Talked with an officer today

I

imrambi

New member
Had the cops called on me today while I was writing a parking sticker. All because someone felt that they were "entitled" (officers words, not mine) to have their visitor park in their numbered space, which is against the rules. The officer came talked with me, then the owner, then me, let me go, and went back to the owner. I never did put a sticker on the car, but I think they got the message (hopefully). At no time was I being held, at no time was I asked to unload and make safe. Shook hands with the officer and walked away. He did say to inform the owners that I do walk around with a firearm. I do not want that to happen, but I do understand why he states that. He stated there was nothing the police can do since its the law.

He did ask for permit and I gave them all permits (NH, FL, Utah). He did joke that they do get calls about someone with a firearm at dunkin dounuts. He stated "welcome to New Hampshire."

Overall it was a good expierence. Just a little nerve racking being the first time.

I can clearly state now "when seconds count, cops are minutes away" as it took about 10 minutes from the time of the call to the time the officer arrived.
 
Good call! A nice experience indeed. Since you have been posting for quite a bit, it would have been nicer if your can put your location in your profile so we do not have to guess from where you are...
 
Why did he ask for a permit? No permit is required to open carry in New Hampshire. Just curious, did he request ID to prove you were who the permits belonged to? And why the request to notify the owners you legally carry a gun? Do you have to notify them of legally carrying a cell phone?
 
NavyLCDR said:
Why did he ask for a permit? No permit is required to open carry in New Hampshire. Just curious, did he request ID to prove you were who the permits belonged to? And why the request to notify the owners you legally carry a gun? Do you have to notify them of legally carrying a cell phone?
Click to expand...

Off hand I do not know why he asked and I really didn't feel like making that a point. Maybe I will when I call his manager (more for a I think he did a good job). The only thing I can think of is why he stated to notify owners is because I walk around the cars looking at car windows while armed might freak people out.

I do know in New Hampshire you need to give name and city of residency when a LEO ask. I do think that having multiple permits left an impression saying that I take firearms seriously.
 
imrambi said:
I do know in New Hampshire you need to give name and city of residency when a LEO ask. I do think that having multiple permits left an impression saying that I take firearms seriously.
Click to expand...

New Hampshire Statute:

594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.
Click to expand...

What crime were you suspected of committing? Just because a LEO asks does not mean you are legally obligated to answer. I understand you feel the LEO interaction was very positive, however, the LEO was investigating you and your background even though there was no indication or suspicion you were engaging in any criminal activity.
 
Boy do you have a lot to learn! You must not have been reading the forums here too much so you don't know how to properly handle an LEO encounter, according to some here, including some on this thread who have already pointed out similar ideas. I'll help you out so you know how to "properly" handle an LEO encounter before your next post.

Any time an officer approaches you, the only thing you are to do is protest the violation of your rights and ask are you free to go. It goes something like this:

Officer: Good morning sir
Response: I'm not required to respond. Am I free to go?

Officer: is that a gun on your hip?
Response: I cannot comment on your observation and you cannot make me. Am I free to go?

Officer: Did you hear that the LA Kings won the Stanley Cup?
Response: Am I suspected of committing a crime? Am I free to go?

Officer: Have a nice day.
Response: There is no law saying that I must have a nice day. Am I being detained or am I free to go?

Get the idea? Now, you know how to handle the next LEO that comes your way.

Seriously, though, it seems like a fairly benign encounter. Perhaps the permit question was not valid, but that's a training issue not one to start the protest marches on City Hall.

Thanks for sharing the experience.
 
If one does not recognize a fishing expedition, they may unknowingly find themselves on the wrong end of the fishhook.
 
BIGJOHN621, exactly right! Very good post! I think the right answer is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Must we be obstinant simply because it's our right to do so? I think being cordial with an LEO can be just as effective. For instance, "Sir, here are my permits, but are you aware that......?"

