Help educate a european

Police officer: I suspect you are not an adult, show me your ID!
is that correct and are you forced to show it then? Or just be arrested on the spot.
It comes down to a presumption of innocence that's intrinsic to our way of life. If an officer suspects I'm not an adult, he needs to have reasonable, articulable cause (RAS) to detain me. He'll have to convince a court of that. A "hunch" is not enough.

We have a unique system of government in which our Bill of Rights reserves certain rights to the citizenry, and the government must prove a significant burden of proof or necessity to infringe upon them. Among those are protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and against self-incrimination.

Most European countries have documents that make vague promises to respect vaguely-defined rights, but they are not as specific or as stern as our constitution.
 
So a police officer see someone carrying a gun how is he supposed to know if he is carrying it legal or not without asking him. ? If he or anyone with a bit of common sense would identify them salves. Incidents like this only put the police and public of open carry.
 
Husqvarna said:
I mean you would show your drivers license if the cops pulled you over right? what is the difference?

Though others will disagree, I will share my view...

I feel there are many that do not understand the differences between Consensual Encounters vs. Detentions, plus they also try to play "ego games" with others. In a consensual encouter a person is free to leave, and is not required to answer any questions generally, in that its just a conversation, like speaking to another person while waiting in line. A traffic stop is a detention, and a person (depending on the state) is required to identify, and follow lawful orders.

The person in the video asked if he was being "detained", and was "he free to leave" though it seems he was making a big deal out of it, and was probably seeking an encounter.
 
Most Americans are very suspicious of anyone asking you where you are going and why you are going just because someone with a little authority wants to exercise it.

If I am driving the speed limit and am pulled over by law enforcement, it had better be for a good reason and not a hunch.

We are seeing the same thing at airports now. If one opts out of the xray and chooses to be patted down, the TSA dude who is assigned to wait until a qualified officer to conduct the patdown shows up, will be asking you where you are going...all very innocently, until you realize he is fishing for information.

They do not need to know where I am traveling or why. As long as I am not carrying weapons, where I go, when I go there and what I intend to do when I arrive is my business and mine alone.

I do not like the idea of having to produce credentials to anyone on demand, absent probable cause.

Just because you are curious does not give you the moral or legal right to interfere with me and where I might be going.

Geetarman:D
 
Incidents like this only put the police and public of open carry.

Manta,

Not always. Arizona is a pretty good place to live for a lot of reasons.

I went over to a restaurant to pick up a carry out of chicken and there was a guy in line open carrying a 1911 cocked and locked.

It did not concern me except the fact the guy might not have been the sharpest tool in the shed.

Open carry is permissable but not always the smartest way to carry.

You can invite unwanted attention.

Geetarman:D
 
Request vs. Order also comes in because of consent.

Say you’ve been drinking and are in a private area… Cop asks you to come out into a public area. If you do it, he can charge you with public drunk. If you reply that you want to stay where you are. The cop has a choice to leave you there, or order you out into public.
If he orders you out, he can’t arrest you for public drunk when you come out. He can arrest you if you refuse to come out and he has "RAS" you’re doing something against the law.

Same thing applies for everything from checking IDs to Cops pretending to be hookers...
Asking someone to incriminate themselves is A-OKAY ! Forcing them is never correct.

Citizens retain all their natural rights in this country, and that includes the right to do something stupid... doesn't remove the natural consequences, though.
 
They walk among us .... Idiots

Legal or not. Right or wrong. In good times and in bad times, this guy is an idiot and spends too much time, in front of a mirror. ..... :rolleyes:

In Iowa and we do have open carry, you are obligated to show your carry permit upon the request of an LEO. Since the passage of Shall-Issue, I have only see two open carries, one at a gun show and the other that peeked out from under a T-shirt. ..... ;)

Be Civil and;
Be Safe !!!
 
Last year, when I still was enrolled in public school, the police came on two occassions with drug-sniffing dogs, no reason, just brought in to smell us and our bags, make sure we didn't have anything illegal(I, of course, didn't)

I felt that they were out of line, and I think saying that you have to show your permit to any officer that wants it is also out of line.

I cannot wait until I can exercise the bill of rights. As I have been told several times before, I apparently don't have most of my natural rights until I am 18 years old.
 
Last year, when I still was enrolled in public school, the police came on two occassions with drug-sniffing dogs, no reason, just brought in to smell us and our bags, make sure we didn't have anything illegal(I, of course, didn't)

I felt that they were out of line, and I think saying that you have to show your permit to any officer that wants it is also out of line.

I cannot wait until I can exercise the bill of rights. As I have been told several times before, I apparently don't have most of my natural rights until I am 21 years old.

Fixed that for you,...

Never got that personally... you can be handed an m60 and go take fire for your country but god forbid you have a beer or purchase a handgun.
 
