Video: Citizen is detained for open carry.

[Michael Brown]

How much leeway do officers have once they've been dispatched? Are his hands tied and he's required to make contact even though the subject doesn't appear to be doing anything illegal?

Just being dispatched doesn't give you the authority to do something you don't have the authority to do.

Now, being dispatched i.e. informed by a 3rd party of a possible crime is one of the factors that can add up to reasonable suspicion but in and of itself does not necessarily constitute reasonable suspicion.

The way I typically handle it is to ask for clarification and respond to the area. If I observe something that allows me to detain someone and I feel it's in the public interest, I do so.

If I don't observe anything that allows me to detain someone but I still believe it's in the public interest for me to contact them, I contact them with their consent and if they tell me to get bent, I go bend.

If I don't observe anything that allows me to detain someone and I don't see any issue in the public interest, I go get a Coke Zero.

Michael Brown

 

[jcizzle]

When you do, let me know because I haven't heard anything like this and if it's something I'm supposed to be doing I should probably know about it.

Since you specifically stated that the TULSA Police intend to do this, I thought you might be able to substantiate your statement. MWC is not Tulsa and rumors do not help Police-Community relations.

All that said, I do not anticipate being given any type of order like this.

Michael Brown

I think it was on the USACarry site that I saw it but was probably just a post which was as unfounded as my statement. I did find an article that Tulsa County Sherrif's Dept would leave it up to individual deputies if they wanted to check people and then of course the link I posted earlier that MWC would be checking. So, unless I see something more solid than somebodies forum post, Tulsa is out of the mix.

The reason for the statement stil is there though. At least one PD is going to be inconveniencing/harassing people into giving up their right and another Sherrif's Dept is leaving it up to individuals and their personal belief as to whether they will do the same. That is something that will hopefully be changed in coming sessions. It may not be wide spread (and I doubt it will) but one ahole is too many.

 

[Michael Brown]

I think it was on the USACarry site that I saw it but was probably just a post which was as unfounded as my statement. I did find an article that Tulsa County Sherrif's Dept would leave it up to individual deputies if they wanted to check people and then of course the link I posted earlier that MWC would be checking. So, unless I see something more solid than somebodies forum post, Tulsa is out of the mix.

The reason for the statement stil is there though. At least one PD is going to be inconveniencing/harassing people into giving up their right and another Sherrif's Dept is leaving it up to individuals and their personal belief as to whether they will do the same. That is something that will hopefully be changed in coming sessions. It may not be wide spread (and I doubt it will) but one ahole is too many.

What I'm getting at is that some folks here complain that agencies like Midwest City are over-reacting and knee-jerking without any foundation for their assertions.

I am merely pointing out that you are doing the same thing you are complaining about; You posted a statement as fact that had NO factual basis and over-reacted to something that is not even an issue yet.

As someone posted earlier in this thread, respect goes both ways.

I won't blame you for what some jackhole with poor judgement does and you don't blame me for something some police chief across the state says......

That seems entirely reasonable.

As far as one ahole being too many......

If this is the way you want things, you better be prepared to change humanity. There will be ahole cops, plumbers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and internet marketers as long as there are humans doing those jobs.

I won't judge you for something someone else does and I ask the same in return.

The bottom line is that you lose the high ground when you demand integrity from someone else and you don't take full responsibility for your own errors.

Michael Brown

 

[jcizzle]

As far as one ahole being too many......

If this is the way you want things, you better be prepared to change humanity. There will be ahole cops, plumbers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and internet marketers as long as there are humans doing those jobs.

I guess I'm one of those romantics that believes that since police officers are specifically employed by the public to enforce the law, they should be held to a higher standard of upholding the very laws they enforce. I know there will never be a time when ALL are good because they are human but it disgusts me when folks use the "well there are bad apples in any job" excuse for not striving for it. Too many times that excuse is used rather than saying "yep, that guy screwed up big time. It's unacceptable and he's outta here".

That's all besides the point here. Fact is, you proved the point on the Tulsa Sheriff's Dept. that there will alway be a bad cop here and there, so it should not be left up to the individual

 

[kd5rjz]

If it's legal, it's legal and I probably wouldn't worry about it.

If it's me stopping you then I have a reason other than simply the exposed firearm i.e. section of town as in Illinois vs. Wardlow or Hodari vs. California or behaviors that would create suspicion.

