Survivalist Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Questioned by the Police on a walk

Jump to Latest
Status
Not open for further replies.
121 - 140 of 187 Posts
#121 ·
I love living in the middle of nowhere, when deer are out of season and I get out into the woods to hunt a grouse now and again I can walk around in full camo with my 10/22, along highways and near houses, and have never had a problem yet.
 
#122 ·
Is it the *fault* of the citizen? NO. However, if you know or even suspect that doing action A will likely provoke response B- the thing to do to avoid repsonse B is to avoid doing action A.

In this case, the OP was questioned- not arrested. Is there something that says that officers can't ask questions and investigate actions out of the ordinary?

The turning point for this officer was likely in the OP's response that he was "preparing for whatever"... That sort of vague, veiled statement of possible intent isn't something that most officers would find comforting- and it's certainly not in line with just going out and testing out a pack and a pair of boots.




SmokinOnion said:
In short based on responses here is the general consensus, which if it matters I disagree with it.

Do not walk around in your neighborhood breaking in boots and trying out a pack.
Do not question authority even when you have not broken a single law.
Curb your rights for the sake of suspicions of "people now'adays".
You must hide, even if you are not a criminal, an illegal alien or in the commission of any wrong doing.

The out right acceptance of this type of thing confuses the hell out of me.

I understand grey man philosophy and agree with it in the correct context.

What I don't understand is when a law abiding citizen is accosted without cause and the general consensus is it was the fault of the citizen.
Click to expand...
 
#123 ·
newone said:
You obviously have some familiarity with law..as do I as a former police officer. This would be a 'Terry stop' as it is not common to see such activity nor manner of dress. The carrying of a large personal weapon would demonstrate need as well. You are correct but yet still in error. Reread what I said. I did not say police are 'body guards' and that was the crux of the case you cited but none the less. police are tasked to uphold the laws and public safety. Contrast your interpretation with what you may know of "abandonment' issue as far as a police officer's duty is. I do not like what he claims to have gone thru but it was nonetheless quite legal and understandable. If you do not dissuade a police officers suspicions and clarify your intent then expect to be detained. In short..be a hard case and play games instead of being open and honest and saying you are trying the fit of your gear..and the officer will respond accordingly....Play ball!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Well, I'll give you that the requirements for getting a warrant are certainly not objective, it depends on the judge. There's a reason some judges' names are on the warrant more often than others and that some judges have nicknames like Ol' Rubberstamp. If I'm a judge, my requirements of reasonable suspicion are going to be higher than "a hunch based on his appearance". I'd want more, but of course it's subjective.

Police officer's can be held liable for certain things, once engaged in a situation, for example, they couldn't say "Break time!" and leave a victim to get beaten. But that's not necessarily only with police, private citizens that engage a situation inherit certain responsibilities as well. However, it's not just bodyguard type stuff. If you call police to respond to an immediate threat, the Supreme Court has said, they have no obligation to do so. So what exactly is their duty?

Here are the particulars of Warren v. D.C.

Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

So again, I say, exactly why do people leave their personal protection up to a group of people that are not obligated to provide it?
 
#124 · (Edited)
tanda said:
Well, this is my first post, and I'm sure I'll get flamed, but having practiced criminal law for more than a decade, and specializing in criminal appeals, I feel that I know at least as much as the average citizen about search and seizure law. Something that people sometimes have a hard time understanding is this: You don't have to be doing anything illegal to legally be stopped and searched by the police. Clearly, the OP wasn't doing anything illegal, and that is why he ultimately was sent on his way. However, what he was doing was clearly suspicious and warranted the second level of police/citizen contact called an investigatory stop. The police don't need probable cause, they only need reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.

You have the right to be an a-hole to the police, and you have the right to ask them why they want to know where you're going, and you have a right to tell them to kiss your a if they want to search your bag. However, if you exercise your rights, you should fully expect that the officer will not be impressed with your display of patriotism and you will be inconvenienced to the fullest extent of the law.

On a more serious note, my biggest concern in this story was for the dog. There have been numerous stories just in my local area in the last year or so where the police have shot and killed someone's dog with very little, if any, justifiable provocation. I am glad that the OP's dog was well-trained and gave no cause for alarm.

And finally, thanks to all for their numerous posts on this forum. I have learned things on here that may someday save my life.
Click to expand...
And if I was on the Jury, once the Internal Investigations Department forwarded the case to court, the Cop would be in serious Trouble. Here is why.

The cop has Resonable suspicion of...