OP, the officer needs Reasonable Articulable Suspicion to make the stop. He needs Probable Cause (a higher evidentiary standard) to make an arrest.
 
"Legal or not. Right or wrong. In good times and in bad times, this guy is an idiot and spends too much time, in front of a mirror"

^^^ 10K X

"In your face Open Carry Activists" = Idiots that hurt us far more than they help us.

You can thank them for California now not allowing it at all... even in the desert where it was common.


Willie

.
 
Then again, the fact that CA banned (ridiculous IE unloaded) open carry is what opened the door to challenges of "May Issue."
 
I didn't mean drinking or handguns, that I understand, but as a minor, I was refering to the more fundamental rights, mostly the first and fourth admendments; I can't speak freely and I can't be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. At least that's how it seems.

If I say something that my parents do not like, especially my views on how the constitution does not say "the right of the people 18 years and older", I get in trouble, if my parents or possibly even the police want to look around in my property, they can as long as my parents say they can, I have no freedom of liberty, because what my parents say goes, I don't have the freedom of walking away if my parents confront me, and, if I were still in public school, if a kid were to punch me and I hit him back, I am just as likely to be suspended/expelled for my actions as him, even if it was completely justifiable self defense.
 
Gunnut, regarding your rights at school, the Supreme Court has gone back and forward on that throughout our history. The current interpretation at least as regards speech deviated from the relatively student-expression-protective Tinker standard to the more-deferent Hazelwood and Bethel standard. Look up those cases (all U.S. Supreme Court cases) for interesting reasoning as to why student rights are abridged somewhat.
 
Interesting caveat for some states I'd think.

Here in Texas, although you may not be required to show your license if you're just walking around town (not carrying), it looks like you'd need to give them BOTH licenses (conceal carry & regular ID) if they ask you to and you're carrying.

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE.
"If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license."
 
manta49 said:
So a police officer see someone carrying a gun how is he supposed to know if he is carrying it legal or not without asking him. ? If he or anyone with a bit of common sense would identify them salves. Incidents like this only put the police and public of open carry.
Well, the short answer is, "He's not."

You and Husqvarna and other Europeans have not lived subject to the freedoms (supposedly) guaranteed by our Constitution. One of those is that we are legally presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. More specific to this discussion, however, is the 4th Amendment. A few years after the adoption of the original Constitution, the founders of this country adopted a set of ten amendments that are together known as the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment, which (supposedly) guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, is one of these ten amendments. So is the 4th Amendment, which reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."​
Demanding identification without "probable cause" that a person may have committed a crime is considered to be an "unreasonable" search and seizure. Several decades ago there was a landmark legal case that went to the Supreme Court. The case was Terry v. Ohio. Although the Supreme Court actually ruled against poor Mr. Terry, the written decision very firmly clarified when a police office may or may not stop and interrogate a potential suspect.

As has been commented, it is not sufficient for a police officer to have a "hunch" that someone may be up to no good. In the language of the Supreme Court, the officer must have "a reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts, that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed." The court specifically and explicitly stated that a "mere hunch" is NOT sufficient.

What I think you Europeans overlook is that, in most (not all) of our states it is legal to openly carry a firearm. In those states where it is legal, the mere fact that you see someone openly carrying a handgun in no way offers anything whatsoever to suggest that he or she is breaking the law. Thus, absent other contributing facts that might pass court scrutiny as being enough to establish a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts," a police officer would have no legal justification for stopping an open carrier.

However, as has been noted, this varies by state. Some states allow open carry only with a carry license, and some of those states further require the licensee to show the license upon demand. Where it gets interesting is the states where this is written as "upon lawful demand," which leaves room for plenty of potential both for abuse and for litigation for unlawful detention.

You used the analogy of driving a car and needing a driver's license, but that analogy fails on multiple fronts. First, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, it is not a right. Second, it requires a license in every state. In many states, open carry does NOT require any license. Lastly, our courts have ruled that police may NOT stop cars at random just to ask if the driver has a license. If they aren't allowed to randomly stop people engaging in what is ONLY a licensed privilege, why should they be allowed to stop people who are engaging in a Constitutional right, which may not even require a license?
 
Last edited:
animal said:
If he orders you out, he can’t arrest you for public drunk when you come out. He can arrest you if you refuse to come out and he has "RAS" you’re doing something against the law.
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!


There is NO SUCH THING as "RAS."

Show me where "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion" appears in Terry v. Ohio or any other Supreme Court decision.
 
AB, a lot of trainers use that as an easily remembered shorthand version of "a reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts."

I've heard it from at least three reputable folks. As a description or a mnemonic, it works just fine.

Lawyers should be more specific, but they should look up their citations for more specificity than most of us require.
 
RAS is an informal name for a doctrine police departments adopted. The general outline is in the Terry majority opinion:

And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.
 
Back
Top