Utah Guns Forum banner

Who was it?

10K views 55 replies 14 participants last post by  Snaggle 
#1 ·
This last Saturday I had to do take the required CFP instructor renewal training. During the course of the material, the BCI instructors mentioned that if LEO's were called due to a visible firearm, they had an obligation to stop and talk and confirm permit holder, if not a permit holder, Utah 'loaded' and if they were a restricted person.

A person wearing a UGX hat pressed the instructor several times about reasonable suspicion but was shot down by several LEO's. I applaud you taking a stand and hope you are a member of this forum. If so, please speak up and take credit.

I had a LEO sitting next to me and I pressed him about the same thing and he said it was his departments policy as well.

Why such a stance from LEO's?

This question is not so much about the written law, as that has been hashed out here many times, but the mentality behind this line of thinking.

We can always beat the wrap but not always the ride before it. Why the desire to turn law abiding citizens into criminals?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
See less See more
#2 ·
That viewpoint is opposite to what was stated in Lund v SLC. "The mere possession of a firearm in public is not RAS for a Terry stop" (roughly paraphrased).
Further the police have no "obligation" to do anything until after a crime has been committed.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
 
#3 ·
maybe they are talking about an obligation, because of some department policy, to instigate a level one (consensual) stop. Officers can come up and talk to you for any reason, but unless they have RAS, you have no obligation to maintain the contact and can walk away.
 
#4 ·
At some point, we hope, OC will be enough of a non-issue that there will be no cause for police to investigate barring some other conduct or behavior.

Many folks assume this will be because OC becomes very common. I'm not sure I agree. Even among us gun enthusiasts, OC remains the minority position.

Rather than becoming very common, I think eventually OC will simply become something that giving extra attention to is legally and socially unacceptable: like stopping to question a black man walking through a predominantly white neighborhood. Some neighborhoods may never have very many black men in them. But as rare as it might be to see a black man driving or walking through the predominantly white neighborhood, it is not acceptable to stop and question him simply because he is black.

I think the road to this ultimate destination includes a couple of stops through the courts similar to Lund v SLC. I think even more importantly, it includes one-on-one and media education of why such stops are offensive and unwarranted.

And I think we get to that destination faster, with lower risk of new legal restrictions being passed, if we give some thought to how we respond to such unwanted, unwarranted, police stops.

My personal opinion is that we are best served by polite, civil responses, rather than shrill or unpleasant conduct, especially the first couple of times that any individual has interactions with any given department. I'm not suggesting we surrender our rights. I am suggesting that we might consider on which rights are the most productive to exercise when and how.

Providing a carry permit or other legal ID may not be legally required in many cases, but will quickly shift the focus of the stop away from any claims of concerns about legal age or school zones or fully loaded guns or even an "uncooperative suspect", and places it squarely on the legality of peacefully OCing. A polite, respectful tone, even as one declines to cover a gun that is legally OCd prevents trumped up charges, and in many cases will present a chance to educate officers rather than having a confrontation.

Yes, we have our rights and we ought to be free to exercise them fully, right now. I think the reality is, in certain cases, there will be some level of resistance or just honest if misguided concerns to that and in most cases--not all, but most--I think we do more to advance our cause by being polite, respectful, and even voluntarily providing ID, having code sections either on hand in a wallet card or at least code sections memorized, to help officers see actual code, etc.

In most cases, at least unless the same person is having so many repeated encounters with the same officer/department as to be clear it is just harassment, I think the above is a more productive path to normalizing OC than would the "Am I free to leave? What crime am I accused of? I don't have to provide ID," kind of response.

Charles
 
#5 ·
Bagpiper said:
My personal opinion is that we are best served by polite, civil responses, rather than shrill or unpleasant conduct, especially the first couple of times that any individual has interactions with any given department. I'm not suggesting we surrender our rights. I am suggesting that we might consider on which rights are the most productive to exercise when and how.
:agree:
Courtesy goes a long way towards diffusing a situation. I'd rather be on the path of deescalating rather than ramping up the rhetoric and potentially creating a problem where none previously existed.
 