He had a back pack, normal cloths, A dog, and a knife. What is he going to stab cats? Break into a house with a dog? Car Jack with a compass? What specifically lead the officer to beleive a crime was in the process of, or had occurred? It can't be vague.

A cop can, and should search with probable cause if the evidence leads the officer with out reasonable doubt that something illegal is or has taken place. Tell me how that possibly could have happened? A simple license check would show that he is close to his home. Which he did. A quick radio back ground check would show no priors.

Being also someone who has screwed police who didn't take enough courses in college, I have to say, the law is on our side once it gets to court.

So my advice is to find a lawyer, who is reputable for results. Write certified letters, and file an official complaint. Even if nothing happens, it will be on the officers record, and I guarantee you, he wont bother you with out being more certain again.

One more thing. Being that you are familiar with law, I need you to please clarify which of these the officer had.

* Consent Searches If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you freely consent, their warrantless search automatically becomes reasonable and therefore legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during a consent search can be used to convict the person.

* Plain View Rule This is common sense: Always keep any private items that you don’t want others to see out of sight. Legally speaking, police do not need a search warrant in order to confiscate any illegal items that are in plain view.

* Searches Made in Connection with a Legal Arrest Police do not need a warrant to make a search "incident to an arrest." After a legal arrest, police can legally protect themselves by searching the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search can be used to convict the person.

* Exigent Circumstances A judge may uphold an officer’s warrantless search or seizure if "exigent circumstances" exist. Exigent circumstances were described by one court as "an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence."

Now when he says the police officer can search his stuff, that's when he gave up his rights. As a general rule, NEVER try to figure out if the officer has the right to search or not. Leave that to the courts. ALWAYS say , not with out a warrant. Or I do not consent.

Further more if he lives in AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI he actually isn't obligated to even show the officer identification. Nor being that he is on foot, required to even carry identification.

Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity. Rather than asking the officer if he/she has reasonable suspicion, test it yourself by asking if you're free to go.

He did that. So twice the officer broke the law. He did not have reasonable suspicion a crime was being taken place, also when he detained him. To me, it seems like our friend is about to get rich if he finds the right lawyer. Just don't make it frivilous, and contact several Civil liberty groups to get advice, and knowledge.

This isn't Germany. You don't have to show Walmart your receipt, nor a Cop your belongings. However, Godbless him, if he makes you, because if he doesn't find anything, he is really messing up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joes and TANGO_INDIA_PERU
Save
Like Like
#125 ·
  • Like
Reactions: joes
Save
Like Like
#126 ·
CrutchCoR said:
And if I was on the Jury, once the Internal Investigations Department forwarded the case to court, the Cop would be in serious Trouble. Here is why.

The cop has Resonable suspicion of...

He had a back pack, normal cloths, A dog, and a knife. What is he going to stab cats? Break into a house with a dog? Car Jack with a compass? What specifically lead the officer to beleive a crime was in the process of, or had occurred? It can't be vague.

A cop can, and should search with probable cause if the evidence leads the officer with out reasonable doubt that something illegal is or has taken place. Tell me how that possibly could have happened? A simple license check would show that he is close to his home. Which he did. A quick radio back ground check would show no priors.

Being also someone who has screwed police who didn't take enough courses in college, I have to say, the law is on our side once it gets to court.

So my advice is to find a lawyer, who is reputable for results. Write certified letters, and file an official complaint. Even if nothing happens, it will be on the officers record, and I guarantee you, he wont bother you with out being more certain again.

One more thing. Being that you are familiar with law, I need you to please clarify which of these the officer had.

* Consent Searches If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you freely consent, their warrantless search automatically becomes reasonable and therefore legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during a consent search can be used to convict the person.

* Plain View Rule This is common sense: Always keep any private items that you don’t want others to see out of sight. Legally speaking, police do not need a search warrant in order to confiscate any illegal items that are in plain view.

* Searches Made in Connection with a Legal Arrest Police do not need a warrant to make a search "incident to an arrest." After a legal arrest, police can legally protect themselves by searching the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search can be used to convict the person.

* Exigent Circumstances A judge may uphold an officer’s warrantless search or seizure if "exigent circumstances" exist. Exigent circumstances were described by one court as "an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence."

Now when he says the police officer can search his stuff, that's when he gave up his rights. As a general rule, NEVER try to figure out if the officer has the right to search or not. Leave that to the courts. ALWAYS say , not with out a warrant. Or I do not consent.

Further more if he lives in AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI he actually isn't obligated to even show the officer identification. Nor being that he is on foot, required to even carry identification.

Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity. Rather than asking the officer if he/she has reasonable suspicion, test it yourself by asking if you're free to go.

