Police and Open Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott Conklin

New member
OK, with the closure of the other thread came the idea of offering a scenerio where disarming a citizen who is carrying unconcealed would be appropriate. Hmmm...I had one then as I started writing this I picked it apart in more depth and it sort of disintegrated...

OK. A call comes in regarding a man with a gun. State law does not specifically preclude this so it is, in fact, "legal"(leaving out any discussion of basic rights for the time being). I can't fault a cop for responding to this, of course. I also can't fault a cop for observing the "suspect" and his behavior. If, after some observation, it seems nothing is going on indicating threat or criminal intent it would also be logical for the officer to approach the person and ask to see identification. At that point I don't really see a valid reason for disarming the individual BUT if said officer tells me he'd appreciate seeing ID and he'd like to hold onto the gun while checking things out I doubt I'd be averse to it. In todays world it is logical. I would also not be particularly inclined to start a debate with an officer if he's plainly just trying to do the right thing by everyone concerned.

Where I see the problem arising is in the perceived intent of the phrases used by the resident police here. I'm not going to go back and hunt for the exact quote but it basically boiled down to arriving on scene, drawing down on the individual and disarming him at gun point with the usual "hands against the wall, spread 'em, here come the cuffs" routine used for someone truly suspected of or caught in the act of a crime. That infers guilt in this scenerio based solely on the fact someone is engaging in a perfectly lawful activity. Sorry, but that ain't how the system is supposed to work and arguments of "officer safety" don't cut it. A reasonable degree of safety can be acheived via observation and an effort at some degree of respect, or at least courtesy.

The fact is it's very unlikely a guy in a store with a pistol on his side is looking to start a ruckus. If he is it's very likely he's going to demonstrate that fact before the approaching officer ever gets near him. If you have him hog-tied and on the ground while he still has a look of HUH!? on his face you can pretty well bet you just man-handled one of the good guys. THAT is what generates lawsuits and bad press and the ever increasing degree of distrust the general public has for law enforcement these days.

It would seem to me that observation and tact could avoid a great many problems and even, possibly, a poorly organized confrontation with a goblin if the "man with a gun" should be out to do no good. It would certainly leave me with much better thoughts directed at the officer, his department and police in general were I on the receiving end of such attention.
 
I mostly agree.... except...

If, after some observation, it seems nothing is going on indicating threat or criminal intent it would also be logical for the officer to approach the person and ask to see identification. At that point I don't really see a valid reason for disarming the individual BUT if said officer tells me he'd appreciate seeing ID and he'd like to hold onto the gun while checking things out I doubt I'd be averse to it.

I mostly agree, assuming the circumstances are not such that the LEO in question portrays the all-too-common "I'm in charge here and you MUST obey me" attitude. If 'officer friendly' is polite in requesting ID, I would be inclined to show it. We may even have a short conversation about my chosen make/model/caliber. If he demands (rather than politely requests) my submission (or attempts to forcibly detain or disarm me), my attitude (and the encounter) will go south quickly.

Truth is, if he's observed no suspicious behavior and has no reason to believe (articulable suspicion) that I'm in the process of committing a crime (which I'm NOT, when open carry is a legal activity), then he has no reason to ask me for identification to begin with. In the United States of America, citizens are not (yet) required to carry goverment-issued 'identity papers' every time they leave their homes.

True enough, he has the right to ask that I produce ID, but I also have the right to refuse it. In fact, I might not be carrying ID if my wife had been driving. I'm old enough that I can't be mistaken (by any 'reasonable' person) for a minor.

As I see it, since the activity is perfectly legal and there is no reason to suspect otherwise, the conversation should go something like this:
LEO: Excuse me sir, I notice that you're carrying a holstered pistol, and wonder if you wouldn't mind showing me some identification.

ME: No thank you officer, I'd rather not be bothered right now.

LEO: Thank you sir, have a nice day.

