LEO input please.....

[rebelray84]

What's my reasonable suspicion for drawing down on someone walking into a public place openly carrying a gun?

Here's my f**kin reasonable suspicion-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_murderers_and_spree_killers_by_number_of_victims

 

[Leadfoot]

I have noticed a number of people seem to have the mentality that it is acceptable to treat an armed encounter with a police officer the same as a potential robbery, etc.

I'm trying to determine if they're really that ****ing stupid, or they're just talking up their tough guy image.

If a police officer points his gun at you and your reaction is behave in a manner that would lead him to believe that it is a possibility you were reaching for a weapon, any reasonable person, especially a jury, would certainly find his killing of you was justified. PC or NO PC for the original contact.

(See wikipedia's entry for Amadou Diallo)

The best thing anyone in this situation can do is ABSOLUTE COMPLIANCE. Defuse the situation. Was he right or wrong? Worry about that later, whats important is that everyone walks away from this type of incident without any holes in them that weren't there prior.

The ONLY situation this would not apply in would be if it is a plain clothes/off duty officer who DOES NOT identify himself as the police. In this situation, you may find a jury to be sympathetic to your fear of death or bodily harm.

Face it, carrying a gun gives you a sense of bravado. No man wants to be another man's bitch. But when a uniformed officer points his weapon at you, YOUR attitude will determine if this is the day you assume room temperature.

Contact the pertinent person with the department and explain the situation to them, BUT BE READY WHEN THEY IMMEDIATELY SIDE WITH THE OFFICER.

 

[topgunz1]

attention all criminals: get yourself a holster and a polo shirt and you will never be stopped by law enforcement again. Ever.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Unless you have the ability to constantly scan 360 degrees constantly AND carry on with day to day functions open carry is retarded and for suckers. There are better ways to advocate the Constitution then making your self a FAT TARGET. I don't care if you are the Benny Hana of Smith and Wesson's and armed robber putting a bean in the back of your head while you wait in line to pay for your coke, on his way to robbing the register is faster then you. Cops carry op[en because it is a function of Office and a part of the UNIFORM. I would much rather work out of the bad with a concealed piece. Why add a reason to be violently attacked? A holstered gun is not a deterrent in fact it can be an attractant! Your tough guy, I can out draw Rob Leatham attitude is lame. Get a good holster and belt. Use a cover garment and allow yourself the option of blending in with the sheep when thats the prudent thing to do.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

My long awaited response...never to disappoint. LOL

How an officer reacts to any given situations is a cocktail of his experience technically, his experience in life, location, time of day, suspect involved, suspect actions, officer's interpretations of suspect's actions, and an infinite amount of other intangible variables that factor into that individual human beings decision making process.

Attempting to say definitively what "should or should not" be done is ignorant at best. The very nature of police work requires that each situation be viewed and decisions be made on it's own merits. That is further reinforced in the way our judicial system looks at each case individually, and each man gets "his day in court." The preppy looking college kid today that should not get a second look is the same guy that will walk into his classroom tomorrow and shoot his teacher and himself. Likewise, the gangbanger with the XXXXXXl T-shirt that fits the description may very well be the MBA degreed owner of an advertising firm. However, in life in general, things tend to follow a trend with varying degrees of accuracy in different locations. In NOLA for example, I dare you to find the MBA with the XXXXl T-shirt. Why? Probably because he is aware of the social stereotype that style of dress has and wishes not to be associated with it.

this is why the statement "well if I tell you I have a gun, then obviously I am not a threat.". No you are wrong. WHile 99% of the time that is the case,my life depends on me being ready for that .01%. If I was going to shoot a cop, I would want to be the nicest guy in the world to get his guard down and then strike when he least expected. Just like a LEO is not exempt from lying and being bad, neither is a CHP holder. Just because you have a CHOP, while you may not have criminal history...in this state..it does not mean you cannot have a bad day where you catch your wife sleeping around, your dog dead,you get fired, and your truck gets keyed. Suddenly, with me not knowing any of this, I pull you over for speeding, which you were doing due to your preoccupation with your impending suicide, and this is the last straw. License, registration, and proof of insurance please...BOOOM. GOOD PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS SOMETIMES. That is life. I could bore you to death with the little old ladies and nice polite millionaire soccer moms that have cursed me out worse than a drunk Marine, swung at me, spit n my face, and threatened to have my home burnt down for a simple speeding or stop sign ticket...with their three kids in the car. While previous behavior (criminal record) is a good indicator of future behavior, the lack thereof does not exempt one from it in the future. ASK ANY COP.

