1911Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Watching dash cam vid of a guy legally open carrying, then being stopped and illegally disarmed has got me thinking of the best way to handle this...

they cop tries to illegally remove the firearm without citing what the citizen is under suspicion of nor asking permission to disarm. The citizen then puts hands on his firearm to try to stop the police officer from taking his firearm.

My question is, once a citizen puts hands on the weapon, isn't that person getting arrested no matter what now? Yes it's an illegal search, and the citizen only grabbed the stock, but to me that seems like the best way to end up with a knee on the back of my neck.

is it better to combat these illegal searches by not consenting to the illegal search but allowing the illegal search under protest, and then filing a civil suit?

to me, I'm not an expert of anything, but if I put my hand on my firearm during a stop, I'm getting arrested, no questions asked.

any thoughts?

thanks!

scott
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
Once a citizen puts a hand on the weapon, he surely has raised the hair on the back of the officers neck. Is he getting arrested? That'd be up to the officer.

I agree that it's a bad idea to touch the gun.

If you consent to the search, then it's not illegal. You can "not consent" without resisting. That'd be my choice. "Officer, I am not giving you permission to touch my firearm. However, I will cooperate if you choose to take it from my posession without my permission. How do you want to proceed?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,395 Posts
Cop has just become a criminal threatening and assaulting that man. Attempting to steal from him, he should stand his ground

Edit: cops are not above the law, they are there uphold the law and work for the people. Once they start breaking those laws they're no different than nazi police rounding up Jews. People have this stigma at they feel police are special and their word is law. How'd that work in war crimes trials?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
If the officer is doing something illegal then he is committing a crime. An officer committing a crime has no protections of office. He is now the same as any other ordinary citizen committing a crime.

What would you do if he were attempting to rape your wife, steal your property or extort protection money from you?

Treat him as you would any other criminal in any situation you encounter.

[EDIT]
Pertaining to the situation in the OP: a better response (if possible), rather than grabbing your weapon (which could be viewed as a threat on the officer by viewers of the footage) would be to take a few steps backward creating distance between yourself and the officer and clearly state that he does not have legal authority to disarm you. This then places the officer in the position of backing down or escalating. He knows he is on video and his actions will be scrutinized at a later time by people with authority over him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
good points... step back and ask for supervisor, inform cop of illegal search, protest it...

how else does the citizen stand their ground after that? The law breaking cop is intent on illegally seizing the firearm.

do we stand our ground by running around the cop car? by putting arms and hands up to physically stop the illegal search? by raising the firearm against the cop? by "strenuously objecting" to the illegal search?

If a cop had my wife bent over a table raping her I would totally get my vid cam and record it for future use hehe... j/k

i just don't see how the citizen can stop an uninformed or illegally acting officer intent on illegal seizure without threat of armed force.


scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Once a citizen puts a hand on the weapon, he surely has raised the hair on the back of the officers neck. Is he getting arrested? That'd be up to the officer.

I agree that it's a bad idea to touch the gun.

If you consent to the search, then it's not illegal. You can "not consent" without resisting. That'd be my choice. "Officer, I am not giving you permission to touch my firearm. However, I will cooperate if you choose to take it from my posession without my permission. How do you want to proceed?"
Agreed. It's similar to a traffic stop. Other than "Yes, sir" and "No sir", the only things I say during a traffic stop are, "Why did you stop me?" and "I do not consent to a search of my vehicle." It's up to the officer to decide how they will proceed under those circumstances, and if they decide they are going to go ahead and toss my vehicle, I am not going to try to stop them from doing so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
874 Posts
I've never understood how its ok for LE to stop you for NOT breaking the law. They don't pull us over to say, hey just checking, saw you not violating any laws back there etc. No excuse IMO short of if you are waving it around in hand etc
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,388 Posts
I've never understood how its ok for LE to stop you for NOT breaking the law.
They don't pull us over to say, hey just checking, saw you not violating any laws back there etc.
No excuse IMO short of if you are waving it around in hand etc.
That's an interesting topic, isn't it. Especially when they quote 'Public Safety' issues.

A DUI checkpoint on the road on 4th of July stops you when you are NOT breaking the law,
but all the courts in America have concurred: For public safety, officials may take steps
to investigate, and indeed take steps to secure public safety, whether the subject broke a law or not.
When it comes to DUI, most all Americans agree to preserve safety.

When it comes to Open Carry, it gets more muddled. Recently where I live, police officers
are getting specific training regarding Constitutional provisions (US and State) and
the citizen's right to carry. That training helps to eliminate problems before they start.

Now, if every official in the country could get that training, we would be better off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Re: Terry vs Ohio, it would depend on the circumstances of the stop.

If I read the OP correctly, the LEO knew that the person was armed. He (LEO) can, again depending on the circumstances (and depending on what the laws are in the state this is happening), remove a weapon from someone's person until such time as their establishment of identity and the activities being investigated are concluded. MULTIPLE precedents/rulings for this post Terry as well.

Once it is determined (and this may also depend on the laws of the particular state of occurance) that the firearms owner is legally in possession of his/her weapon, the weapon should be returned and both go their merry ways.

No harm, no foul as it were. As least as far as Federal laws and precedents are concerned. In LA, you are required as a CCW holder to inform LEO of your status during interactions and to surrender said weapon until those interactions are concluded. Same applies to open carry as the LEO can obviously see you are armed.

Putting your hand on the weapon during interactions with LEO is a sure way to find yourself dead, in a chokehold, tasered, or facing a weapon pointed at you. I carry to protect myself and my family. Escalating a situation with an armed opponent acting under the color of law by reacting aggresively to retain my own weapon, absent any other mitigating circumstances, doesn't seem consistent with that.

The simple fact that a LEO may want to check out what you're doing doesn't indicate, in and of itself, some nefarious intent on the part of the officer. It may or may not however indicate the level of training for that officer.

Just my .02.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
During the stop is not the time to resist. It increases the danger to you and anyone else present. Verbalize your refusal to voluntarily be searched and/or disarmed and document the stop as best as possible, but don't resist physically. In other words, be informed AND the better person. Request a supervisor and be respectful. It will get you a better result than being a jerk. After the fact, file an official complaint with the department. You may need to escalate matters to the civilian authority in the event the dept. doesn't adequately address the issue, or even a civil suit.

LEO's have qualified immunity. It's next to impossible to have criminal charges brought and even more rare for them to be found guilty in all but the most egregious cases. What they are doing is a civil rights violation. In some cases that's a crime and in some it's not. Unless you're licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction the event occurs in, I'd make doubly sure to be seen as the most reasonable party in the event. JMO, YMMV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
992 Posts
What if, following the search, the gun is not returned, even if no wrongdoing was found?

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- An anti-freedom policy has been spreading across United States police departments, the legalized theft of citizens guns.

Recently, it occurred in Georgia. I am not talking about forfeiture laws. They are related but have been covered elsewhere.

This is a problem in many urban areas, and it is spreading. The policy is to impound guns, in extreme cases, all guns that officers come across, whether involved in any crime or not, then to refuse to return the guns until a judge issues an order to return them. As the attorney fees needed to obtain a court order can easily be 10 times what the gun is worth, most people do not bother.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/11/legalized-theft-of-guns/#ixzz2mvhCQcEl
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top