopping it. Alternately, they can observe something unrelated to the driving behavior and make a stop as well (broken taillight, etc).

[Eightythree]

Lots of good input here, I learned quite a bit, thanks guys.

[pepsi2451]

When open carry was legal in california, LE had the right to inspect a weapon when asked. This was to ensure it was unloaded. If it had a visable serial # (without disassembly) it could be ran. I have no clue about other states, but it wouldnt be a stretch to believe LE there have a right to inspect a gun.

LE in CA can still check to see if a weapon is loaded. That's why there are so many threads about how to answer LE if they ask if there are guns in the vehicle. People don't want to say yes because that opens them up to LE inspecting their guns. I'm not familiar with laws in Maine but I don't know why they would allow an inspection if its legal to carry loaded.

As far as detention, all you need is reasonable suspicion. Dentention is anytime the person in question feels they can not leave (i.e taking of Dl or in this case the firearm) On a traffic stop you are technically detained.

So its your opinion that carrying a gun, even where legal, is enough reasonable suspicion to detain someone?

[55chevypost]

Hitman, without sounding disrespectful, how much time on do you have?

[Socaliente]

LE in CA can still check to see if a weapon is loaded. That's why there are so many threads about how to answer LE if they ask if there are guns in the vehicle. People don't want to say yes because that opens them up to LE inspecting their guns. I'm not familiar with laws in Maine but I don't know why they would allow an inspection if its legal to carry loaded.



So its your opinion that carrying a gun, even where legal, is enough reasonable suspicion to detain someone?

Open carry is illegal, even with long guns. So unless you are doing something youre not suppose to its not an issue anymore. If you are transporting in a locked case then theres no need to check if its unloaded. If you are asked if you have guns in the car, you say yes, and its [where ever it is]. If you are on Cal Guns then you are most likely a responsible gun owner doing the right thing. If youre a responsible gun owner doing the wrong thing and didnt know, just say hey i didnt know and ill fix it. Once you lie or start playing games then you give me no reason to believe anything you say.

And no thats not my opinion, my opinion is that when I'm called to make contact with a person who has a gun, and I feel I would be a lot safer talking to him if he wasnt in a position to kill me, I would ask him for it. I work in California so if I see someone walking down the street with a gun he is either knowingly breaking the law, or just doesnt know. Either way I can stop him and go from there. Personally, if the person in question has no criminal history I'm going to educate and leave it at that.

When I said I wished carrying in public wasnt a big deal, I also meant that I wish I didnt have to deal with law abiding citizens exercising their right. But I am in Cali and thats not the mindset here.

[hitman13]

Hitman, without sounding disrespectful, how much time on do you have?

Not disrespected at all. I have 2.5 years on. Many will say that's not long, and compared to many, it's not. Still doesn't change the dynamics of the incident to me. Obviously where I live / work is more conservative than CA, but Rights are Rights, regardless of where you are. I know that many wont share my views, but it is what it is. Different mindsets (of officers and politics alike)...


Sorry to the guy I called a fool in my first post in this thread that was deleted (because that WAS disrespectful).....

[55chevypost]

HITMAN, The reason I ask is, you took a pretty hard stance and some of your hypos were a stretch, imo. If I can, slow down a bit my friend, get all the info you can before you jump in. Alot of what happened/said on this we didnt see nor hear. As a LEO, when you make the statements you have, they can be misunderstood by some. Im dating myself but know where you are coming from, just 20+++ ago. Again no disrespect but be careful second guessing things other coppers do, ESPECIALLY when we weren't there.

[hitman13]

Oh I know and understand that. I purposely made them a stretch because it is asinine to think that this guy was committing any crime just because he was open carrying a pistol. With the material presented, the officer has made no inclination that a crime happened, is happening, or was about to happen. When challenged by the citizen, he jumps around from reason to reason to try to justify what he wants. I am all for proactive policing, but I also am always mindful to be legally justified in doing what I do.

The reason why I fight this fight (or whatever we want to call this thread) is because in many places in America, open carry of weapons is practiced regularly, and rightfully so. I often see that people find situations such as this to be acceptable, because they have been forced into thinking that armed Americans are a bad thing. Note that I am not knocking CA laws, or those of any other state, but the mindset that Americans can not be trusted with firearms and are a threat. This mindset will not be reversed until we change what is considered acceptable, and justifying bad / immoral / illegal / whatever behavior does not help the cause.