That being said, there are some general practices that can be followed. For example, while you have to look at each situation on it's own merits, GENERALLY, it is not OK to shoot someone who has holstered weapon. While other situations and circumstances may exist, GENRALLY, it is not necessary to handcuff someone for only a traffic infraction, but sometimes, when other factors are involved it is. It is generally unacceptable to shoot someone in the back, Taser a handcuffed subject, strip someone naked and leave them in a cell for 6 hours, but there are times when those actions, while not the norm, are perfectly acceptable and often necessary. So, there is no hard and fast set of rules in police work, because police work generally involves at minimum two variables, one of which the officer will never have control over...the other guy.

There seems to be two very important misconceptions that people here in particular seem to have.

The first is that in reference to the performance of their duties, YOU ARE NOT EQUAL TO A LEO. I am not saying they are better than you as a person, but when you are approached by a LEO in an official capacity, it is not man-to-man. You are most definitely in a position of lower perceived and actual power in 99.9% of situations. That is the way it has to be. It sucks for those who did nothing wrong when they encounter LE, but rarely, and I mean very rarely, does someone who did NOTHING wrong encounter LEO. there will always be the argument of relative "seriousness" or necessity for certain laws, but the reality is that LE has way too much going on in today's society to waste time and resources messing with people. You may not think what you did warranted police action, but if you are honest with yourself, in almost every situation you did in-fact do something that got their attention.

NOW TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND READ WHAT I AM WRITING....

What I am saying is that in our society, we are set up to function under a "rule of law." No this is not a statute you can reference, it is a set of expectations that society places on it's members. Putting all your political beliefs a side for a moment and looking at it from a purely sociological standpoint.....we live in a world of rules. Some of those rules are simple unspoken courtesies and expectations, like opening doors, general politeness, and general care for our fellow man. Some are government sanctioned laws, such as red-lights and stop signs. Yet others, while codified by law are moral rules that most who are sane and humane abide by- do not murder, do not steal, do not lie.

Now,society has chosen to appoint individuals to enforce those rules which are codified by law. These are your LEO. By the very fact that society has deemed these people qualified and duly authorized to pass immediate judgement and enforce the laws of the relevant land, they are in a position of power above those who are not LEO. That should be pretty obvious to most. This is why they are given a gun, the power of arrest, and the power to use deadly force in circumstances other than general self-defense.

STAY WITH ME HERE. I AM TALKING IN A VERY GENERAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL SENSE. NO NEED TO GO INTO BAD COPS, THOSE NOT TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED, ETC, STAY WITH THE BIG PICTURE PLEASE. I CANNOT POSSIBLY QUALIFY EVERY STATEMENT. CERTAIN ANOMOLIES ARE A GIVEN.

The second is that people are under the misnomer that a display of force by a LEO is equal to a display of force my an armed intruder in your house at 2am and is subject to the same response from you. I am sorry, and I know this will rub some people the wrong way, but that is simply not the case.

Again, barring those one in a million circumstances of the wrong SWAT entry, plain-clothes cop, rogue cop, criminal cop, etc. the reality is that most of society trusts LEO, as they should. That is why when you go to court on something like a speeding ticket, generally speaking, the officer's word is good enough. WHy? Can cops lie? Of course they can, but putting aside the anti-LEO who think every cop is JBT or that cops are out to put bogus charges on people, the reality is that most cops have no vested interest in your innocence or guilt, so there is no incentive for them to lie. however, you do have a vested interest on your innocence, so there is a vested interest for you to lie, and let's be honest, people lie to get out of things and often, while not lying, their perception of things is self-serving. The cop has nothing to gain by you getting a fine or a warning. You were speeding, the radar confirmed it, you got ht e ticket. I have written literally thousands of tickets, and except for one that I got back, every single one of those people were guilty of what I wrote them for. Those who know me and know my level of integrity understand. The reality is that with the exception of the ones who were truly ignorant, about 90% of those who showed up in court lied to some degree. the others were simply confessed about how or why they broke the law, and once the testimony or the judge explained it to them, then they changed their plea to guilty. I never lied, because I really don't care. LEO's JOB IS NOT TO CONVICT. LEO's JOB IS TO COLLECT FACTS TO PRESENT TO THE COURT SYSTEM SO THAT A DECISION ABOUT INNOCENCE OR GUILT CAN BE MADE.

