I'm trying to understand what grounds the officers had to stop and question her in the first place. Unless carrying a handgun in one's hand violates a statute (which I seriously doubt is the case here), the act of detaining her for 20 minutes is nothing short of harassment. And I don't understand the logic of those posters who seem to think it's perfectly OK for police to stop and detain someone who is not engaged in any unlawful activity. If it's OK for the police to stop and question someone carrying a pistol in her hand, what's to stop them from detaining someone whose gun is being carried in a holster? There's no difference in my mind. Open carry is open carry, period.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
There's open carry and then there's wide open carry...
- Thread starter kodiakbeer
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
kodiakbeer
Moderator
I'm trying to understand what grounds the officers had to stop and question her in the first place.
Somebody called. But, even if they hadn't, a cop can question anybody for a short period if they feel something isn't right.
As a cop I unfortunately see people "exaggerate" incidents in order to secure civil judgements also. Typically in cases of police misconduct there are criminal proceedings brought against the complaining victim to reinforce and protect the offending officers wrongful act. Perhaps I'm biased but i didn't see that happen here and the complainant didn't incur damages and a LEO being intimidating doesn't constitute harassment(NY Penal Law definition). Could you agree that if she carried in an open holster in this locale that absolutely nothing would have occurred?
a cop can question anybody for a short period if they feel something isn't right.
Yes, but what was their basis for thinking something wasn't right? Unless the statute prohibits carrying a gun in one's hand, the correct response to the citizen's call should have been "carrying a gun in one's hand is not unlawful in this state. Thank you for your concern."
Sorry, NavyLT, but I have to disagree with you on this.
"It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons".
--RCW 9.41.270
In short, had I been the responding officer and if this happened in the State of Washington, I would not have talked to the woman. She would have been arrested and booked under this charge, which is a gross misdemeanor.
And yes--I would have taken her into custody at gunpoint--FROM BEHIND--not, as another poster stated, by pulling in front of her. Why should I give her an easy target, should she decide to shoot?
"It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons".
--RCW 9.41.270
In short, had I been the responding officer and if this happened in the State of Washington, I would not have talked to the woman. She would have been arrested and booked under this charge, which is a gross misdemeanor.
And yes--I would have taken her into custody at gunpoint--FROM BEHIND--not, as another poster stated, by pulling in front of her. Why should I give her an easy target, should she decide to shoot?
In short, had I been the responding officer and if this happened in the State of Washington, I would not have talked to the woman. She would have been arrested and booked under this charge, which is a gross misdemeanor.
And exactly how was she exhibiting behavior that "that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons"?
FYI - sworn police officers within their jurisdiction can stop anyone and ask for pedigree info and an explanation of conduct, this is called the Common Right Law of Inquiry. You are not required to answer or remain unless an additional Reasonable Suspicion that criminality has, is, or is about to occur. At that time you may be detained for a reasonable period of time to determine if Probable Cause (proof of involvement in a crime) has been established, if not you're free to leave, if founded your placed in custody. Reasonable suspicion existed here due to report form witness(caller), female matching description in proximity to alleged crime location,and lets not forget the weapon in hand matching that commonly used in the commission of the alleged crime. The Troopers did not find proof of any crime and the complainant was released, and the manner of carry was agreed upon not demanded. In cases like this in NY officers and complainants meet in mediation to resolve these issues, perhaps Alaska should follow suit.
christcorp
New member
No wonder she was a police officer for ONLY 2 years. She's freakin retarded. I know Alaska is somewhat different when it comes to guns, but most states consider OPEN CARRY as it being holstered. When the gun is in your hand, it is called BRANDISHING. Even if you aren't pointing it towards someone.
In this case, I don't care one bit what Alaska law says. Most laws are created because some people are retarded, and they don't use common sense or common courtesy. She's in Alaska. It's almost impossible to walk around; even in August; without some clothes on. There is absolutely no reason in the world she couldn't have carried the gun in a fashion other than in her hand. E.g. Mexican holster, in her pocket, etc... She is retarded. Any lawyer that would represent her should be disbarred for being an ambulance chaser and MORE retarded. Again; no wonder she was a cop for ONLY 2 years. She probably did similar retarded things while as a police officer. Imagine her walking through town as a cop. "I don't want to carry my gun in my holster, I'll just carry it in my hand". Tell me that everyone who saw her wouldn't be thinking that there's a criminal somewhere close by. That's why she has her weapon drawn.
Sorry but both OPEN and CONCEALED CARRY means to CARRY. Not to hold or fondle. In other words, your hands shouldn't be holding it.