#6 ·
dewittdj said:
Bagpiper said:
My personal opinion is that we are best served by polite, civil responses, rather than shrill or unpleasant conduct, especially the first couple of times that any individual has interactions with any given department. I'm not suggesting we surrender our rights. I am suggesting that we might consider on which rights are the most productive to exercise when and how.
:agree:
Courtesy goes a long way towards diffusing a situation. I'd rather be on the path of deescalating rather than ramping up the rhetoric and potentially creating a problem where none previously existed.
Okay but what do either of your points have to do with trying to get BCI to stop teaching this falsehood, and trying to get Law Enforcement from harassing people just because they have a visible weapon. Nobody has said anything about being rude or confrontational to police if stopped. The question/topic posed was BCI telling instructors to teach that police are "obligated" to stop and proceed to a terry stop should someone call and say they saw a gun. Asking to verify CFP/ID and loaded/unloaded is more than just consensual contact. That is in fact a Terry stop and requires RAS not provided just because someone called and said they saw a gun. And evidently many police officers feel they are so obligated, when the Supreme court has said they are not obligated to act before a crime has been committed.

So yes cooperate if so stopped. Then file a complaint after the fact. But Snaggle is right in that such policy is not correct and should be protested at such a venue as it was. And requiring someone to prove CFP holder or Loaded/unloaded is not legal since it requires RAS for a terry stop as such questions require the individual to violate their 5th amendment rights.
 
#7 ·
WTH is going on with BCI? When I took my renewal course back in 11/12, no such nonsense was discussed. The topic was brought up in my class and they simply said something to the effect that "Most police departments will respond, however may or may not take any action against the individual open carrying depending on what is observed by the responding officers." They went on to say something to the effect of "Cooperating with an officer if approached would be the quickest way to clear up any misunderstandings."

I thought both answers were great. Now I hear about the antics going on at this class. :huh: Time for me to pay a visit to the good folks at BCI and figure out what's going on. :bat:
 
#8 ·
glock fan said:
They went on to say something to the effect of "Cooperating with an officer if approached would be the quickest way to clear up any misunderstandings."
Your papers please!

Sorry, surrendering your rights does not protect your rights.
 
#9 ·
rpyne said:
glock fan said:
They went on to say something to the effect of "Cooperating with an officer if approached would be the quickest way to clear up any misunderstandings."
Your papers please!

Sorry, surrendering your rights does not protect your rights.
I have no issue with answering a few questions from a responding officer. If pushed to produce my CFP, I would question the necessity of the request. For example, if an officer approached me while I was OC and said "Good evening sir, I'm responding to a complaint regarding your OC. Would you mind answering a few questions?" I'd cooperate and answer questions like "Did you remove your pistol from your holster at any time this evening?" or "Did you do anything to make anyone believe that you were drawing your pistol from its holster?"

Shutting down the police completely could cause them to dig deeper and may even cause them to obtain a warrant (regardless of how they get one or what's said in the declaration for the warrant) if they do get one, may find things that make matters worse for you.

In any case, it is a personal choice as to if you want to cooperate or not, and if so, to what extent.
 
#10 ·
glock fan said:
rpyne said:
glock fan said:
They went on to say something to the effect of "Cooperating with an officer if approached would be the quickest way to clear up any misunderstandings."
Your papers please!

Sorry, surrendering your rights does not protect your rights.
I have no issue with answering a few questions from a responding officer. If pushed to produce my CFP, I would question the necessity of the request. For example, if an officer approached me while I was OC and said "Good evening sir, I'm responding to a complaint regarding your OC. Would you mind answering a few questions?" I'd cooperate and answer questions like "Did you remove your pistol from your holster at any time this evening?" or "Did you do anything to make anyone believe that you were drawing your pistol from its holster?"

Shutting down the police completely could cause them to dig deeper and may even cause them to obtain a warrant (regardless of how they get one or what's said in the declaration for the warrant) if they do get one, may find things that make matters worse for you.

In any case, it is a personal choice as to if you want to cooperate or not, and if so, to what extent.
I might agree if that were the way I were approached. EVERY time,without exception, I have been approached by a cop for carrying the very first thing out of the cop's mouth was "show me some identification." Sorry, but unless they have RAS that I am involved in a crime, it is none of their business.
 
#11 ·
rpyne said:
I might agree if that were the way I were approached. EVERY time,without exception, I have been approached by a cop for carrying the very first thing out of the cop's mouth was "show me some identification." Sorry, but unless they have RAS that I am involved in a crime, it is none of their business.
Its not just in interactions involving firearms where they do this. I have on occasion been present when the cops were called for various reasons, usually im a witness to something, etc etc. In every case, one of the first things the officer does is start asking everyone for indentification.