I know that approach has worked better for me. A little diplomacy goes a long way, as any LCDR knows! :haha:
 
USN2Pulpit said:
BIGJOHN621, exactly right! Very good post! I think the right answer is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Must we be obstinant simply because it's our right to do so? I think being cordial with an LEO can be just as effective. For instance, "Sir, here are my permits, but are you aware that......?"

I know that approach has worked better for me. A little diplomacy goes a long way, as any LCDR knows! :haha:
Click to expand...

USN2Pulpit,

Would you mind if we take a couple minutes to diplomatically examine some facts associated with your comments?

In my post #5 I merely asked a few simple questions. I did not in any way state that either the OP's actions, nor the police officer's actions were right or wrong. I only asked what was the relevence of the officer's requests/statements to the situation.

In my post #7 I merely posted a statute and stated a fact. Again, I did not state in any way that either the OP's actions, nor the police officer's actions were right or wrong.

My post #9 was nothing more than a general response to BIGJOHN621's post.

Now, let us contrast my comments to those made by BIGJOHN621, which you have thrown your support behind. Approximately 80% of BIGJOHN621's post #8 is nothing more than mockery of a group of people who choose to exercise their 4th Amendment rights rather than waive them at the first sight of a badge. BIGJOHN621 makes one statement that actually contributes anything factual to the discussion: "Perhaps the permit question was not valid, but that's a training issue", followed by yet another statement of mockery, "not one to start the protest marches on City Hall." I don't see anyone suggesting any marches on City Hall in the previous conversation, do you?

So, I am curious as to why you would claim BIGJOHN621's post as "exactly right" when it contains very little other than mockery borne out of a prejudice against those who advocate exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution that you once were sworn to support and defend? Is that your definition of diplomacy, to mock those that you don't agree with? Given the CPO anchor in your signature line and the word "pulpit" in your user name, can we assume that you are a retired Chief Petty Officer of the US Navy who is now a minister? May I ask if BIGJOHN621's mocking post, which you declare to support as being "exactly right", exemplifies the values that a Chief Petty Officer or a minister in the service of God should hold?
 
imrambi said:
Had the cops called on me today while I was writing a parking sticker. All because someone felt that they were "entitled" (officers words, not mine) to have their visitor park in their numbered space, which is against the rules. The officer came talked with me, then the owner, then me, let me go, and went back to the owner. I never did put a sticker on the car, but I think they got the message (hopefully). At no time was I being held, at no time was I asked to unload and make safe. Shook hands with the officer and walked away. He did say to inform the owners that I do walk around with a firearm. I do not want that to happen, but I do understand why he states that. He stated there was nothing the police can do since its the law.

He did ask for permit and I gave them all permits (NH, FL, Utah). He did joke that they do get calls about someone with a firearm at dunkin dounuts. He stated "welcome to New Hampshire."

Overall it was a good expierence. Just a little nerve racking being the first time.

I can clearly state now "when seconds count, cops are minutes away" as it took about 10 minutes from the time of the call to the time the officer arrived.
Click to expand...

A couple questions,
Are you employed as a security guard for the property owner? If you are a security guard are you authorized to be armed? The reason I ask is because in Colorado licensed security may not carry a firearm on duty unless they have a firearms endorsement on their license regardless of permit status.
If you aren’t why are you putting parking tickets on people’s cars?
 
carracer said:
Maybe something like these: Funny Parking note
Click to expand...

Get one of those old fashion spring loaded dart guns with the suction cup darts. Impale the parking sticker on the dart and shoot it right square in the middle of the driver's side door window.....

But then someone will call 911 about your dart gun, so you better be sure and have a permit for it! :lol:
 
NavyLCDR said:
USN2Pulpit,

Would you mind if we take a couple minutes to diplomatically examine some facts associated with your comments?

In my post #5 I merely asked a few simple questions. I did not in any way state that either the OP's actions, nor the police officer's actions were right or wrong. I only asked what was the relevence of the officer's requests/statements to the situation.