I seriously doubt the conversation would actually unfold like that, but see no reason why it shouldn't. I'm relatively certain that most LEOs would apply a little more coercion and try their level-best to "talk me into voluntarily complying with their reasonable requests". I'm also pretty sure that if I couldn't be talked into submission many LEOs would become gradually more forceful in their request/insistance until they eventually crossed into JBT mode.

Still waiting for SCOTUS to render a decision if the Hiibel case, concerning whether "we, the people" are required to produce identification upon demand.
 
As RickD about his experiences in Tempe and Glendale, AZ, when we were up to our activism regarding open carry.

Very very amusing.

Unless you were Rick. :)
 
I don't think it's hard to envision a scenario where it would be perfectly appropriate.

Someone enters a story carrying openly, and becomes verbally abusive to the staff or other customers. Someone carrying openly makes threats to people around him. Puts his hand on his gun frequently while making comments about bad things happening if he doesn't get his way...

Someone enters a bank and walks around in a manner that is more consistent with casing the place than with doing business there...

Someone walking around with a long gun, his finger on the trigger, waving it around carelessly... (Even absent signs of hostility, carelessness with a firearm is still dangerous.)


IOW, some ACTION that gives a reason to believe that this person is a threat.

Just carrying a gun is not.
 
Agree (with everyone, esp. volponi). Ahhh, just a big lovefest thread. So far. :)

"Very very amusing. Unless you were Rick"

Tee hee.
 
Oh, golly. Where do I start?

When was that? April 1997? (98?).

The night began with me being spittled on by a Tempe cop who was peeved that I wouldn't give him "ID."

"Are you refusing to comply?"

"If you can show me which Arizona revised statute requires me to give you my Drivers License in this sitation, you can have it."

"Uh, the security people have asked us to ask you to leave (a side walk)"

Thirty-minutes later, a few hundred yards away...

We walked out of a grunge shop carrying openly (I was shopping for $200 boots for my then 13-year old niece) when we look up to see bunches of cop cars, two on horseback, and several bike cops.

The next thing I heard was, "There they are. They've got guns."

The cops surrounded us, Polish firing squad-style and two of them "snuck" up behind us and took our guns (officer safety, don't ya know?).

Moments later, the cop that took my buddy's gun (chambered single-action with safety off -- I think it was an S&W), and was intermittently muzzling a crowd of 200 drunk on-lookers.

"My" cop was over at the lighted parking valet station with my G-21 turned up-side-down and the muzzle turned to his gut as he radioed in my serial number (why do they think they have to radio in every stinkin' gun they come across? Are they going to radio in my stereo too?).

The cops said that they came because the shop owner called in a report that there were people in her shop with guns. We told them that the shop (manager) was a gunnie like us and didn't have a problem with it.

They later admitted that it was a lie and that the real culprit were the DTC (Downtown Tempe Community) security guards which roam Mill Avenue for some reason. DTC called in the report of, essentially, people open-carrying guns on a sidewalk.

The cops harassed us and said things like, "If you feel that unsafe here, maybe you shouldn't come to Mill Avenue..."

You can imagine the fun we had with that.

We filed an Internal Affairs but the report was written months before this incident ;) It was full of such words as "unfounded" and "exonerated." This, despite a dozen gunnie witnesses calling and writing in testimony to the IA desk Sgt.

I made a promise to the cops that night that I wouldn't sue them. Next time, they'll get served with legal papers.

Back to you, Tim.

Rick
 
Rick D:

Oh, golly. Where do I start?

When was that? April 1997? (98?).

The night began with me being spittled on by a Tempe cop who was peeved that I wouldn't give him "ID."

"Are you refusing to comply?"

"If you can show me which Arizona revised statute requires me to give you my Drivers License in this sitation, you can have it."

"Uh, the security people have asked us to ask you to leave (a side walk)"

Thirty-minutes later, a few hundred yards away...

We walked out of a grunge shop carrying openly (I was shopping for $200 boots for my then 13-year old niece) when we look up to see bunches of cop cars, two on horseback, and several bike cops.

The next thing I heard was, "There they are. They've got guns."