There was a situation not that long ago where my teenage daughter was at her boyfriends house, and the boyfriend got in a physical altercation with his dad that involved (according to my daughter anyway) the dad putting the boyfriend in a choke hold. After I got the hysterical call from her to pick her up, and heard the story of what occurred, I suggested that they get the police involved. Boyfriend called the cops, cops showed up, and right off the bat I get asked for identification... I wasnt even there when things went down, I was 10 miles away at home, and only showed up to pick up my daughter. Told the cops that and they still wanted to see identification.

Had it not already been late, with me wanting to get home, and not wanting to get deeper involved in things than i already was, I might have protested more about the request, but as it was, I handed over my DL (not my permit though) so I could be on my way, as it was below zero outside and I wanted to get back to my warm house.
 
#12 ·
DaKnife said:
Okay but what do either of your points have to do with trying to get BCI to stop teaching this falsehood, and trying to get Law Enforcement from harassing people just because they have a visible weapon.
Let me be more brief then. Correcting this will require a multi-pronged approach and some time. A few instructors, permit holders, and organizations contacting BCI will be one necessary prong. Complaints up the chain of command after an unnecessary or improper police encounter takes place will be another necessary prong. A lawsuit or two, or at least winning on any charges brought, with Lund-like rulings may come into play. Eliminating DoC as a blunt hammer to use against OC will help here. And personal education of the officers making the stops and their superiors may play a role. We may ultimately need to look at legislation with personal penalties for cops who make unnecessary stops. But don't underestimate how very difficult such legislation will be to pass, especially if officers can show up with a litany of horror stories of OCers being jerks.

In virtually everyone of these efforts, civility and some level of cooperation will most likely be more effective than confrontation or doing absolutely nothing more than the law requires.

DaKnife said:
Nobody has said anything about being rude or confrontational to police if stopped.
I'm afraid you posted too soon. To whit:

rpyne said:
Your papers please!

Sorry, surrendering your rights does not protect your rights.
I'm sorry, but comparing police officers on the street doing their job, in a non-violent manner, as it has been explained to them, to Nazi Gestapo or Communist Secret Police demonstrates an attitude of incivility and confrontation. And with all due respect, I think it shows a certain lack of tactical and strategic forethought.

There are certainly situations where refusing ID or to answer any questions is the proper way to protect rights, protest unlawful actions, and educate officers. I believe those situations are when there are not other issues in play. If a person is stopped for no reason at all such as a "check point" or a "stop and frisk" then such a response is likely warranted and appropriate.

However, our Rights to own arms and carry them in public are not yet so well recognized in code or court rulings that thoughtful men can reasonably expect the visible presence of a firearm to be completely irrelevant to how police conduct themselves. I believe if a gun is present, the most important issue is whether the gun itself gives cause to make a stop. And I think the surest way to keep the focus there, rather than on something else including something that may be trumped up if we are needlessly confrontational or rude or non-cooperative in such cases, is to cooperate on the less important issues.

The fact is, I have a permit. So I'm allowed to OC a fully loaded gun in a school zone if I want to. Rather than arguing about whether I have a permit or whether the officer has any RAS to even make the initial contact or whether I'm over 18 or not a prohibited person, or exactly how close the nearest school is, etc ad nasium, it takes me 5 seconds to hand over a permit, smile, and remove all doubt about those ancillary questions. In doing so, I also remove virtually all reasonable and possible question about whether I'm under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, whether I'm likely to be agitated or otherwise actually pose any danger to civil society, and so on. I now get to focus on the immediate issue which is relevant laws about how I, a verified permit holder, am carrying my gun. I get to almost immediately shift the entire focus of the exchange away from crap that I care a lot less about and zero it in on the one issue that I want to resolve: does my OC'd firearm violate any laws? And I contend my process leads to better results, faster, than does taking the route suggested by rpyne.

