Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A completely reasonable way to deal with the new wave of open carry morons.....
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1879456" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>BadgeBunny is right that cops don't have a whole lot of say in which calls they get to respond to. However, they do have a lot of choice in how they handle the situation once they are called, and it is part of their responsibility to address any concerns as aggressively as possible WITHIN THE LAW. Obviously it is part of their responsibilities to know the law and the legal limits on their own choice of action. Certainly it would not be good police work to address a legitimately concerned citizen's call about a man with a gun by just telling the citizen that open carry is legal and to buzz off... if a call goes out, the cop needs to show up, locate the subject of the call, and make consensual contact to adequately address the situation. None of this requires any sort of suspicion of wrongdoing. In addition, a cop would be completely within his rights, as would any member of the public, to tell the subject exactly what he thinks of his behavior, and even to lecture him about how not all legal behavior is smart behavior. The process of making consensual contact, and the conversations that ensue, frequently give rise to reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that a crime is being committed... in which case it is proper to detain the suspect, either for further investigation or for prosecution. But if there is no RS or PC present, no contact beyond consensual contact would be warranted. In the vast majority of cases, this sort of contact should give the cop a pretty good idea of whether the subject is actually a danger or not. And if there is no reason to suspect a crime is being committed, the cop can tell the concerned citizen that he checked into the situation, that the man is lawfully carrying a firearm, that he doesn't believe him to be a danger, and that there is nothing more he can legally do about the situation. </p><p></p><p>For the situation at hand, I think it should have been clear within the first few seconds of contact exactly what the subject was about, based on his statements and attitude... it becomes immediately clear that he is an "activist" who is trying to draw attention to himself and then aggressively assert his rights, that he was anticipating and preparing for police contact, and that he does not pose a threat to anyone's life or limb. If he thought it was a possible issue, he should inquire as to the legal status of the firearm, and if the answer and conduct of the subject doesn't raise RS of a crime being committed, he should give the aforementioned "helpful advice" and end the encounter. If it were me, I wouldn't want to "feed the bear" any more than necessary. Obviously the kid is trying to provoke an illegal response and publicize it or file a lawsuit over it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1879456, member: 4235"] BadgeBunny is right that cops don't have a whole lot of say in which calls they get to respond to. However, they do have a lot of choice in how they handle the situation once they are called, and it is part of their responsibility to address any concerns as aggressively as possible WITHIN THE LAW. Obviously it is part of their responsibilities to know the law and the legal limits on their own choice of action. Certainly it would not be good police work to address a legitimately concerned citizen's call about a man with a gun by just telling the citizen that open carry is legal and to buzz off... if a call goes out, the cop needs to show up, locate the subject of the call, and make consensual contact to adequately address the situation. None of this requires any sort of suspicion of wrongdoing. In addition, a cop would be completely within his rights, as would any member of the public, to tell the subject exactly what he thinks of his behavior, and even to lecture him about how not all legal behavior is smart behavior. The process of making consensual contact, and the conversations that ensue, frequently give rise to reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that a crime is being committed... in which case it is proper to detain the suspect, either for further investigation or for prosecution. But if there is no RS or PC present, no contact beyond consensual contact would be warranted. In the vast majority of cases, this sort of contact should give the cop a pretty good idea of whether the subject is actually a danger or not. And if there is no reason to suspect a crime is being committed, the cop can tell the concerned citizen that he checked into the situation, that the man is lawfully carrying a firearm, that he doesn't believe him to be a danger, and that there is nothing more he can legally do about the situation. For the situation at hand, I think it should have been clear within the first few seconds of contact exactly what the subject was about, based on his statements and attitude... it becomes immediately clear that he is an "activist" who is trying to draw attention to himself and then aggressively assert his rights, that he was anticipating and preparing for police contact, and that he does not pose a threat to anyone's life or limb. If he thought it was a possible issue, he should inquire as to the legal status of the firearm, and if the answer and conduct of the subject doesn't raise RS of a crime being committed, he should give the aforementioned "helpful advice" and end the encounter. If it were me, I wouldn't want to "feed the bear" any more than necessary. Obviously the kid is trying to provoke an illegal response and publicize it or file a lawsuit over it. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A completely reasonable way to deal with the new wave of open carry morons.....
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom