Joined
·
72,817 Posts
This happened in Virginia, where no license is required to carry openly (just like in 27 stated, but not in Georgia).
I asked him what he would do in the future and he told me that he would continue to detain ANYONE carrying if there was a complaint. He said that if they get a call about a person with a gun, they will detain him to make sure he’s not a felon. I explained that Terry v. Ohio said that officers could only detain for a “reasonable, articulable suspicion†of law breaking and he said that he would detain me regardless of the law because “people’s fear†gives him the right to conduct an investigation. I again pressed him: “a CONSENSUAL investigation?†He said, no. He would detain me.
Yes, until they drugs were ascertained to be theirs or they die from not being able to take their heart/blood/seizure medication.wsweeks2 said:So if I call the police and tell them that I see someone with drugs, and the police show up and find out that they are in possession of legal prescription drugs, would they be detained?
Don't forget "civil" wars.budder said:Yes, until they drugs were ascertained to be theirs or they die from not being able to take their heart/blood/seizure medication.wsweeks2 said:So if I call the police and tell them that I see someone with drugs, and the police show up and find out that they are in possession of legal prescription drugs, would they be detained?
In all fairness, who needs civil liberties when you can live in a police state? I mean, it even has "police" in the name! It's gotta be good. But "civil"? I've heard of "civil" suits in court and I don't want any of that! Clearly, the police state is better.
Crazy isn't it?GAGunOwner said:In the real world, 2007, this is a good way to "get the needle" or to be on the ground in a puddle of your own blood.Mobster989 said:If you're detained unlawfully you can resist with necessary force. There is a case that went all the way to the supreme court about this, it is dated though. JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900) In that case the suspect was to be taken into custody for a misdemeanor, the officers approached the suspect and one attempted to take his firearm, he shot the officer and killed him. The court ruled that he was within his rights to resist the unlawful arrest.
If the officer does not have reasonable articulated suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity he cannot detain you and you may resist if he tries to detain you. It can be tricky though because you might fit the description of a man who just robbed a bank, so you have to be careful. If the guy wanted to he could have definitely made a case of this. If he had decided he was done talking and started walking away he would be within his rights since he wasn't detained for any criminal activity. I don't see how 'public fear' could be used to justify the detainment. In some parts of America they are afraid of black people or arabs, does that mean that when they walk around the cops are allowed to detain them?
This is no longer good federal law. This is not recognized in federal court today. It is also not recognized in the majority of states. Be careful what you post and be careful what you read on the internet.Mobster989 said:If you're detained unlawfully you can resist with necessary force. There is a case that went all the way to the supreme court about this, it is dated though. JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900) . . .
That's the problem with a lot of LEO's - they don't. The badge is the universal excuse when they screw up. It is their job to know the laws they are charged with enforcing.Sharky said:And hopefully the ones enforcing the laws understand the rights of law abiding citizens!
I wouldnt mind, now that I OC"ed finally, if approached by an officer and asked to show my license I would. I do not feel I should have to provide him any reason as to why I carry, its an obvious answer and really none of his business. I really dont think I should be stopped at all, but hopefully them stopping people, and seeing we arent a threat, will help change any anit-citizen carry LEO's opinions.But if the citizen produces ID, has a valid license, and especially if he has a reasonable explanation for his being so armed, the encounter should end QUICKLY. No 15-minute delay while back-up is called. No delay to run the gun's serial number through a federal stolen weapons database. No calling the probate court to "verify" the license is genuine, unless there is affirmative visible evidence that it has been altered or forged.
Your GUN gives me all the "probable cause" I need.gunsmoker said:Criminals don't open carry in holsters. Lawfully-armed civilians and LEO's do. So if a cop sees somebody on the street walking around with a holstered gun, I don't think he has probable cause.
Why would simply carrying a gun look suspicious? I don't understand where the PC is that simply carrying a gun allows a LEO to confront someone. What crime has been committed? In a state like MD where carry is strictly banned I could see the argument, but in GA I don't understand.gunsmoker said:Then, when the gun is carried in a way that makes it look suspicious and worthy of more inquiry, I think the cop can stop the person and demand some ID and answers.
Well, this looks pretty suspicious to me...wsweeks2 said:Why would simply carrying a gun look suspicious? I don't understand where the PC is that simply carrying a gun allows a LEO to confront someone. What crime has been committed? In a state like MD where carry is strictly banned I could see the argument, but in GA I don't understand.gunsmoker said:Then, when the gun is carried in a way that makes it look suspicious and worthy of more inquiry, I think the cop can stop the person and demand some ID and answers.