The cops surrounded us, Polish firing squad-style and two of them "snuck" up behind us and took our guns (officer safety, don't ya know?).

Moments later, the cop that took my buddy's gun (chambered single-action with safety off -- I think it was an S&W), and was intermittently muzzling a crowd of 200 drunk on-lookers.

"My" cop was over at the lighted parking valet station with my G-21 turned up-side-down and the muzzle turned to his gut as he radioed in my serial number (why do they think they have to radio in every stinkin' gun they come across? Are they going to radio in my stereo too?).

The cops said that they came because the shop owner called in a report that there were people in her shop with guns. We told them that the shop (manager) was a gunnie like us and didn't have a problem with it.

They later admitted that it was a lie and that the real culprit were the DTC (Downtown Tempe Community) security guards which roam Mill Avenue for some reason. DTC called in the report of, essentially, people open-carrying guns on a sidewalk.

The cops harassed us and said things like, "If you feel that unsafe here, maybe you shouldn't come to Mill Avenue..."

You can imagine the fun we had with that.

We filed an Internal Affairs but the report was written months before this incident . It was full of such words as "unfounded" and "exonerated." This, despite a dozen gunnie witnesses calling and writing in testimony to the IA desk Sgt.

I made a promise to the cops that night that I wouldn't sue them. Next time, they'll get served with legal papers.

Back to you, Tim.

Rick

Creative license well used.

Running the serial numbers on items you have in your possession is Police 101 stuff. Believe it or not, they find lots of stolen stuff that way, and get to return said items to their very happy owners. How is running a serial number any more invasive than what they did by taking it from you?

One question. How did they "harass" you? Your statement is they "harassed us and.... Okay, I'm guessing the "and" is the harassment you're talking about (that statement that if you feel unsafe don't come here). So which is it? Is that that harassment or something else?

Thanks
 
The cops surrounded us, Polish firing squad-style


We filed an Internal Affairs but the report was written months before this incident It was full of such words as "unfounded" and "exonerated." This, despite a dozen gunnie witnesses calling and writing in testimony to the IA desk Sgt.

Must have been some type of Polish conspiracy. Couldn't you have outsmarted them somehow and got your complaint taken seriously? What did the Citizen Review Board and the Merit Board say?? More conspiracies??

You wouldn't have happened to have been carrying on property that had been designated as private would you? Like this guy perhaps?

I strolled right passed Tempe police with my Glock 21 carried openly as per Arizona law. There is a Super Double Secret sidewalk/culdesac on Mill Avenue known as Center Point which is actually public property but the Ctiy of Tempe has leased to a private concern. No guns allowed in this smidge of territory due to private property concerns.
 
The Tempe Incident (long)

First, I was there that night, as were about 7 others...around 9 or so, plus his niece.

The area we're talking about is the Mill Avenue area, which most Phoenix-area residents will understand. It's one street, a public street. The City of Tempe tried to designate it as some "event" (The Mill Avenue "Experience") several years ago, but the city got slammed in court since our laws are very specific that a "private" event (or even a public event) must have controlled entry/exit points if they want to ban firearms. Anyone who was at the Million Mom March saw this in effect when they had to 1) "rent" the park from Phoenix then 2) fence it off w/only 2 entrances. but I digress.

The first incident happened after the lot of us left Starbucks, where most of us doffed our jackets and carried openly while having coffee there for, what?, about 2 hours? We then put on our jackets, those of us w/CCW permits, and went for a stroll on the PUBLIC SIDEWALK. Keep this in mind, it comes in handy.

Well, as we're walking, looking at people, some bike cops ride along to back up a cop who had pulled over someoen in a car. As we approached, the two bike cops saw Rick and another guy (who doesn't have a CCW) carrying openly, which is legal in Arizona.

So, they stop Rick and C. (I use his initial only because he's not here). As the 7 of us stand around watching, these two cops start in on Rick and C.

"Why are you carrying a gun on your hip?"

C's answer: "So I can be legal."