He did that. So twice the officer broke the law. He did not have reasonable suspicion a crime was being taken place, also when he detained him. To me, it seems like our friend is about to get rich if he finds the right lawyer. Just don't make it frivilous, and contact several Civil liberty groups to get advice, and knowledge.

This isn't Germany. You don't have to show Walmart your receipt, nor a Cop your belongings. However, Godbless him, if he makes you, because if he doesn't find anything, he is really messing up.
Click to expand...
Again, your "jailhouse lawyer" mentalities have proven nothing to this discussion except for everyone has an opinion on how they percieve their rights and the law. However very few of the responses here have been intelligent nor remotely correct.

If your "screw the police" mentality was trully how you feel, then I'd like to challenge you to not call the police the next time you are in serious trouble. Then let us know how you made out. But then again the majority of you would probably try to sue the police department because while they were saving your a**, something minor happened and your precious feelings got hurt :(.

Some of you need to grow a pair and grow up while your at it.

By the way, your personnel complaints don't ever really mean anything to the department unless something really negligent happened on the officer's behalf, and this situation doesn't even come close to that. In fact most supervisors dismiss most complaints because of how rediculous they are. This would be one of them.

Thanks!
 
#127 ·
Hey dutch, i don't call for bacon unless its for breakfast. I got a pair, as far as jail-house lawyers goes your right, everyone's got an opinion. unfortunately its jack-boot nazi thugs that have the final say 90 % of the time, in a system that does nothing but perpetuate its self and collect revenue.
 
#128 ·
Dutch you don't know me. But I also don't know you. Post your credentials IE Show us your pare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spudgunsniper
Save
Like Like
#129 ·
dutch_0311 said:
Again, your "jailhouse lawyer" mentalities have proven nothing to this discussion except for everyone has an opinion on how they percieve their rights and the law. However very few of the responses here have been intelligent nor remotely correct.
Click to expand...
I posted legal facts. You say you have vast experience, but the only one quoting facts is me. Ironically your saying that I am the one spouting opinions. I am not so closed book, I speak from experience and research. So if I am wrong, or my advice is wrong then explain. Use facts, statutes, laws, and examples that pertain to his case?

dutch_0311 said:
If your "screw the police" mentality was trully how you feel, then I'd like to challenge you to not call the police the next time you are in serious trouble. Then let us know how you made out. But then again the majority of you would probably try to sue the police department because while they were saving your a**, something minor happened and your precious feelings got hurt :(.

Some of you need to grow a pair and grow up while your at it.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how pointing out ones civil liberties, the same ones the police are sworn to uphold and futher more protect is a "screw the police mentality". The majority of us care about the police, and would help any good officer out if he could. But the bad ones are equally handled. The officers that bravely battle gangs, thugs, and drug dealers are heros. However the cops that use the positions of power they have to break the law, are to your surprise treated as criminals here. No we don't have much tolerance for those kind of people here.

Further more, my pair is very nice. Thank you for asking.... as you can see I am not sure how to respond to your last statement. Your asking me to grow up and be mature, then using 3rd grade insults.. maybe I should respond with Yo momma?

dutch_0311 said:
By the way, your personnel complaints don't ever really mean anything to the department unless something really negligent happened on the officer's behalf, and this situation doesn't even come close to that. In fact most supervisors dismiss most complaints because of how rediculous they are. This would be one of them.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
No, thats why I sue. Money talks. Men who don't care about ethics, do care about having a job. For some unethical police officers thats enough. You see the checks and balances insures that public trust is always kept. If you make enough stink, it brings the entire department down.

Actually, lets follow your line of thought. Your saying he should do nothing, because he can do nothing, and that's just the way it is? Shouldn't it be you that grows a pair? Stand up for yourself. Do what ever you can to make life better for everyone else. With your Defeatist, or Elitist attitude, I don't know if your either a pathetic victim, or you have ulterior motives for being such a sell out. Which is it?

We the people don't have to take being a victim. We the people are protected by lawyers, image, and the constitution. You want to know why that guys back up never came? Because when he radioed it in, NO ONE wanted to take that call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chaosofcreation and TANGO_INDIA_PERU
Save
Like Like
#130 ·
They say dogs can smell fear, and maybe cops can smell suspicion. They develop a second instinct to look for anything out of the ordinary. And I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, since I don't want criminals, gang-bangers, etc. hanging out in my parks, open spaces, etc.