Maybe I'm just getting the "old, fat, bald, decently dressed white guy" benefit-of-the-doubt. But in the last 10 years I've had only a couple of encounters with cops relative to my firearm. Two are not at all relevant to the subject at hand. In the other case, a couple of Sandy City officers approached me as I was OCing on the midway during the Independence Day celebrations. I produced my permit. They told me I needed to conceal and I politely, but firmly explained that I did not, it was perfectly legal for me to OC. They said I might get stopped a lot more if people were concerned and summoned police and I explained that was not really a problem. They left a little perplexed and a few moments later their sergeant approached me. I had my permit out before he even got close enough to ask. He said, "I know you have a permit, put it away and come talk." He again asserted I needed to conceal and I again explained I didn't. After a moment or two of this I politely said, "I'm happy to discuss this with your lieutenant or captain if you'd prefer. I can show you and them the relevant code sections and clear this up." Well what could he say or do to a guy who was polite and pleasant cooperative on everything except covering up my gun?

We walked over to the Sandy City "mobile command post" where the Lt apologized that it was a brand new vehicle and not yet fully stocked and so they didn't have a code book in it yet, and would I mind terribly waiting while one of their men ran up to the station to grab a code book we could look at. An air conditioned RV was not a terrible place to spend a few minutes on July 4th while my wife watched the kids playing on the rides, so no skin off my nose. But they had a computer and I offered to just look up the code online. I did so, we read it over, and after a few minutes, the Lt and Sergeant are scratching their heads and basically coming to the conclusion that I might just be right and maybe they needed to revamp their department training. About this time, more pressing matters came up for them, I asked if they were finished with me, and I was excused. I was never disarmed through any of this encounter. And in the years since, I've never been bothered while OCing at Sandy's Independence Day celebrations. Maybe nobody has noticed me OCing since then. Or maybe they've changed their training, or just recognize me and realize I'm not a problem.

Maybe others are still being hassled by Sandy PD. Or maybe I made a bit of a positive difference for everyone who legally OCs in Sandy City. In any event, I had the chance to spend 30 minutes educating a police Sergeant and a Lt and several other officers on the laws governing possession of a firearm. In addition, I believe I left a very positive impression of private gun owners and OCers. And I did it without spending months or years waging a lawsuit and having all the stress associated therewith. I didn't get myself labeled a "troublemaker" who can expect to never get a break in the future.

Now, there is a time for lawsuits. There is a time to fully assert every right you have. There are even times when being a jerk is entirely necessary and appropriate. And when those times come, we need to do what we need to do.

But at other times, we might give a little more thought to how to really achieve our end goals the best. Anyone looking for a silver bullet or other quick fix to the issue of cops approaching OCers just because they are OCing hasn't been paying attention the last 30 years, or even the last 4. Slow, steady, incremental improvement brings sure results with minimal risks.

Multi-pronged efforts, with patience, while smiling and being civil whenever and to the greatest extent possible.

DaKnife said:
So yes cooperate if so stopped. Then file a complaint after the fact. But Snaggle is right in that such policy is not correct and should be protested at such a venue as it was. And requiring someone to prove CFP holder or Loaded/unloaded is not legal since it requires RAS for a terry stop as such questions require the individual to violate their 5th amendment rights.
No disagreement. But as rpyne's post demonstrates, when this topic comes up, it is not going to be off topic to remind us that civility and cooperation, even above and beyond what may be legally required, might just be the best course to follow in certain circumstances.

Others are free to disagree with me on this. But I think my experience and results speak for themselves. While others seem to be magnets for police scrutiny, I somehow manage to OC whenever I like and rarely get any attention at all, and when I do, it tends to be positive rather than negative. That could change tomorrow, of course. There is always the chance that the next cop who sees me OCing is going to be a jerk. But even then, as the Good Book counsels,"A soft answers turns away wrath."

To each their own.

And with the session ending tonight, a few good folks will have some additional time to contact BCI and make inquires and lodge concerns/complaints about this issue.

Charles
 
#13 ·
DaKnife said:
The question/topic posed was BCI telling instructors to teach that police are 'obligated' to stop and proceed to a terry stop should someone call and say they saw a gun. Asking to verify CFP/ID and loaded/unloaded is more than just consensual contact. That is in fact a Terry stop and requires RAS not provided just because someone called and said they saw a gun. And evidently many police officers feel they are so obligated, when the Supreme court has said they are not obligated to act before a crime has been committed.

