The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 21, 2011, 08:24 PM   #26
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Why would any LEO not secure a weapon when talking to a suspect?
Why would a law enforcement officer regard a citizen as a suspect? Open carry is legal in Colorado except in Telluride, Denver, and possibly Boulder, (where it's illegal to smoke in public.) No one is a "suspect" who's merely exercising his civil rights.
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.
Standing Wolf is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 09:06 PM   #27
Ronbert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2009
Location: Ft. Collins, CO.
Posts: 398
Years ago when I was first investigating whether obtaining a CCW permit was possible in the town next door to Loveland I was informed that open carry would "get you proned out" by my city's cops. "Yes, it's legal to carry openly. But officers will approach with holsters unsnapped" and give you orders to eat dirt.

That was when CCW permits were NOT issued by the then-Sheriff and the Police Chief was adamant against all non-police guns and charged a large non-refundable fee to apply for the permit that he wouldn't issue.

We replaced that Sheriff with a guy who went to the Legislature as the head of the Sheriff's Association and advocated for shall-issue CCW permits.
We got shall-issue permits.

Considering the relatively gun-friendly atmosphere in the county (Loveland is in my same county and we had that same gun-friendly Sheriff until he was term-limited out) I think both sides over reacted.

Good thing the "victim" wasn't a New York lawyer. Loveland would be out another zero or two.
Ronbert is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 09:09 PM   #28
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
Any lawyers care to answer:

So was there not a violation of the Second Amendment in this instance?

If so, was there a possible criminal charge against the rights violator?
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 10:11 PM   #29
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
For those who think the police acted reasonably...

... please realize that it's a fairly normal thing for anti-gun departments to instruct their officers to effectively harass open carriers. There was a thread not too long ago about one major city police chief who had instructed his officers to stop everybody they saw carrying, even though open carry was legal.

Said police chief apparently thought it would be just great if a carrier got checked every few blocks or so.

The only thing that gets the attention of such departments (and typically city councils and mayors, since not that many police chiefs embark on such campaigns without at least tacit approval) is hitting them in the checkbook.

I'm all for making their stupidity hurt. In a legal manner, of course.

More power to the plaintiff.
MLeake is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 10:32 PM   #30
LouCap
Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2010
Posts: 57
So, are we suggesting that police responding to a 911 or "man with a gun" call should not investigate, nor do anything to ensure their own safety until they determine the severity of the situation? They have a duty to respond, it's not a choice. At most, the man was inconvenienced and then sent on his merry way once they determined the call had no merit. If anything, the people who made the call are to blame, and perhaps they are the ones who need to be educated, not the police.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.
LouCap is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 10:44 PM   #31
jcsturgeon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Posts: 291
Quote:
Would you like to be stopped, and questioned for speaking out publicly about an issue and exercising your First Amendment rights?
Open carry is the extreme end of second amendment rights. It accomplishes nothing but intimidation and offers zero tactical advantage. So, using your analogy, if someone was running down the street screaming in people's faces I would expect police officers to take an interest and do a stop and investigate to make sure the person is alright and assess the situation. Possibly, they would just find out the person was an a-hole, as was the case here.
__________________
The Beatles were wrong, happiness is not a warm gun. It's a new gun.
jcsturgeon is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 10:49 PM   #32
Silver Bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 995
Quote:
Why would a law enforcement officer regard a citizen as a suspect? Open carry is legal in Colorado except in Telluride, Denver, and possibly Boulder, (where it's illegal to smoke in public.) No one is a "suspect" who's merely exercising his civil rights.
Score another one for Mr. Wolf.
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television.

American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them.
Silver Bullet is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 10:56 PM   #33
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouCap
So, are we suggesting that police responding to a 911 or "man with a gun" call should not investigate, nor do anything to ensure their own safety until they determine the severity of the situation? They have a duty to respond, it's not a choice. At most, the man was inconvenienced and then sent on his merry way once they determined the call had no merit. If anything, the people who made the call are to blame, and perhaps they are the ones who need to be educated, not the police.
Two cases that made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court have established that in order for a police officer to make an "investigative stop" he must first have "a reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts, that a crime has been committed, IS BEING committed, or is about to be committed." (Google "Terry Stop" and "Hiibel")

If the officer cannot clearly articulate why he suspects that the person has committed or is committing a crime, then no ... the officer may NOT detain the individual, or disarm the individual "to ensure his own safety." Thus, location is important. In Chicago, where there are no carry permits, it can be reasonably suspected that a man wearing a gun is breaking the law. In Loveland, CO, where open carry is legal, the fact that the man was wearing a gun does not provide any indication whatsoever of criminal activity, and thus the officer had NO LEGAL RIGHT to detain or to disarm the man.

Do the police have a duty to investigate? Maybe yes, maybe no. My view is that "man with a gun" calls should be handled first at the dispatcher level. Let's say (just for argument) that we're in Loveland, CO, and someone sees a man sitting on a park bench, eating his lunch. And the man happens to be wearing a sidearm, in a holster.

Suzie Soccermom gets her knickers in a twist and calls the police: "Hello, police? I'm in the park and there's a man here! And, and ... he has a g-g-g-GUN!"

Now, according to you, the police "must" investigate. I ask: Investigate WHAT? So far, there's nothing to indicate a crime. So the dispatcher should then ask Ms. Soccermom, "M'am, what's the man doing?"

SS: "He's ... he's ... he's sitting on a park bench. Eating a sandwich. But, but ... he has a g-g-g-GUN!"

D: "Yes M'am, he has a gun, I got that. What is he doing with the gun?"

SS: "Well, nothing. He's wearing it in a thingie on his belt. But, but, he's in the PARK! And he has a g-g-g-GUN!"

D: "Yes, M'am. But he isn't threatening anyone? Is he pointing the gun at anyone? Is he shooting the gun?"