The officers soon demanded to see Rick and C's i.d. They both asked why, as no crime had been committed, nobody had called them. The one officer who was with Rick got so incensed, that he had spittle flying on Rick as he again demanded Rick's i.d., how they could be easy, or they could be hard...I mean, this guy (a Seargant, no less) was THE sterotypical cop that folks classify as a JBT. The other officer with C. was insistent, but very polite.

Please note that the 7 of us, who were clearly walking together with those two, were standing about 3-4 feet from all this while it was happening. Also realize that 6 of us were carrying concealed. If any of us had any ill intent, it would have been over before it started. But, again, I digress.

So the officer with C. says they want their i.d.'s so they can i.d. them...in case something happens later. So, even though no crime had been committed, they wanted names and such. This went on for a bit when both said, cite the law that requires it, and I'll gladly comply.

The officer with Rick went freakin' ballistic. He started really yelling at Rick, and we were all very calm. A crowd, as you might expect, had gathered and was watching...which these officers suddenly realized.

Rick asked, very politely, "what have we done wrong?" Pause.

"You're trespassing on private property."

"So, you're asking me to leave? If so, I'll gladly comply."

Sgt. Spittle then walked over to where two of the DTC (Downtown Tempe Community...a "private organization" that "runs" the area during these events...which gets most of its money from the city of Tempe and has the council members as advisors....yeah, private...) security employees were watching. He was asking them if they wanted us to leave.

After walking back over, he said to Rick and C., "Yes, they are asking you to leave."

Rick: "Ok...since there is some confusion as to what is public and what is private, can you point out where we cannot go?"

"See the front of these buildings as you look up the sidewalk? Anything NOT on the sidewalk is private."

This incident happened on a corner of a public street that turned into where folks could have a roundabout in front of th theater at the dead end. So I stand on the street side of the imaginary line...on the sidewalk...and say:

"So, let me understand....here is ok and (stepping across the Line of Death...but still on the sidewalk) here is bad? Here good? Here bad?"

Affirmative.

OK, so we went on our way, making sure to stay on the sidewalk. As we went AROUND the outside of the block, about 1/2 mile total...maybe more....we could here the DTC security officers say into their mics "they just passed...". How cute.

Well, we decided to call it a night, and headed back to our cars, on the public sidewalk. Rick's niece wants to shop at this trendy little store, so they head up the alley, into the back door like everyone else. C. accompanied them.

While the 8 of us stood on the sidewalk.

Soon, 3 squad cars, 4 bike cops and 4 horse mounted police officers, along with about 1/2 dozen of the DTC security start arriving.

We're near the alley...which is more like a LARGE parking lot...on the sidewalk...with the cops gathering next to us, but paying us no attention whatsoever.

As they all came back, someone said "there they are...they've got guns". So Rick and C. walked up, and were "surrounded." Literally, the cops had them in about a 10' circle of officers. One office walked up behind the two of them and to disarm them. Rick carries a Glock, C. carries a S&W 4510. As the officer removed C's gun, C said "it's loaded, there's one in the chamber and the safety is off." This is a double-action semi-auto like a Beretta, so it's ok.

Well, after the cops spend a few minues calling in the serial numbers, they return to listen to the ongoing conversation. The officer with C's gun first had swept our group with the muzzle as he disarmed C. When he returned, he stood, with the gun pointing at his crotch, being held sort of upside down in the cop's hands (think parade rest, with hands in front, cradling the gun w/muzzle pointed at own crotch).

When the officer with Rick's Glock attempted to locate the serial number via the Valey parking "podium" (which had one of those small lamps), he was turning and twising gun all around...muzzling himself and anyone down the alley from us.

So, back to the party. Again the questions "why are you carrying a gun." After the usual "because we can" and "the law allows it", etc., the cops said they had received a call from the manager inside the store.

Now, according to Rick (and Rick's niece), the manager was a gunnie and Rick and she spent time talking about handguns while the niece shopped. Rick called "shenanigans" on the cops.

"No, I don't think she did...since I was talking to her the whole time aabout our favorite guns and such."