Society views a LEO pointing is gun at you completely different than a thug robbing you with a gun. Are they both a show of force? yes. However, unless the cop is literally robbing you, society has given him the latitude to have the upper hand on you, and if the situation calls for a gun to be pointed, so be it. WHile you may be scared, there is no significant injury and whatever trauma you suffer is deemed secondary to the safety that is achieved by the officer having the physical upper hand with the drawn gun.

To say if you did nothing wrong and a cop points his gun at you, you will shoot or even have the right to shoot is ignorant and reeks of I-tough guy, and looking at those that have suggested it is not surprising. the reality is that no matter the circumstances, if you shoot a cop, you will most definitely face an uphill battle proving your justification--and that is how it should be. WHy, because society asks police officers to go into very dangerous situations. In an attempt to offset that danger, society entrusts them with the latitude to use force to effect that mission and to do so safely.

i have personally been on the receiving end of "bad cops" a couple of times, both as a LEO and as a non-LEO. SOmetimes good cops make mistakes, No one is infalliable. SOmetimes good people are at the receiving end of those mistakes. You cannot expect to go through life and never have bad stuff happen to you. I am sorry, but when society ask for the enforcement of laws, it accepts the fact that there is a degree of error in the enforcement of those laws. You just might get pulled over "for nor reason" and inconvenienced because you fit the description of a burglary suspect. Guess what, when your house gets robbed, you will be thankful that LE is turning over every rock.

As far as this case, with the one side of the story given, and I have corresponded personally with the young man involved, it seems the cops may have over reacted a little, but more along the lines of being more prudent than being thuggish.

What he cops told him about OC and the holster is due to either ignorance or intimidation. I have no idea because I was not there, but agree with everyone else that the information was complete ********.

In 99% of the cases we see where officers potentially unnecessarily detain, disarm, or otherwise inappropriately interact with a gun owner on gun related issues, it is an issue of training and not oppression.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Not all people are good or bad..that is true no matter someone's occupation. However, moreso than any other occupation, including clergy, LEO tend to be more honorable and trustworthy. The nature of their profession requires quick decisions under harsh conditions which increases the risk of poor decisions. A poor decision is not necessarily an ill-willed decision.

2. There are times when the unorthodox or abnormal response is the appropriate response. Just because it is not pretty does not mean it is not effective and necessary.

3. You are not on the same footing with LEO when they are interacting with you in an official capacity. That is by design, the same as you are not on equal footing with your parents, school teachers, principals, or boss. It does not mean you are "subservient" to them, but you are under the socially appointed and mandated power of their authority. I am speaking about the performance of their duties and not necessarily their inter-personal interaction with you. There is a socially sanctioned component and a human-interaction component. In my dealings, I am firm but fair, and polite but not friendly. It is the only way to safely do this job.

4. Suggesting you would outdraw a man with a loaded gun pointed at you or that you would shoot a cop is ludicrous and a sign of ignorance of fact and immaturity. Enough said.

5. if you have a problem with the way an LEO treats you, you should comply and address his behavior separate from yours. GO through the motions while complying, and when the encounter is over, take the APPROPRIATE actions through the systems provided to you such as complaints or litigation.

6.No one likes feeling under the authority of another, myself included. However life does not revolve around what you want. Each individual agrees to an informal social contract when they become a member of society. If you do not agree with the one here, work to change it or opt out by moving to a place with more freedoms--good luck. You might find different freedoms, but you will never find more than you will here.

7. Which came first, the non-LEO's lack of respect for the authority society places on LEO and the honor of the profession resulting in increased levels of vigilance and perceived dominance on the part of LEO

or...

The Officers' response to increased violence in society in general, resulting in a perception of unjustified hostility placed upon "good guys" due to the need to make sure they are not "bad guys"

I do not know, but I do know we live in a very violent time, when the role of the LEO is not respected and is increasing in danger daily. This results in greater degrees of preparedness and tactics that often result in a GG feeling some of that sting. I do not see it getting better until violence stops happening in our society.