SS: "No, I told you -- he's eating a sandwich. B-b-b-but ... he has a g-g-g-GUN!!!!"

D: "Ummm, M'am, it's legal to carry a gun in Colorado, per state law. Unless he's shooting the gun or pointing it someone, we can't do anything. have a nice day." -click-

That's all that's necessary. Really.

Look at it another way: Everyone needs a license to drive, correct? What if I called the police department to report that I just saw a man driving a CAR down Main Street. MUST the police department dispatch an officer (or a flippin' SWAT team) to "investigate" a report of a man driving a car? Heck, no, they'd tell me to pound sand, and probably send the officer to arrest ME for wasting their time.

Why is a "Man with a gun" call any different in a jurisdiction where carry (and open carry) is legal? What;s the crime the officer is going to investigate? "Suspicion of engaging in lawful activity"?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 21, 2011, 11:05 PM   #34
LouCap
Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2010
Posts: 57
I would submit that the call to dispatch gave the responding officer all of the PC he/she needed yo conduct an investigation. A car is not a gun, and given the current climate and recent events, every gun call needs to be taken seriously. I hear what you're saying about 2nd amendment rights, but if we go to such extremes where the police cannot even conduct an investigation initiated by a citizen's call, then ALL of the smart criminals should start to OC too, because in that world they are impervious to police scrutiny. I mean, where do you draw the line?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.
LouCap is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 12:50 AM   #35
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Knizner
When you say "hoodlum", I think "habitual criminal". They would be a prohibited person on the Federal level. They are committing a crime just by the act of possessing a firearm.

I guess that is the reason that open carrying hoodlums are not a problem- they all carry CONCEALED to avoid detection of their illegal firearms.

Bob
When I use the term hoodlum, I mean he looks like a gang member. Maybe he is covered in tatoos, dressed with his pants half way down his ankles, possibly wearing gang colors, etc... One would obviously have no way of knowing whether or not the person in question is a "habitual criminal" or some poser. Back to the same question... Should the police be allowed to stop and question someone based on their appearnace, even if they are not committing a crime?
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 01:23 AM   #36
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
I have no problem with police investigating the call however they need to make sure that no one's constitutional rights are being violated. I'd rather the police question the person and then make the conclusion rather than taking away his/her gun first then asking questions.
Davey is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 09:12 AM   #37
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
jcsturgeon....

.... I think you and I might disagree on who the a-hole is in this situation.

LouCap, jcsturgeon, and a couple others - please bear in mind that Colorado is an open carry state. In other words, NO CRIME is being committed just because somebody carries openly. There is NO BASIS for police to believe a crime is being committed.

Unless we want the police to be allowed to assume that EVERYBODY is a felon until verified otherwise, that is.

So you think the police have a duty to respond to every call, and do a full investigation?

Hmmm... so the old lady down the street hates dogs, especially pit bulls. She calls the police, because a guy is walking his leashed pit bull. Exactly how deep an investigation should the police do for that one?

Or those damn kids are playing basketball in the driveway again....

Just what calls, in your minds, do NOT require a "thorough investigation?"

The cops should use some discretion, and realize that unless the guy is behaving in a threatening manner, or exhibiting some other suspicious behavior, that there is no reasonable basis for a stop just because he is openly carrying in a place where open carry is perfectly legal.

The a-holes are the people who think the cops should fully investigate any complaint made by any random ninny without exercising any of their own judgement.

And there's been plenty of recent case law to back that up.
MLeake is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 11:43 AM   #38
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouCap
I would submit that the call to dispatch gave the responding officer all of the PC he/she needed yo conduct an investigation.
How could a telephone call to dispatch constitute an officer's reasonable suspicion?
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 02:44 PM   #39
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouCap
I would submit that the call to dispatch gave the responding officer all of the PC he/she needed yo conduct an investigation.
In view of the extremely clear and specific guidelines set down by the Supreme Court, HOW do you conclude that the call gave the officers ANY "need" to conduct an investigation? There was nothing reported to indicate criminal activity. Even if an officer was dispatched, as soon as he saw that the gentleman was carrying peacefully and in accordance with the law, any need for further "investigation" disappeared.

Quote:
A car is not a gun, and given the current climate and recent events, every gun call needs to be taken seriously.
Cars kill many more people annually than guns. Both are inanimate objects, subject to either proper use, or improper abuse. You think all gun calls need to be taken seriously; I think all car calls need to be taken seriously.

The Supreme Court has established the criteria. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. If we are a nation of laws, the police have to follow the laws.

Quote:
I hear what you're saying about 2nd amendment rights, but if we go to such extremes where the police cannot even conduct an investigation initiated by a citizen's call, then ALL of the smart criminals should start to OC too, because in that world they are impervious to police scrutiny. I mean, where do you draw the line?
I draw the line right there. I don't think asking that the police respect my Constitutional 2nd Amendment right is an "extreme" at all. The fact that you regard asking the police to respect fundamental civil rights as "extreme" is, to me, frightening.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; March 22, 2011 at 08:42 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 07:00 PM   #40
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
Standing Wolf,

Quote:
No one is a "suspect" who's merely exercising his civil rights.
Good call. The courts have ruled that no person may be held suspect for the mere exercise of their Constitutional rights. Looks like that is what happened here.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 08:59 PM   #41
HuntAndFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO.
Posts: 580
delete...
__________________
NRA Benefactor
MSSA Life Member

Last edited by HuntAndFish; March 22, 2011 at 09:07 PM.
HuntAndFish is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 09:35 PM   #42
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
The cops where dumb, end of story.

If he wasn't doing anything threatening or breaking the law they should left him alone. At best they could have asked him a couple of questions.
NJgunowner is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10502 seconds with 8 queries