So yes cooperate if so stopped. Then file a complaint after the fact. But Snaggle is right in that such policy is not correct and should be protested at such a venue as it was. And requiring someone to prove CFP holder or Loaded/unloaded is not legal since it requires RAS for a terry stop as such questions require the individual to violate their 5th amendment rights.
I believe that the idea of any stop-and-talk "obligation" comes probably from the various law-enforcement "fusion centers" in Utah (Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, Utah Criminal Intelligence Center, among others) which combine state, local and federal agencies, and the interagency agreements that exist between otherwise "independent" agencies. Through such centers and agreements, the federal government easily dictates the conditions and "obligations" that it wants from local "host" agencies.

At my MWAG stop in 2007, I was lucky enough to be detained by a senior Salt Lake City Police Department officer who was also a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit instructor. While he knew most of the relevant state firearm laws, he either didn't know or chose not to admit other certain laws. I agreed to show my permit to him, but said that I wasn't required to provide it because my firearm was "Utah unloaded." Despite that, he was clearly asking questions that suggested to me that he was attempting to develop evidence of criminal trespass (there was none because I had never been asked to leave) or disorderly conduct (he must have decided against that route because he told me to leave the event, which I did). My consequent internal-affairs complaint and complaint against the city was just my way of recording the stop and making future such stops less likely (which was a pipe dream because the Lund v. Salt Lake City Corp. incident happened shortly after mine). Clearly, the SLCPD learned nothing.

I was told by many Second Amendment activists, lawyers and leaders at the time that a "multi-pronged" effort must be accomplished before we could hope to restrict LEOs from unconstitutional behaviors. That was seven years ago. Meanwhile, Lund happened. Now, the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification is telling certified instructors that LEOs are "obligated" to conduct stop-and-talks. Nothing has changed. The victims of these stops are expected to bear the burden of ending them (a wild goose chase); and our local and national advocates declined twice to help me, at least. That is why the stops persist. And, I agree that the question "may I see your CFP?" is akin to "show me your papers." After all, George Carlin warned us that "[w]hen fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts.... Germany lost the Second World War. Fascism won it. Believe me, my friend."
 
#14 ·
David Nelson said:
I was told by many Second Amendment activists, lawyers and leaders at the time that a "multi-pronged" effort must be accomplished before we could hope to restrict LEOs from unconstitutional behaviors. That was seven years ago. Meanwhile, Lund happened. Now, the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification is telling certified instructors that LEOs are "obligated" to conduct stop-and-talks. Nothing has changed. The victims of these stops are expected to bear the burden of ending them (a wild goose chase); and our local and national advocates declined twice to help me, at least. That is why the stops persist.
Criticism is easy. What alternative course of action do you believe will be more productive, Dave?

Charles
 
#15 ·
IMHO, a multi-pronged attack or approach does not end because one of the tines gets hung up or encounters opposition. It simply requires a redirection of force or effort concentrated on the area of resistance/push-back. Giving up is not an option, nor do I think that anyone is giving up. Participating in this forum is usually a good indicator that one hasn't thrown in the towel.

Let's see... the OP started out with a complaint about the perceived instruction to instructors regarding interaction between LEO and the general public (carrying or not) and comments directed towards one of many ways to conduct oneself during the encounter were countered with a question as to the relevance of the comments. Cooperate or not, both are a form of conduct that one is engaged in during these encounters. Because one isn't your choice doesn't negate it as a viable option for you (F=MA) or anyone else, for that matter, to choose.

:raisedbrow:
 
#16 ·
bagpiper said:
rpyne said:
Your papers please!

Sorry, surrendering your rights does not protect your rights.
I'm sorry, but comparing police officers on the street doing their job, in a non-violent manner, as it has been explained to them, to Nazi Gestapo or Communist Secret Police demonstrates an attitude of incivility and confrontation. And with all due respect, I think it shows a certain lack of tactical and strategic forethought.s
Please explain how "Show me some identification" is any different the "Your papers please." When more and more police officers are behaving like the Nazi Gestapo or Communist Secret Police, they are the ones fomenting the attitude of incivility and confrontation.
 
#17 ·
rpyne said:
bagpiper said:
rpyne said:
Your papers please!