The officers


8. At the end of the day, wether you want to admit it to yourself or not, MOST LEO are GOOD, and MOST non-LEO or good. Both sides are simply hyper-sensitive t the minority, because while they are the minority, the can have the most devastating effect if they are underestimated. LEO should not treat all non-LEO as criminals, but be prepared to react appropriately should they become one. Non-LEO should not view all LEO as JBT, but be prepared to respond appropriately should they become one.




I AM READY.....

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Also, at the end of the day, LEO ad good non-LEO are on the same team even though we may wear different uniforms and foul each other sometime.

 

[Guate_shooter]

Wassaaaaaaa!

Hurt Locker, LOL, good write up though.

Im still waiting on the response on that OC forum about the OP accusing the LEO of "stealing" his bullet. NOt sure why would they even have the need to do so when even small agencies such as St. MArtin Parish SO gives their office personell who is POST Certified 2 boxes of HST's.

I also dont see the point on dying because I believe the actions of an Officer have went above his rights, any way you see this is an Official Interaction between a Civilian and LEO in which the LEO has more power than me as a Civilian any day of the week.

Where they justified to draw a weapon on him since he wasn't doing nothing ??? We will never know something as simple as him shifting the holster 1/2" to the back so he could lean to the counter and sign the credit card receipt could given them enough resson to believe he is about to draw on the employees at the establishment and rob the place.

Where this 2 Officers up to speed in all the laws that apply to our State? Probably not, but I am yet to meet 1 LEO who can actually cite every single law that applies, they are human and eventhough they learn the main ones that are at use on daily basis they still have to go back and check every once in a while, even Attorneys have a library at their office they dont know it all. Not all Officers are aware that we are an Open Carry State, and if you decide as a responsible adult to OC then you will also know that situations like this will happen simple as that, easiest thing to do is to comply and if you feel overpowered or to be treated unfair file a complaint.

If you get into a pissing contest with an LEO 99.99% of the time YOU WILL LOOSE! Someting as simple as heaving an attitude while saying "You Cops need to find better things to do", could lead him to want to check your vehicle outside that has the broken tailight and burnt headlight, when before he probably would have let you go with a warning for future references.

 

[PAPACHUCK]

Well said Brannon. We are all subservant to the rule of law, but must also realize that our own safety is ultimately our own responsibility. We go about our daily lives with the knowledge that we have a general protection provided by our police, but the police do not have the responsibility of an individual's personal safety. For that reason, some of us choose to excercise our 2A right and arm ourselves. I, for one, do this with the understanding that I must adhere to the laws put forth by society, and the sight of a gun on my side may disturb others. Though I wish no foul upon those who don't like or understand firearms, their lack of knowledge of the laws is not a justified reason for me not to be able to protect myself. By the same token, an officer cannot know my intent, and I welcome his/her inquisition as to my status as a legal firearm owner. No, I don't want to stare down the barrel of a G22, but the officer has to have the right and responsibility to make sure I'm not a bad guy. I will accept this fact and deal with the repercussions, giving the officer the greatest degree of latitude possible.

 

[4sooth]

In a rare moment of thoughtfulness the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified the question of whether the mere presence of a firearm carried openly by a civilian constitutes a crime and RAS for a police officer to 'interface' with that citizen. State v Ferrand, 664 So, 2nd 396 (1995), ---'the public display of an openly carried handgun is not a crime in Louisiana and does not alone constitute probable cause for arrest'.
Absent the firearm if the civilian's actions are not illegal or suggestive of criminal activity then there is no basis for the officer to approach the person other than to try to establish a consensual conversation.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

In a rare moment of thoughtfulness the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified the question of whether the mere presence of a firearm carried openly by a civilian constitutes a crime and RAS for a police officer to 'interface' with that citizen. State v Ferrand, 664 So, 2nd 396 (1995), ---'the public display of an openly carried handgun is not a crime in Louisiana and does not alone constitute probable cause for arrest'.
Absent the firearm if the civilian's actions are not illegal or suggestive of criminal activity then there is no basis for the officer to approach the person other than to try to establish a consensual conversation.

Probable cause for arrest and reasonable suspicion to investigate further are two different things.

Though I will conceed that in MOST cases the same is true for reasonable suspicion. However, it is a lot easier to get reasonable suspicion to investigate. A call into 911 that a man has a gun on his hip is reasonable suspicion inmost cases to investigate, but it is not probable cause to arrest. The investigation will confirm to the officer (that knows the law) that no probable cause exists, but he is still free to investigate based on the suspicion aroused by the 911 call.

