Law Enforcement Officers And Concealed Carry.

[BluesStringer]

Understanding what makes each person choose their course of action is what interests me, and I was (unsuccessfully) trying to give a situation where a LEO didn't have much information to go on. In that case not informing, followed by an affirmative response to weapons could escalate a situation unnecessarily, whereas a voluntary inform could ease tension.

The problem that you're running into here is that most of us on this site not only follow the law, but we expect LEOs to follow the law too. That means that most of us don't treat them as special people and make accommodations to them by relinquishing our rights to shut the heck up if the law doesn't require otherwise. To a person, everyone has answered your initial question basically the same way.

What you're suggesting in what I put in bold above is that answering truthfully that I am armed after being asked by a sworn LEO "could" escalate the stop. That's just poppycock if the LEO is following the same law that I am fully aware of and will cite to him/her if they get all flustered because of my waiting for them to ask before disclosing the truth, which is the state of the law for both parties in this state. I won't preemptively relinquish my right to not volunteer any information to him/her just because he/she might be a law-breaker who will use my silence against me. The suggestion that it would be OK if a stop did unfold thusly is patently absurd. Screw the law-breaker if they try to hold something against me that isn't against the law. I'll do what I can in court or through his/her chain of command to make sure he/she knows that this citizen doesn't take abuse of authority lightly

A thought I had through all this... Why do you answer any questions? The video earlier essentially gave reason to not say a word ever. Anybody hard-line to that?

There's a law in this state that says if an officer asks if you're armed, you are legally bound to answer the question truthfully. Now, there is an exception which is not accounted for within the statute, but which has been ruled by the courts to apply in all cases, and that is if you are either not carrying legally or you reasonably believe that the question was asked because you are suspected of having committed a crime, you don't have to answer the question at all, though you must invoke your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and/or to remain silent. At that point your weapon will most likely be discovered during the normal pat-down that any marginally well-trained officer will conduct before they read you your rights and take you to jail, and that's OK with me because since I didn't open my stupid mouth, and it's for sure I didn't commit the crime for which I am suspected, I haven't said or done anything that can be used against me and it will (hopefully) all get worked out within a day or two. If I truly am a suspect, how on earth could it conceivably help me to announce that I'm armed? It's a rhetorical question for which everyone but you already knew the answer before you asked your question of me - it can't.

I only answer questions or provide information that I am required by law to answer/provide. I am hard-line on not talking to LEOs beyond "Here's my license, registration and insurance papers." I don't sit there and chit-chat with them in any regard whatsoever. Do you? Oh yeah, that's right, you would inform them of your armed status even if it wasn't required where you live, so I guess y'all have plenty to talk about, right? I don't, and apparently, nobody else who has chimed in on your question of me does either.

Blues

 

[slick84pb]

The problem that you're running into here is that most of us on this site not only follow the law, but we expect LEOs to follow the law too. That means that most of us don't treat them as special people and make accommodations to them by relinquishing our rights to shut the heck up if the law doesn't require otherwise. To a person, everyone has answered your initial question basically the same way.

What you're suggesting in what I put in bold above is that answering truthfully that I am armed after being asked by a sworn LEO "could" escalate the stop. That's just poppycock if the LEO is following the same law that I am fully aware of and will cite to him/her if they get all flustered because of my waiting for them to ask before disclosing the truth, which is the state of the law for both parties in this state. I won't preemptively relinquish my right to not volunteer any information to him/her just because he/she might be a law-breaker who will use my silence against me. The suggestion that it would be OK if a stop did unfold thusly is patently absurd. Screw the law-breaker if they try to hold something against me that isn't against the law. I'll do what I can in court or through his/her chain of command to make sure he/she knows that this citizen doesn't take abuse of authority lightly



There's a law in this state that says if an officer asks if you're armed, you are legally bound to answer the question truthfully. Now, there is an exception which is not accounted for within the statute, but which has been ruled by the courts to apply in all cases, and that is if you are either not carrying legally or you reasonably believe that the question was asked because you are suspected of having committed a crime, you don't have to answer the question at all, though you must invoke your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and/or to remain silent. At that point your weapon will most likely be discovered during the normal pat-down that any marginally well-trained officer will conduct before they read you your rights and take you to jail, and that's OK with me because since I didn't open my stupid mouth, and it's for sure I didn't commit the crime for which I am suspected, I haven't said or done anything that can be used against me and it will (hopefully) all get worked out within a day or two. If I truly am a suspect, how on earth could it conceivably help me to announce that I'm armed? It's a rhetorical question for which everyone but you already knew the answer before you asked your question of me - it can't.

I only answer questions or provide information that I am required by law to answer/provide. I am hard-line on not talking to LEOs beyond "Here's my license, registration and insurance papers." I don't sit there and chit-chat with them in any regard whatsoever. Do you? Oh yeah, that's right, you would inform them of your armed status even if it wasn't required where you live, so I guess y'all have plenty to talk about, right? I don't, and apparently, nobody else who has chimed in on your question of me does either.

Blues

Never been in the situation , so I can't say that I would or wouldn't. Believe I stated that before.

Thanks for the explanation of your reasoning. It makes perfect sense to me, as many others do as well. There has been at least one person in this thread that said they would or have, can't remember, voluntarily inform. I've not been in the situation, thus my interest and the appearance that I oppose you. I'm not berating or looking down on anyone for choosing to use their rights - but had I simply asked why not I would have gotten a simple "Don't say nothing" response. Engaging someone from an opposing view doesn't mean I necessarily hold that view, but it has allowed me to get a much deeper understanding of the reasoning behind why.