So, clearly, there's a give-and-take here. The cops need to balance their suspicions/curiosities, and by the same token there's nothing gained in drawing attention to oneself. It's all an issue of context. If you had your dog, BOB, etc. and were out during hunting season, a rural area, campground, etc. there would be no second glance.

Likewise, if you were snowmobiling with a ski-mask and pulled up to a gas station in your snowmobile to fill up, that's no problem. But I can tell you there's a sign on the pawn shop door in a particular northern Minnesotan town that states, "Please remove ski mask before entering". The guy isn't kidding either.

So it mainly all comes down to common sense.
 
#131 ·
It's always to keep a low profile and blend in where ever you can, especially in public and where law enforcement people are involved. Police officers will always win if you get in a pissing contest with them. Be polite and respectful when you can, don't act pissed off or aggressive. They win. They can always lie and make something up if they want to ruin your day. I've got full sleeves (tattooed arms) and look very menacing normally to people who don't know me. When I'm out, especially at night, I try to play it down and stay under the radar. All the cops look like kids to me now a days anyway. Good luck, remember stealth.
 
#133 ·
aramchek said:
They say dogs can smell fear, and maybe cops can smell suspicion. They develop a second instinct to look for anything out of the ordinary. And I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, since I don't want criminals, gang-bangers, etc. hanging out in my parks, open spaces, etc.

So, clearly, there's a give-and-take here. The cops need to balance their suspicions/curiosities, and by the same token there's nothing gained in drawing attention to oneself. It's all an issue of context. If you had your dog, BOB, etc. and were out during hunting season, a rural area, campground, etc. there would be no second glance.

Likewise, if you were snowmobiling with a ski-mask and pulled up to a gas station in your snowmobile to fill up, that's no problem. But I can tell you there's a sign on the pawn shop door in a particular northern Minnesotan town that states, "Please remove ski mask before entering". The guy isn't kidding either.

So it mainly all comes down to common sense.
Click to expand...
I want you to take high emphesis on this my friend. I very much RESPECTFULLY disagree. Not with what you said, but in context of his specific case. I have studied law for years, and one thing I can say with the upmost confidense is that if a cop says "well he looked bad" or "I had a gut feeling" or "I had a hunch", then he probably already lost the case. Everything else will almost be imaterial.

Look at OJ Simpson. The cops found the bloody glove, murdered people, but almost all of the evidence was unusable for the simple fact that they hopped a fense and broke the law. Do I agree with it? Yes. Do I agree with the out come? No. When Criminals get away because a stupid Cop cuts corners, then he has helped the criminal get away. I am not biased in this respect. Now everyone that is really honest knows OJ did it. No doubt. And everyone I know believes he should have been punished. But bad police work and a good lawyer got him off.

Where we disagree is this. They are not common sense enforcers they are law enforcers. If a guy looks completely obviously guilty, of something, they have no right to do anything to him. Not if he doesn't smell like drugs, or is carrying a crowbar behind a local shop, in an area with a rash of recent break ins, etc. Hunches are specifically unacceptable. In fact lawyers LOVE cases where the officer in question, used a hunch to make an arrest. Not that I like lawyers. I don't. But when it comes to bully, nazi, unprofessional cops, I would rather deal with a snake leech of a human(lawyer), then a person who can take away everything you believe in for the simple reason that they forgot what they were hired to do.

You see we seek out lawyers, but bad cops are on the prowl for victims. Now as much as Dutch bashed me, I don't want him to hate me.I want him to open up, and act like an adult. Good police are Golden, but a criminal is a criminal, if they wear ski masks, a sign that says "I am evil", or a golden badge. And we shouldn't judge the cop unless we have reason to. Just as the police shouldn't do to us. And in the end, the law is on our side... at least in my opinion, experience.. and at least for now.

Told you I wasn't Biased. ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TANGO_INDIA_PERU
Save
Like Like
#135 · (Edited)
CrutchCoR said:
Dutch you don't know me. But I also don't know you. Post your credentials IE Show us your pare.
Click to expand...
Let me see......I have studied law for over two years in college prior to deploying to Iraq with the US Marine Corps (infantry) where I watched friends die, civilians slaughtered and did a little killing myself. Now I am a Police Officer in NY where I watch drug dealers, scum, and crackheads get away with commiting all kinds of crimes not due to the incompetance of my fellow officers, but from this system we call democracy which places some petty liberties over justice.

Don't get me wrong, our liberties and freedoms are what we stand for. But when you begin taking advantage of them and twisting and turning them into what they have become today, then they start to work against society by providing too much protection for the guilty. Its all about moderation, but when we indulge too much into the ideals of "total" freedom, thats when our society begins to slowly corrode.