You walking down the street OCing, IMO is not enough RS in most cases for a Terry stop. However, other factors like time of day, the area, criminal activity in the area, is your presence in and of itself suspicious, all lend to the arousal of reasonable suspicion.

Everything you quoted is correct. Your own paraphrasing is incorrect.

 

[rebelray84]

In a rare moment of thoughtfulness the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified the question of whether the mere presence of a firearm carried openly by a civilian constitutes a crime and RAS for a police officer to 'interface' with that citizen. State v Ferrand, 664 So, 2nd 396 (1995), ---'the public display of an openly carried handgun is not a crime in Louisiana and does not alone constitute probable cause for arrest'.
Absent the firearm if the civilian's actions are not illegal or suggestive of criminal activity then there is no basis for the officer to approach the person other than to try to establish a consensual conversation.

The key phrase in that is "probable cause for arrest"."Probable Cause" has been mistakenly used in this thread several times.What the real issue is does an officer have "reasonable suspicion" to interact with someone,even to the point of drawing a gun on them,who has entered a public place openly carry a gun.The answer would be a resounding YES!

The case you citied DOES NOT back your argument one bit.You cut out one part that makes it seem like it does and then added your own opinion at the end -"Absent the firearm if the civilian's actions are not illegal or suggestive of criminal activity then there is no basis for the officer to approach the person other than to try to establish a consensual conversation" to make it sound even more like it backs you up.

I suggest everyone read the decison UNEDITED-

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4079373856556614361&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

I especially like this part-"The officer's testimony also made clear that Ferrand did not flee after making eye contact, but walked back inside his apartment and immediately disarmed himself, as any law abiding citizen might when confronted with someone who is obviously a police officer despite his civilian clothing."

Anyone out there who would like to take the advice of these jail house lawyers and armchair gunslingers go right ahead.Just don't be suprised if you wind up dead or in jail.

 

[4sooth]

I do not come here to argue--rather for a free exchange of information so that we all can learn from each other and stay safe in our day to day activities. This includes police and civilians.
It is a terrible thing for a police officer to, in good faith, confront a person who is armed and have his/her career effectively ended. There are many examples of this but one at hand is Mathew St. John v Alamagordo Police Dept.
Mr. St. John entered a movie theatre open carrying and began watching the movie. A man with a gun call--six officers arrived. St. John was removed from the theatre, disarmed and forced to put the gun in his trunk before going back to watch the movie. Mr. St. John sued the Alamagordo Police for violation of his civil rights. The 10th Circuit agreed with him and ruled against the department. That award was small $25,000 or so but--they also ruled the officers did not have qualified immunity. This allowed St. John to sue the officers individually--and he did so. This must be paid from the officers own pockets--and they now have a record of violating someone's civil rights. How are they going to effectively testify in court from this point on?
In Harlow v Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 800, the Supreme Court ruled that all public officials are personally responsible for knowing the law governing their actions. When case law is well established no public official can claim ignorance. In the above case the 10th circuit found that a single, 30 year old case was sufficient warning to the officers that their actions were improper.
In the 5th Circuit case law is well established concerning the legality of OC and firearms ownership in general--taken in that light a police officer treads on thin ice when confronting a citizen only on the basis of an openly carried firearm. Again he/she can very easily, even acting in good faith, be found guilty of a civil rights violation--or a criminal act.
My attorney explained that if the civilian was not carrying a firearm would that person's actions, time of day, mere presence or location cause a police officer to believe a crime was being committed or that the person had just committed a crime. If the answer is no then there would be no reason to confront the citizen. The officer could still attempt to enter into a consensual conversation and the citizen is equally free to decline.

 

[Kraut]

Taser a handcuffed subject,

I've had to at least twice, one of whom had managed to kick me in the head when we were trying to get him up off of the floor. Handcuffs don't automatically end resistance/violence. That's why the word "GENERALLY" is used.

people lie to get out of things

The sweetest, most wholesome looking, blue-haired, grandmotherly old ladies you can imagine will lie like Bill Clinton over a red light violation. They may be the most honest, righteous person in all other respects, but when you catch them breaking a minor law they revert to being a four year old caught with crumbs on his cheeks and an empty cookie jar.