Understanding why people do what they do, whether or not I do the same, often provides insight I find useful in reaffirming or changing my position. To be completely honest having never been in the situation, nor having given it much thought, I did not have a solid opinion on the matter one way or the other.

But yourself and others have provided immeasurable insight into the situation. I will be in a voluntary location later this year, and that is probably what spurred me to join the conversation in such a manner.

 

[SGT504MP]

"the police are TRAINED not to trust you."

There's a big difference between that statement and this one;

"Law enforcement officers are trained not to trust the person they stop on the street or they interview as part of an investigation."

"It seems to me that you don't personally know any law enforcement officers."

My my, how impertinent. 30 years this year as a police officer.

"LEO-to-citizen equals untrustworthy..."

What a word-salad. After reading that hysterical diatribe, every cop I know would probably want to keep their distance from you too...

 

[bofh]

"the police are TRAINED not to trust you."

There's a big difference between that statement and this one;

"Law enforcement officers are trained not to trust the person they stop on the street or they interview as part of an investigation."

"It seems to me that you don't personally know any law enforcement officers."

My my, how impertinent. 30 years this year as a police officer.

"LEO-to-citizen equals untrustworthy..."

What a word-salad. After reading that hysterical diatribe, every cop I know would probably want to keep their distance from you too...

Yes, quite a word salad. Composed from different people's posts without proper attribution and out of context. What's your point?

 

[BluesStringer]

"LEO-to-citizen equals untrustworthy..."

What a word-salad. After reading that hysterical diatribe, every cop I know would probably want to keep their distance from you too...

GOOD! Desired effect obtained.

 

[John Caparatta]

GOOD! Desired effect obtained.

Absolutely !!!!!!!!!

 

[Deanimator]

No, Blues, I believe that police CAN be trusted, and I do trust them to do the right thing. Your fear of authority might just verge on paranoia. Yes youtube is filled with videos of police acting out. What percentage of out of control LEOs do you think there are compared to the total? I know a lot of policemen/women and they are decent people. I believe the way a person perceives a LEO is in direct proportion to way they treat a LEO. If have chip on your shoulder and give a policeman a lot of lip and attitude your experience will be a lot different than if you approach them as a reasonable citizen.

I'm Black and grew up in Chicago in the '60s and '70s. I have no more trust for the police than I do for Vladimir Putin or itinerant driveway resurfacers. I have no REASON to trust them.

Cops LIE... a LOT.

I'm strictly letter of the law. That should be the ONLY thing that matters to the cop. If it's NOT, he's up to no good.

I'm POLITE but not friendly to the police. But them I'm polite to counter people at McDonald's and people at the DMV. I certainly have no more regard for the police than I do for somebody who's memorized, "Would you like fries with that?"

Police here have ORDERED people to be silent, then when they OBEYED THEIR COMMANDS, they ARRESTED them for "failure to notify".

Letter of the law. If the cop can't handle that, he's in all likelihood a criminal on the public dole.

 

[Deanimator]

After reading that hysterical diatribe, every cop I know would probably want to keep their distance from you too...

I would consider that a favorable outcome.

 

[BluesStringer]

Never been in the situation , so I can't say that I would or wouldn't. Believe I stated that before.

Thanks for the explanation of your reasoning. It makes perfect sense to me, as many others do as well. There has been at least one person in this thread that said they would or have, can't remember, voluntarily inform. I've not been in the situation, thus my interest and the appearance that I oppose you. I'm not berating or looking down on anyone for choosing to use their rights - but had I simply asked why not I would have gotten a simple "Don't say nothing" response. Engaging someone from an opposing view doesn't mean I necessarily hold that view, but it has allowed me to get a much deeper understanding of the reasoning behind why.

Upon reviewing the thread, I find this somewhat disingenuous. You certainly expressed support for the notion that spontaneously informing had little potential for bringing harm to the spontaneous informant.

...I completely agree with not saying anything you're not legally required to, but I don't see where silently offering your permit as falling under the guise of 'saying' anything either.

For as many theoretical reasons as there are to not notify, just as many can be thought of that would support notifying. I reside in a must inform state so I don't really have a horse in the race - but I know of 0 cases where this has caused issue, and only a handful where it has even brought about unnecessary handling.

First you fail to understand that unnecessary handling is an issue, and secondly, you expressed support for spontaneous disclosure even acknowledging knowledge of multiple cases of unnecessary handling, which has been one of the top reasons given for not notifying as long it's legal to withhold that information.

Understanding why people do what they do, whether or not I do the same, often provides insight I find useful in reaffirming or changing my position. To be completely honest having never been in the situation, nor having given it much thought, I did not have a solid opinion on the matter one way or the other.

You have expressed many solid opinions since your entry into this thread, including this post that I'm (belatedly) replying to.

But yourself and others have provided immeasurable insight into the situation. I will be in a voluntary location later this year, and that is probably what spurred me to join the conversation in such a manner.

If you do happen to get stopped, please do let us know what you did, how this conversation effected your decision-making processes, and what the outcome of the stop was.

If you don't get stopped, then let us know what your "theory" of how a stop would go was influenced by this conversation.

Enjoy your trip and stay safe out there. Threats come in all sizes, shapes, colors and uniforms.

Blues

 

[repair]

Florida is also a no tell state but when you are carrying you better have your permit with you.