My guess is that all the things the officer said i.e. public safety concern etc are really a cover for his lack of knowledge in this area.

I don't get intimidated by legal issues because I know the rules of the road; This officer was intimidated because he could not effectively articulate his reason for the stop, which he may or may not have been able to justify.

I don't ever have to worry about that.

Michael Brown

I would like to think that if all LEO's were as educated, level-headed, and honest as you we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Hopefully the officer shown in the video is an exception to the rule, but there are a lot of similar videos on youtube. The guy who posted the video obviously was looking for problems, but I do agree with him that he should not have had to show ID; however in that situation I would have just carried concealed and not had to deal with any issues to begin with.

 

[Michael Brown]

I would like to think that if all LEO's were as educated, level-headed, and honest as you we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Hopefully the officer shown in the video is an exception to the rule, but there are a lot of similar videos on youtube. The guy who posted the video obviously was looking for problems, but I do agree with him that he should not have had to show ID; however in that situation I would have just carried concealed and not had to deal with any issues to begin with.

I appreciate the kind words.

One thing that likely skews the data here is that the folks who post these types of videos probably don't post the videos where the officer was reasonable and correct. For every positive video posted on youtube, I see nine negative ones. I'm confident the police are wrong 90% of the time.

The guy making this video impresses me as a drama queen. I thought the officer, while un-informed and possibly poorly trained, was at least polite and defferential in his contact. I realize there are some folks posting these videos purely to document what happened and try to make things better; there are others who post these just to ***** and complain.

My speculation is that this guy is the latter but I have been wrong before and I agree that perception will change depending on everyone's individual experiences.

The combination of a drama queen and an un-informed, inexperienced officer is the source of a great deal of the complaints that I investigate.

The problem is you can't provide experience without time and some people will simply be drama queens no matter what.

I guess it will always give me something to do.........

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

Fact is, you proved the point on the Tulsa Sheriff's Dept. that there will alway be a bad cop here and there, so it should not be left up to the individual

Just fyi, TPD not TCSO.

Michael Brown

 

[MLR]

Originally Posted by MLR
Best I can figure out is that unless you have a justifiable need to open carry you are considered an activist.

Michael

I dont agree with this at all, in fact a right pretty much means the exact opposite. You don't need any justification or reasoning to exercise a right in an appropriate fashion. Who decides if its "justifiable", the cops, politicians, or the citizens?

If your view was correct I would love to see tabloids and people with big mouths to put a cork in it.

I was referring to another post where a rhetorical question was being made about what an activist is. I was merely stating what seems to be the beliefs of some of those who oppose freedom.
I actually agree with you that a person does not need a reason to exercise his rights.
As for who gets to decide what is justifiable? The ones with the biggest hammer, same as its always been.

Michael

 

[Glocktogo]

I guess I'm one of those romantics that believes that since police officers are specifically employed by the public to enforce the law, they should be held to a higher standard of upholding the very laws they enforce. I know there will never be a time when ALL are good because they are human but it disgusts me when folks use the "well there are bad apples in any job" excuse for not striving for it. Too many times that excuse is used rather than saying "yep, that guy screwed up big time. It's unacceptable and he's outta here".

That's all besides the point here. Fact is, you proved the point on the Tulsa Sheriff's Dept. that there will alway be a bad cop here and there, so it should not be left up to the individual

How do you figure? You have a single phrase uttered by an agency administrator that these instances will be left to officer discretion. What you don't have is any context whatsoever within which to place that phrase. The fact is that most agency policies are guidelines, which have exceptions. It will always be up to officer discretion whether to initiate a field contact. You, the general public and agency administrators would be doing a grave disservice to all officers in the field if you attempted to restrict what is at the very core of good police work.

Simply initiating a field contact is not "harassment by cops". The new OC law has protections in place so that a subject of a field contact is not taken to a higher level if you're in the right. Some magic shield for you to wield in order to never have to talk to an officer isn't one of them. What I fail to understand is why anyone on either side would want to make it an adversarial proposition?

 

[SMS]

One thing that likely skews the data here is that the folks who post these types of videos probably don't post the videos where the officer was reasonable and correct. For every positive video posted on youtube, I see nine negative ones. I'm confident the police are wrong 90% of the time.

Extremely good point....