Kid44
Member
Because the police do not know the guy's intentions with the gun. The can't just assume he is a law abiding, gun carrying good guy.
I did it. Open carried for the first time.
- Thread starter ISCS Yoda
- Start date
Because the police do not know the guy's intentions with the gun. The can't just assume he is a law abiding, gun carrying good guy.
They don' t know the intentions of the person that called it in either. They may be shoplifting and trying to distract.
Rosewood
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,249
Wait!! Are you trying to say there isn’t a universal rule that applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time? That context matters and people have to make their own choices based on their own circumstances? Outrageous! How can that be possible?
Kid44
Member
There's a story about a little boy and a wolf, the police CAN NOT assume someone is a good guy, or a bad guy simply from someone making a police report. If they get called a 100 times about a man/woman with a gun they have to respond 100 times.
About a year ago someone walked down the street in front of where I work with a rifle in their hand. One of the client employee supervisors told me to call the cops. I hadn't intended to but once he told me to do it I didn't have a choice.
Anyway, I called and the dispatcher told me that they weren't sending a car because it was a legal activity.
The wierd thing is about ten minutes after I hung up FIVE cop cars showed up looking for the guy.
Today on my way home from work a man flagged me down from his porch. I stopped and man who I am slightly acquainted with walked up to my patrol car.He had a handgun that looked like a smith pistol of some sort in a holster on his side . He wanted me to talk to a young man that had been released to his custody to work and showing up late or not coming in.We had a good talk laughed about it being hard to get up sometimes.And we agreed the judge didn’t need to know.
The point is I didn’t get excited about seeing a gun.I didn’t call for backup I didn’t try to take his gun while we talked because this is Tn and legal.
Oh yeah did I mention this is a all black’Neighborhood that has a few shootings a year.As a old white cop I have been traveling thru there for years .A lot of people there wave at me even some I know are on parole.
Just because someone is carrying a gun openly he is not a suspect
The point is I didn’t get excited about seeing a gun.I didn’t call for backup I didn’t try to take his gun while we talked because this is Tn and legal.
Oh yeah did I mention this is a all black’Neighborhood that has a few shootings a year.As a old white cop I have been traveling thru there for years .A lot of people there wave at me even some I know are on parole.
Just because someone is carrying a gun openly he is not a suspect
Ok, so say someone calls the police because you have a gun, the police show up and start asking you questions about whether you are legal or not. If you haven't done anything wrong, isn't that a violation of the 4th Amendment? What is the probable cause here if your actions are legal?
Rosewood
Old Arkansawyer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,197
- Reaction score
- 4,750
I suppose I have a right to walk down any street in any city or town in
the U.S. with a $100.00 dollar bill in my hand, even after dark.
But, good judgement tells me not to do such.
Open carry and concealed carry are both legal here without a permit
and I do see open carry at times. On some of these occasions I think
the person is just wanting attention, or a want to be of some kind.
the U.S. with a $100.00 dollar bill in my hand, even after dark.
But, good judgement tells me not to do such.
Open carry and concealed carry are both legal here without a permit
and I do see open carry at times. On some of these occasions I think
the person is just wanting attention, or a want to be of some kind.
Police only need 'reasonable suspicion' to stop and question - what's reasonable depends on the circumstances, and ultimately, a court may have to decide if the stop was or wasn't reasonable.
Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, which in turn is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Make sense?
Last edited:
Mainsail
Member
Sorry, you are wrong.
The phrase is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot. In other words, the officer must be able to articulate a specific crime that he or she believes you have broken, are breaking, or will break. They cannot detain you for odd behavior, a weird hairdo, or wearing a watch. There has to be a crime.
Reasonable articulable suspicion to detain (seize).
Probable cause to arrest.
So if open carry is not illegal, the police cannot detain you for mere open carry- period, end of sentence.
It doesn't matter if someone called and reported it; if the report was for mere open carry, the police cannot detain you.
As to 'reasonable', it all comes down to what the officer knew at the time of the stop. If the officer knew you were lawfully carrying, it would be illegal for him to detain you. During the early years of open carry in WA, there were a dozen or so out-of-court settlements where the open carry person was paid lots of money to prevent a lawsuit against the officers and agencies that detained them. I know one guy used his to buy his-&-hers new motorcycles, and other that collected around $10K when he was illegally detained by an airport police agency (yes, you may open carry in the airport).
Note also that if the officer knew, or reasonably should have known, that he was detaining a person (a seizure is a deprivation of a civil right) without reasonable articulable suspicion, he could lose his qualified immunity and sued civilly as well. In other words, he could lose his assets like his house or vehicles.