Oops. Cops hemmed and hawed. Then this gem:

"if you don't feel safe, perhaps you shouldn't come down here."

Mind you, we never had a problem at any place we'd been before our initial contact with the cops. Rick, I and others have carried openly in Tempe (in that same area) before.

This was a bull**** line and they knew it...and they knew WE knew it.

Oh yeah...and the 7 CCW folks were standing 3 feet from this group the whole time, and NO ONE OF US was ever asked if we were carrying. Again, it was plainly obvious that we were with them, since we asked what Rick and C had done wrong.

Basically, the city of Tempe was using the DTC to get around the fact they couldn't ban guns there. The manager of Starbucks, the manager of the clothing store could have asked us to leave...or even called the cops INTO the store.

After the second contact was over, Rick and several cops stood around talking....guns. Good fun.

Now, if they were really afraid that they were bad guys...why didn't they just take them down? Why the constand insistence on i.d. when no laws had been broken, no calls had been made? Why wasn't the exceedingly poor gun-handling skills of the officers ever addressed? Basically, we would have had to have had video of it before they would have done anything.

Which is typical Tempe.

All the while, a dozen police officers and an equal number of DTC security were busy concerning themselves over a legal act....all while being tactically Stupid. Again, if we were at all evil, most of them would be dead or have been seriously wounded.

But, shock!, we were ordinary Joe's and Jane's out for a stroll.

It's nice being the New Jews.
 
I'm expecting Frank and TBO to be back soon to tell us how this was all perfectly reasonable conduct on the part of the cops and that your group was just looking for trouble.
 
I'm expecting Frank and TBO to be back soon to tell us how this was all perfectly reasonable conduct on the part of the cops and that your group was just looking for trouble.

The first post failed to mention anything about the "private property" angle until I brought it up. It also made it sound like the cops maliciously spit on them. The second post says the "spitting" was a result of excited talking. Hardly what it was before I called him on it. Which all goes to show: You won't get an objective assessment of what happened with one side of the story. Especially when the side you're getting is filled with hyperbole. I'm sure most people legally carrying guns are fine and reasonable. But then you have the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of gun advocacy.

Nope. Just too many cops who only know two colors - blue and bad guy.

That's what the citizen review board and merit board said?
 
Hmmm, do the police officers here believe that one may pull over a motorist for no other reason than ensure that it is legal for him to be operating and that his vehicle is not stolen? :confused:

Call me crazy, but is not the solution best addressed in what the police can and cannot do? Seems to me the solution lies in providing more defined civil and administrative remedies for private citizens so accosted (criminal confinement, intimidation, conversion, pointing/brandishing a firearm, etc.) by the police. As well, gun owners should mobilize to elect prosecutors who would prosecute the police for this type of alleged behaviour.

If more people are going to go about armed, seems to me that the best solution is to educate the police and the general public on how to handle these situations. Change the culture, change the world. I know, I know, me and education, blah, blah, blah. :D
 
The first post failed to mention anything about the "private property" angle until I brought it up.

Might that be because it is such a dubious and questionable part of this entire discussion? I know it isn't to you because it is a tool you believe you can expand upon to support your dogma. To the rest of us though, who actually give thought and consideration to issues, it's essentially a non-issue here.

It also made it sound like the cops maliciously spit on them.

Umm, no. I didn't take it that way the first time and upon subsequent readings I still don't see it. The only way one could gather such a misunderstanding of what was said is if one went in reading it with a certain viewpoint. We're pretty sure what yours was going in, Frank
 
Well said Frank.

TBO


I suppose so, if you're one of the two or three people present with the same agenda as Frank. For everyone else it's just the latest restatement of the same narrow agenda driven dogma he's been spouting since the beginning. Nothing new, nothing logical, just the opinion of one who believes his personal safety trumps everything else. You'll have to pardon others for being somewhat less than over-awed here, ok?
 
Change the culture, change the world. I know, I know, me and education, blah, blah, blah.