In this case, I don't care one bit what Alaska law says. Most laws are created because some people are retarded, and they don't use common sense or common courtesy. She's in Alaska. It's almost impossible to walk around; even in August; without some clothes on. There is absolutely no reason in the world she couldn't have carried the gun in a fashion other than in her hand. E.g. Mexican holster, in her pocket, etc... She is retarded. Any lawyer that would represent her should be disbarred for being an ambulance chaser and MORE retarded. Again; no wonder she was a cop for ONLY 2 years. She probably did similar retarded things while as a police officer. Imagine her walking through town as a cop. "I don't want to carry my gun in my holster, I'll just carry it in my hand". Tell me that everyone who saw her wouldn't be thinking that there's a criminal somewhere close by. That's why she has her weapon drawn.
Sorry but both OPEN and CONCEALED CARRY means to CARRY. Not to hold or fondle. In other words, your hands shouldn't be holding it.
NYPD13...
Take a look at People v. Moore, 13 AD3d 395, 396-397 (2004); the facts are very similar. The common law right of inquiry only kicks in if the officer has reason to believe that criminal activity is taking place. In People v. Moore, the appeals court held that the officers did not have the right to stop and detain the defendant solely on the basis of an anonymous tip.
In the case in Fairbanks, there was no allegation of any unlawful activity, only that someone was on the street with a gun in her hand, which in Alaska is not unlawful. There was no basis here for the officers to have stopped and even less reason for them to have detained her for 20 minutes. This was a failure on the part of the police to recognize that no law was being broken.
Take a look at People v. Moore, 13 AD3d 395, 396-397 (2004); the facts are very similar. The common law right of inquiry only kicks in if the officer has reason to believe that criminal activity is taking place. In People v. Moore, the appeals court held that the officers did not have the right to stop and detain the defendant solely on the basis of an anonymous tip.
In the case in Fairbanks, there was no allegation of any unlawful activity, only that someone was on the street with a gun in her hand, which in Alaska is not unlawful. There was no basis here for the officers to have stopped and even less reason for them to have detained her for 20 minutes. This was a failure on the part of the police to recognize that no law was being broken.
Sorry but both OPEN and CONCEALED CARRY means to CARRY. Not to hold or fondle. In other words, your hands shouldn't be holding it.
I carry things in my hands all the time, including guns...
kodiakbeer
Moderator
In this case, I don't care one bit what Alaska law says.
Well, we that live in the state do care what the law says.
kodiakbeer
Moderator
As a cop I unfortunately see people "exaggerate" incidents in order to secure civil judgements also.
No exaggeration needed. They released a statement to the press that was clearly a lie. The lie clearly impinges on this woman's livelihood. They should have just said "we don't think an apology is in order" and let it go.
I'm betting we see a civil suit based only on this police statement that lies about her being near a school. And in a place like Fairbanks where 90% plus are very pro-2nd amendment, she'll win.
JayCee thanks for posting Moore, I wish more people were aware of it as many criminals continue to walk the streets thanks to anonymous 911 calls. As we say "no complainant, no witness, no crime". These are the same people who accuse the police of being lackadaisical when they respond to their anon call and do nothing, yet are ignorant as to why.
kodiakbeer
Moderator
The common law right of inquiry only kicks in if the officer has reason to believe that criminal activity is taking place.
It doesn't matter. The cop can say she appeared to be drunk, acted furtively, resembled a suspect in another active case, whatever. It's like pulling you over for a "dirty tail light". Is it wrong? Yes. can you prove the cop was just fishing? No.
OK. So, someone tell me this...
You see a person approaching, on your side of the street. This person is carrying a firearm; specifically, a handgun. This person is holding the handgun in a firing grip.
What would YOU think?
A reasonable person would more than likely believe that this person was about to fire the handgun.
Since this MIGHT happen in close proximity to you, would you be alarmed? Or, would you not?
Criminal law uses a point of view, based on what a "reasonable person" would do--or believe--under certain circumstances.
And I'm sorry, but the lady in the story is a dodo--former LEO or not.
You can not convince me that she could not afford a holster that would secure her firearm. So, why is she carrying the gun like that?
You see a person approaching, on your side of the street. This person is carrying a firearm; specifically, a handgun. This person is holding the handgun in a firing grip.
What would YOU think?
A reasonable person would more than likely believe that this person was about to fire the handgun.
Since this MIGHT happen in close proximity to you, would you be alarmed? Or, would you not?
Criminal law uses a point of view, based on what a "reasonable person" would do--or believe--under certain circumstances.
And I'm sorry, but the lady in the story is a dodo--former LEO or not.
You can not convince me that she could not afford a holster that would secure her firearm. So, why is she carrying the gun like that?
P.S. the Common Right Law of Inquiry is the initial step before Reasonable Suspicion. At the inquiry level a person does not have to answer questions or even remain, you're free to walk away. I don't like to Monday morning quarter back as this is a newspaper article and devoid of all the facts, I've only stayed interested this long due to all the cop bashing. There's two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I'm tired;-)
Agreed...Good night!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.