Sorry, surrendering your rights does not protect your rights.
I'm sorry, but comparing police officers on the street doing their job, in a non-violent manner, as it has been explained to them, to Nazi Gestapo or Communist Secret Police demonstrates an attitude of incivility and confrontation. And with all due respect, I think it shows a certain lack of tactical and strategic forethought.s
Please explain how 'Show me some identification' is any different the 'Your papers please.' When more and more police officers are behaving like the Nazi Gestapo or Communist Secret Police, they are the ones fomenting the attitude of incivility and confrontation.
Well, now you are just being logical. Next, you will be calling a spade a spade.
 
#18 ·
rpyne said:
Please explain how "Show me some identification" is any different the "Your papers please." When more and more police officers are behaving like the Nazi Gestapo or Communist Secret Police, they are the ones fomenting the attitude of incivility and confrontation.
It is the difference between randomly approaching people on the street, or engaging in "racial profiling" and asking for a driver license after making a traffic stop.

While OCing is not, often, of itself a crime, it is still rare/unusual enough, concerning enough to many, and there are enough small technicalities that could easily make it a crime (fully loaded without a permit, school zone without a permit, under 18, prohibited person, etc) that as much as you and I may find any police contact to be offensive, unwanted, and unwarranted, such contact is most often materially different and with different outcomes and intents than were demands from the gestapo.

Indeed, such comparisons to the gestapo are nigh unto falling into Godwin's Law. And having freely admitted you did intend to make an overt allusion to the Gestaop I will quote from the wiki article on Godwin's law: "There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law."

Not every unwanted or even offensive act is properly compared to Nazism. To compare a peaceful, brief encounter with a US police officer asking for a permit or other ID in response to a MAWG call to the Nazi Secret Police tends to undermine any credibility that the conduct was, in fact offensive. It is like referring to Obama as a "Kenyan" or to those who support legalized elective abortion as baby killers or homosexuals as...

Charles
 
#19 ·
David Nelson said:
Well, now you are just being logical. Next, you will be calling a spade a spade.
Kind of like me pointing out that the courts have been quite consistent in not preventing cops from making these kinds of stop and IDs when a gun is visible?

Even our much loved footnote in Lund dd not say cops can't make a stop, only that the state's interest in fighting crime and keeping the peace must be weighed against Utah law and public policy allowing and even encouraging public possession of a firearm.

To pretend that the visible presence of a firearm does not have some material effect on a given situation is to refuse to even see a spade. When we refuse to or are simply incapable of seeing and acknowledging the viewpoint of our opponents or even those who are neutral, we lose much credibility. Hyperbolic references to Nazis also destroy all credibility.

Acknowledge that the visible presence of a firearm is somewhat rare and potentially of concern to some persons (mostly those of big-city, liberal bent as you discovered when one of your "friends" called in a MAWG complaint against you). Admit there are times when an officer should confirm lack of criminal intent in as non-invasive a fashion and possible. Encourage those who OC to be civil and cooperative within reason. And then explain how offensive some stops are and demand that they be ended....you know, perhaps by supporting legislation to provide safe harbor against DoC for the most common forms of OC.

But hey, keep looking for them spades and getting angry at everyone except the big city liberals who actually make the MWAG complaints that tend to trigger these unwanted encounters in the first place.

Charles
 
#20 ·
Once again, I've been sitting on my hands, and not joining the fray, but I'm finally compelled to add my two cents worth.

It all depends on the attitude of the officer making the approach. If he comes across as belligerent, condescending, arrogant or otherwise offensively, then I'm going to take offense at the stop. Whether I'm carrying or not. If I'm approached in a professional manor, and a conversation ensues, I'm going to be as cooperative as I can be, and do so willingly. I carry my concealed carry permit proudly, I'm not adverse to displaying it if asked nicely, and in a public setting I can understand why a MWAG might draw attention. And in truth, I don't even feel compelled to complain, or to educate the officer involved, other than perhaps asking his RAS for asking for my identification. And in a polite society, I believe that request to be completely legitimate. As should any reasonable officer.

I've honestly never had a confrontational contact with law enforcement, though I'll chalk some of that up to Charles' self description of being an overweight, middle aged white guy that drives a conservative vehicle and hopefully rarely gives off overly offensive vibes. Though I do wear some downright rude T-shirts, but that's a different story.