I believe these examples of open carry are the physical act of changing the culture. The reactions of a certain small number of police, as exemplified here by Drebin, are as those of people from the Dark Ages resisting scientific knowledge. It shakes their world view and means they might actually have to learn and adjust. It's much easier to just nip it in the bud.

Or I suppose you could look at it as a war of two agendas seeking to change the culture. On one side is the statist/peacenik/anti-gunner/power hungry, take your pick. On the other is the gun owner/constitutionalist/sovereignty freak, again take your pick. These things are just skirmishes in the battle to see whose world view is going to emerge triumphant. Based on these threads it looks like both sides are fairly stubborn, though one is more logical than the other... :)
 
It also made it sound like the cops maliciously spit on them.
Actually, when I saw "spittled on", I immediately thought of the wet byproduct of excited talking. Didn't think the officer did it intentionally at all.

Glad we've got our "If it's Blue, it's True" contingent, though. Always good to have extremes represented.

I was going to make a suggestion or two to help get the "Not all Police are bad" message across in a more effective manner considering the audience, but then realized that probably wasn't the message you're going for. Oh well.

If their story is accurate, it doesn't sound to me like Rick and "C" were treated honorably or justly by the area police. That's how it appears to me, anyhow.
 
Regarding the "private property" issue.

Not sure where you all are located, but let me again describe the area, and how the whole concept of the "private property" issue was dubious, at best.

The area "used to be" owned by the city, the buildings notwithstanding. It is sort of an open mall-like area in one spot, which could easily be identified as private property, since it was right in front of the theater mentioned in the thread.

Several years ago, Tempe had attempted to create an "event" in which they could ban guns. Well, the judge said that, no, they couldn't do that since there were no controlled entry/exit points, thus people could enter/leave the "event" anywhere and therefore, no dice.

The city then created the "Downtown Temp Community" (DTC), a sort of "merchant association" if you will. It was only for those 2 blocks on Mill Avenue. The kicker is that this supposed private group is fund in the majority by taxpayer money provided by the City of Tempe itself. As noted, the council and mayor are on the board/act as advisors for the DTC. This is HARDLY a private association.

So, the city of Tempe then "leases" the whole area to the DTC. Now, as lessee, the DTC is allowed to ban guns, right? Only if you believe that the DTC is a private entity.

Now, what about the individual businesses? Not a one we went into (that night and on various other occasions) has EVER said anything about carrying openly. Nor are there any "no guns" signs. If ANYONE has the right to ban firearms, it'd be these individual businesses, not a taxpayer supported, shadow-private merchant association.

The cops knew they had no case, specifically regarding Arizona law, since they went to ask the DTC security folks if they wanted us to leave....to leave a sidewalk which everyone would have thought was public, since it was a dead-end street to the theater, and the associated sidewalk was connected with the main one on Mill Avenue.

The City of Tempe is very hoplophobic and that judge's ruling isnt' the first time the city had been called on it.

As for the spitting, no, the cop didn't hawk a lunger at Rick. However, as soon as Rick even questioned as to why this whole incident was happening, it was as if a switch had been flipped.

While I have no love lost on police officers (though my brother is one and I was going to go into LE as a career until a back injury sidelined that idea), what I saw was scarier than anything I'd ever experienced in working with police (even the time that I, as an unarmed process server for the Ventura County DA's investigators had shotguns racked on the other side of a door while attempting a service).

He was so enraged that his face was turning red and spittle was flying out his mouth as he moved within inches of Rick. I think he fully was hoping and expecting Rick to come unglued and try and "defend" himself against the Sgt, so that said Sgt. could face-plant Rick into the sidewalk, giving him all the justification he needed for the contact. That neither Rick nor C. did this enraged the cop even more. If it hadn't been so scary, it would have been funny.
 
Tim, Rick would not have been "face planted", but "gently guided to the ground." :D

Sudden emotional shifts are part of verbal judo or whatever they are calling it now. It's an old cop trick to get a mope excited and then popped for Disorderly Conduct, Disturbing Peace, inter alia so you can clear and go home rather than come back later in shift to deal with same exact call.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top