Can they "talk" to you about it? Of course, as can anyone else. You are not obligated to talk to the officer, show ID, or a carry permit/license. In such a case you may simply walk away, and for several reasons you should.
Here’s the kicker; you have the same right to privacy while carrying concealed, or not carrying at all, as you do when you’re carrying openly. It seems like the height of foolishness to carry a firearm, even concealed, and not know when and how the police are allowed to detain you.
Mainsail
Member
When I lived in Tacoma (the most crime infested city in the Pacific Northwest) I was listening to the scanner and they dispatched two cars for a ‘man with a gun’ call. The first officer on scene radioed in and cancelled the other car, reported it was just an open carry, and drove off without ever getting out of the car.
I know first-hand as well. I was in Wright Park walking laps one morning and passed a woman hissing into her phone about my open carry- furious the dispatcher wasn’t going to send anyone. They didn’t, and I continued my walk without ever seeing a police officer.
Not sure where you got that information, but it is incorrect.
Last edited:
Then I guess the Supreme Court is wrong. Two cases cited here provide brief explanations and further reading. Reasonable Suspicion | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Last edited:
Mainsail
Member
No, they're not wrong, but your reading of it is. Notice the reference to Terry vs Ohio.
If open carry is not illegal, what suspicion of what crime could the LEO articulate to justify detaining you?
I suppose all those police agencies I mentioned were just giving their money away?
You as a guy carrying a firearm or wearing a red shirt or torn jeans or a Raiders jacket or carrying a frog gig have no idea what criminal activity the officers who might stop and question you might be investigating and why the might have that suspicion of you.
I see you want to argue, so I'm afraid I'll disappoint you. No matter - my post that seemed to offend you was to Rosewood and on the 3 most important Constitutional standards in criminal matters -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt (for conviction), probable cause (for searches or arrests), and reasonable suspicion (for an investigative stop).
I see you want to argue, so I'm afraid I'll disappoint you. No matter - my post that seemed to offend you was to Rosewood and on the 3 most important Constitutional standards in criminal matters -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt (for conviction), probable cause (for searches or arrests), and reasonable suspicion (for an investigative stop).
Last edited:
Mainsail
Member
Total straw-man and doesn't contradict anything I've said. Again, mere open carry isn't sufficient to warrant a seizure.
Argue? Offended? Lol, no. Been there, done that, walked away and/or collected the settlement money. You believe whatever you like, even if you have to move some goalposts to do it.
Are there any laws that says if a police officer wants to talk to you and ask questions you have to comply?
I know in GA, the law on carrying a firearm, a cop cannot ask to see your carry permit unless he has probable cause that you have done something wrong. Just seeing you carrying is no justification to require you to prove you have a permit.
Rosewood
I know in GA, the law on carrying a firearm, a cop cannot ask to see your carry permit unless he has probable cause that you have done something wrong. Just seeing you carrying is no justification to require you to prove you have a permit.
Rosewood
Last edited:
Nope. There must be 'reasonable suspicion' before the police may require you to stop and identify yourself. Laws requiring a walking person not committing some other infraction to stop and respond to police intrusion are not Constitutional. However, you don't know what the officer is investigating; I've stopped dozens of people on foot or in cars who matched a BOLO (be on the lookout) but brief conversation proved they weren't the right folks. On some occasions there was time to explain what was going on, sometimes not. A reasonable response usually resolves matters quickly.
What you describe in GA is called 'secondary enforcement;' if the police have some independent reason to believe you've committed some infraction, then they can talk to you about both the infraction or crime and also the permit.
Last edited:
I may be missing something but why is there this trend to want to mess with cops doing their job? What are they trying to prove, what’s the profit ?
If you ain’t the perp, co operate and let cop move on. As a citizen it is your duty. There are a few bad cops but a lot more bad guys.
If you ain’t the perp, co operate and let cop move on. As a citizen it is your duty. There are a few bad cops but a lot more bad guys.
Don't take my questions as being against cops (I have a brother that is a cop). I just like to be aware of the laws. I fully intend to respond to any cop that wants to talk to me. In the event a cop was overly aggressive and overstepping the legal bounds, I like to know what my legal requirements are to be in compliance with the laws and what legal recourse I may have.
Rosewood
KSDeputy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2014
- Messages
- 1,504
- Reaction score
- 1,580
Kansas law permits any law abiding citizen to carry concealed or openly. My personal opinion is open carry should be reserved for peace officers displaying a badge. The only time I carried openly was in uniform. I always carry a .45, but it is always concealed, and always will be. I have come upon people carrying openly in stores, etc. I have talked with them, but never about the way they are carrying. I do observe that other shoppers notice, and it seems to make them nervous.
Last edited:
Similar threads