As for the original posted incident: It's a one side story. When telling their own side of a story, no one ever says they were rude, snide, antagonizing, loud, fidgety, nervous, "shifty", "hinky", disrespectful, furtive, and they never recall things THEY said that were wrong that might correspond to what the other party said that sounds wrong. I had a drunk girl one night who told me at least a dozen times "I don't mean no disrespect, officer" as she stood before me wearing a memorial shirt for a guy who had been recently shot and killed by one of our SWAT officers that said, in nice, big, clear letters - "Fu@k the Police!" If she had complained after the interaction, she certainly would have been declaring "I didn't mean any disrespect, I even told the officer that, and I was just talking to him about the incident," without adding "Oh, yeah, and I was wearing a shirt that said 'Fu@k the Police!'" Who can say in this instance? No one here on this board, because we weren't there and the other side isn't presented.

As for what I would do: Depends on the circumstances. I can't recall having an OC encounter on the street in the 11 years I've been working in Slidell. If someone's walking into a business, or out to their car, or along the sidewalk with their dog, or even to the school bus stop with their kid, and has a holstered pistol, barring observation of anything else besides the mere presence of a weapon, I'd probably keep driving and give a head nod if they made eye contact. Perfectly legal and not suspicious. If they are aimlessly wandering a parking lot, arguing with someone, loitering behind or at the side of the gas station, or sitting staring off into space while mumbling to themselves, my response will be different.

No two situations, be it domestic violence incidents, traffic stops, terry stops, noise complaints, open container violations, jaywalking, whatever, are ever the same, even if it's the same officer responding to the same location with the same involved individuals. Yet somehow, people think that there has to be some magical "one way" in which police are "duty bound" to respond, some "doesn't he have to do this first" or "can he do that if I haven't even said this" formula. Life is dynamic, chaotic, and despite the best use of our instincts, totally unpredictable. That's why neighbors always describe serial killers as "quiet guys" that they never expected to do anything like they get caught for. The best you can do, and this includes police officers, is be alert, observant, and prepared to act.

Would I have had my gun out? If we were to assume the facts as posted, no, but as I engaged the guy in conversation my back-up officer would have certainly had his hand on his with retention devices already defeated, or maybe even had it out and down alongside his thigh. Action beats reaction, so one of us would have been a step above this guy. One of us might have gone into the store to observe while the other waited outside to the side of the door/windows, and approached him on exit if he didn't start stickin' up the place. There's any number of ways.

What it comes down to, in answer to "What would you do in a situation like this?": The best I can given the immediate circumstances. There is no one formulaic answer. There is no perfect order. There is no "textbook" call.

 

[posse comatosis]

You sure make a lot of boasts.........

A bottle of cheap red wine will do that to you on Saturday nights. A very interesting discussion invoked by the OP on a sensitive topic.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

.....As for what I would do: Depends on the circumstances. I can't recall having an OC encounter on the street in the 11 years I've been working in Slidell. If someone's walking into a business, or out to their car, or along the sidewalk with their dog, or even to the school bus stop with their kid, and has a holstered pistol, barring observation of anything else besides the mere presence of a weapon, I'd probably keep driving and give a head nod if they made eye contact. Perfectly legal and not suspicious. If they are aimlessly wandering a parking lot, arguing with someone, loitering behind or at the side of the gas station, or sitting staring off into space while mumbling to themselves, my response will be different.....



This is the kind of 6th sense or tactical nuance that Veteran Police develop. It is difficult to understand for people that don't have it. It's not always right but its right enough that I always listen to it.

 

[4sooth]

Kraut--good post and well thought out. This is my concept of how OC should be dealt with by the line officer.

 

[Bayoupiper]

A bottle of cheap red wine will do that to you on Saturday nights. A very interesting discussion invoked by the OP on a sensitive topic.

That damne red stuff.

You need to switch to white wine.

That will make you think you've got a big johnson................





.

 

[posse comatosis]

This:

In a 1990 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that, through corroboration of its detail, an anonymous tip can be enough to give rise to the reasonable suspicion required for a stop.

More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.

Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-68108.html

 

[spanky]

Interesting.

 

[deafdave3]

This is the very reason I do not want to open carry. I am too afraid some ignorant cop (not you, Nolacop), will draw on me and rough me up. Being deaf, I'm not gonna hear a word he says and that will only **** him off further.