I take describing our LEO's as Nazi's much in the same vein as I did in the 70's when they were referred to as pigs, or rarely the man. Usually by people that were breaking the law, or at least gave the appearance of doing so. There is no doubt that the profession does have a draw for a certain arrogant type of person, but honestly I've only known or known of a couple locally. And even they were polite as long as they were treated with respect or at least politeness. And officer or not, if I'm approached politely, I'll respond in the same manner.

So, yes, I have a problem with instructors being trained incorrectly. I think the BCI needs to address it. For them to in fact do so, requires that they be made aware of the situation. So, by all means, write a letter to the officer's superior and copy the BCI on the encounter. Raise a flag. But I can't see responding to the officer with a "Hiel Hitler", and making a scene either. There's plenty of room for a middle ground.

Mel
 
#22 ·
The officer can ASK all he wants and I am just fine with this PROVIDED, that when I refuse his request (not a demand) as I am NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED to participate with him in a CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER that I don't consent too and he allows me to proceed on my way as I will without ANY impediment by him.

IF the officer makes a Demand I will provide that which is demanded while making it clear that I don't consent but am COMPLYING ONLY DUE TO HIS DEMAND. Then AFTER I will make inquiries through Utah's GRAMA laws or Federal FIOA laws to determine IF the officer was justified in his DEMAND or if he was VIOLATING my RIGHTS by EXCEEDING what he is AUTHORIZED by law.

UNFORTUNATELY, it seems per the report that BCI or someone else is failing to distinguish between and OFFICER'S request and an officer's legal demand! The LEO's EMPLOYER may be making demands of the officer that require the LEO to violate my rights to comply with the employer's policy. I see this as a problem that MUST be corrected and curtailed.
 
#23 ·
JoeSparky said:
The officer can ASK all he wants and I am just fine with this PROVIDED, that when I refuse his request (not a demand) as I am NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED to participate with him in a CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER that I don't consent too and he allows me to proceed on my way as I will without ANY impediment by him.

IF the officer makes a Demand I will provide that which is demanded while making it clear that I don't consent but am COMPLYING ONLY DUE TO HIS DEMAND. Then AFTER I will make inquiries through Utah's GRAMA laws or Federal FIOA laws to determine IF the officer was justified in his DEMAND or if he was VIOLATING my RIGHTS by EXCEEDING what he is AUTHORIZED by law.

UNFORTUNATELY, it seems per the report that BCI or someone else is failing to distinguish between and OFFICER'S request and an officer's legal demand! The LEO's EMPLOYER may be making demands of the officer that require the LEO to violate my rights to comply with the employer's policy. I see this as a problem that MUST be corrected and curtailed.
Personally I don't feel the need to force a polite request to be turned in to a demand. I understand that the officer may be exceeding his authority, but I'm not offended by it. While I understand your position and certainly would defend your right to act as you describe, it still isn't how I would handle it.

To each their own! Carry on.

Mel

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk HD
 
#24 ·
Quychang---

my point on this is this---

As long as the populace ALLOWS the officer to exceed what he is lawfully allowed the officer begins to EXPECT and then DEMAND that all acquiesce to his EXTRA LEGAL actions INSTEAD of recognizing his limitations PER THE LAW and CONSTITUTION. I would much rather the officer LIMIT himself to that which is legal instead of to what he has gotten used too.

Some may see this and a very hard line way to look at it but it can be done in a polite manner (at least as to MY behavior and action).
 
#25 ·
JoeSparky said:
Quychang---

my point on this is this---

As long as the populace ALLOWS the officer to exceed what he is lawfully allowed the officer begins to EXPECT and then DEMAND that all acquiesce to his EXTRA LEGAL actions INSTEAD of recognizing his limitations PER THE LAW and CONSTITUTION. I would much rather the officer LIMIT himself to that which is legal instead of to what he has gotten used too.

Some may see this and a very hard line way to look at it but it can be done in a polite manner (at least as to MY behavior and action).
I don't disagree, but for me, I choose a more moderate path. I never have been inclined towards being a crusader. It doesn't mean I'm not supportive of those that are, simply that my energy is focused on other things.

I wish you nothing but success in your encounters and respect your stand.

Mel

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk HD
 
#26 ·
I'm stubborn. If a cop DEMANDS something of me that's legal, then I will do said thing. If he DEMANDS something of me that is outside of his power to demand, I will do everything in my power to countermand it. For me, it's that simple.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top