Hows that for a pair. When you see first hand a society which had just undergone absolute tyranny, then the petty things we complain about as Americans seems very rediculous. Just be glad your able to walk outside your house without fear of being shot, maimed, blown up, or arrested and executed for a petty crime the very next day. We have it made, and its about time we begin to realize it.

By the way CrutchCoR, my statements are not an attempt to bash you personally. These forums are here for this reason, to share and argue ideals which are derived from personal life experiences. If you feel that me sharing my opinion with this forum is crude or uncalled for then I apologize for offending you. Thats still not going to change the way I feel about this topic.
 
#136 ·
aramchek said:
They say dogs can smell fear, and maybe cops can smell suspicion. They develop a second instinct to look for anything out of the ordinary. And I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, since I don't want criminals, gang-bangers, etc. hanging out in my parks, open spaces, etc.

So, clearly, there's a give-and-take here. The cops need to balance their suspicions/curiosities, and by the same token there's nothing gained in drawing attention to oneself. It's all an issue of context. If you had your dog, BOB, etc. and were out during hunting season, a rural area, campground, etc. there would be no second glance.

Likewise, if you were snowmobiling with a ski-mask and pulled up to a gas station in your snowmobile to fill up, that's no problem. But I can tell you there's a sign on the pawn shop door in a particular northern Minnesotan town that states, "Please remove ski mask before entering". The guy isn't kidding either.

So it mainly all comes down to common sense.
Click to expand...
Very well put, open-minded and intelligent response.
 
#137 ·
work out of states-- when come back --do ruck pack runs [steps]--no need to to bring attention; any one wondering what you are doing--people in my area know me -so I don't think they would call 911--large knife ? [kel-tec in pocket ] maybe you should met people in area ?the least you inter act with police the less they know--just my .02
 
#138 ·
dutch_0311 said:
Let me see......I have studied law for over two years in college prior to deploying to Iraq with the US Marine Corps (infantry) where I watched friends die, civilians slaughtered and did a little killing myself. Now I am a Police Officer in NY where I watch drug dealers, scum, and crackheads get away with commiting all kinds of crimes not due to the incompetance of my fellow officers, but from this system we call democracy which places some petty liberties over justice.

Don't get me wrong, our liberties and freedoms are what we stand for. But when you begin taking advantage of them and twisting and turning them into what they have become today, then they start to work against society by providing too much protection for the guilty. Its all about moderation, but when we indulge too much into the ideals of "total" freedom, thats when our society begins to slowly corrode.

Hows that for a pair. When you see first hand a society which had just undergone absolute tyranny, then the petty things we complain about as Americans seems very rediculous. Just be glad your able to walk outside your house without fear of being shot, maimed, blown up, or arrested and executed for a petty crime the very next day. We have it made, and its about time we begin to realize it.

By the way CrutchCoR, my statements are not an attempt to bash you personally. These forums are here for this reason, to share and argue ideals which are derived from personal life experiences. If you feel that me sharing my opinion with this forum is crude or uncalled for then I apologize for offending you. Thats still not going to change the way I feel about this topic.
Click to expand...
Almost every "Vet" that says out loud and in proud context that they have "Did a little killing" are full of ****, and most defiantly have either never served, or never saw combat. Try again guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikea46996 and joes
Save
Like Like
#139 ·
or a little bit psychopathic . . .
dutch I know what you mean when you see druggist, lunatics, etc . . . but thats "What's Seen." You should try to look for "What Is Unseen.


reference -
That Which is Seen, and that Which is Not Seen ~ Frederick Bastiat
 
#140 ·
chaosofcreation said:
Almost every "Vet" that says out loud and in proud context that they have "Did a little killing" are full of ****, and most defiantly have either never served, or never saw combat. Try again guy.
Click to expand...
I dont care what you have to say as far as this topic goes. But dont insult me by saying that I never served. I have served, I have seen combat and I've at least earned that. I don't usually go around and "proudly contest" what I have done over there, I was just trying to put my experiences into context for the other guy there for the sake of this discussion. So don't insult me by trying to get a low blow out of this conversation just because you feel that you have nothing legitimate to say.

And I know what you mean about alot of vets that go around broadcasting that they have seen combat, your right, they are usually full of ****.
 
121 - 140 of 187 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
About this Discussion
186 Replies
87 Participants
Last post:
hawk55732
Survivalist Forum
posts
12M
members
169K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to survivalists and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, gear, DIY projects, hobbies, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Off Topic Lounge Disaster Preparedness General Discussion Firearms General Discussion New Member Introductions Financial Forum