In my post #7 I merely posted a statute and stated a fact. Again, I did not state in any way that either the OP's actions, nor the police officer's actions were right or wrong.

My post #9 was nothing more than a general response to BIGJOHN621's post.

Now, let us contrast my comments to those made by BIGJOHN621, which you have thrown your support behind. Approximately 80% of BIGJOHN621's post #8 is nothing more than mockery of a group of people who choose to exercise their 4th Amendment rights rather than waive them at the first sight of a badge. BIGJOHN621 makes one statement that actually contributes anything factual to the discussion: "Perhaps the permit question was not valid, but that's a training issue", followed by yet another statement of mockery, "not one to start the protest marches on City Hall." I don't see anyone suggesting any marches on City Hall in the previous conversation, do you?

So, I am curious as to why you would claim BIGJOHN621's post as "exactly right" when it contains very little other than mockery borne out of a prejudice against those who advocate exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution that you once were sworn to support and defend? Is that your definition of diplomacy, to mock those that you don't agree with? Given the CPO anchor in your signature line and the word "pulpit" in your user name, can we assume that you are a retired Chief Petty Officer of the US Navy who is now a minister? May I ask if BIGJOHN621's mocking post, which you declare to support as being "exactly right", exemplifies the values that a Chief Petty Officer or a minister in the service of God should hold?
Click to expand...

As always, your post was well thought out and to the point. You have absolutely put me in my place. Don't I feel humble!

There is nothing wrong with anything you've said. I liked the post because it was funny, that's all. It was also clearly a humorous offering - satirical, but humorous. If we can't make fun of ourselves from time to time, what are we becoming? But perhaps you are right. From this point forward, I will take all matters discussed here in a sober manner.

And yes, you were correct in your assumptions about my being a retired chief and now pastor - as I told you in a PM not so long ago. If you would like to know more, go to PM, as I don't wish for a misunderstanding between you & I to further derail this thread.
 
I'm glad some can understand sarcasm and satire as it was pretty thick. I'm not mocking, just exaggerating for effect. While I do respect the absolute right of the 4th amendment, I am not so smitten on the way some here feel it should be exercised. Throwing laws in the face of an LEO, fishing or not, will get you nowhere and harm our cause by making us look like nuts. A softer yet firm approach is the way to
Go, IMHO.

As for the fishing expedition, there is no cure for stupid, as was once said. If you are doing wrong and try to talk your way out of it, you will lose. If you are within your rights, no trickery will bring you down.

At the end of the day, it is about respect. It is a two way street.
 
BIGJOHN621 said:
At the end of the day, it is about respect. It is a two way street.
Click to expand...
Precisely correct. Respect is a two-way street, which begs the question, "Why are so many LEOs coming down the street at me in MY lane?" If more (read: all) LEOs entered interactions with lawfully armed citizens with that sense of respect for our Constitutional rights, threads like this one would be the exception on sites like USACarry, rather than, as they do seem, the rule.

I have full respect for the LEO, his authority, and his concerns only when he has (and exhibits) full respect for me, my rights, and my concerns. When Officer Fife accosts me in an unfriendly manner and demands I "Respect mah authoritah!", then that starts the whole interaction off on a bad foot and at that point, it's pretty much irredeemable.

And just because the LEO has been given faulty training by his superiors and leadership hierarchy does not trump my Constitutional rights. If he insists on enforcing illegal and void laws, ordinances, and policies in violation of my Constitutionally guaranteed, inherent, individual rights, that does not engender in me a duty to defer to his improper training for either one of our sakes. There are now two threads on USAC about Indiana's deadly force vs. illegally behaving LEO law. If it came to such a result, I would treat the deceased cop's trainers who gave him that bad training as co-conspirators, like the get-away driver in the parking lot after the clerk drops the stick-up man. Try the co-conspirators for murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 135 (members: 0, guests: 135)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,520
Messages
610,651
Members
74,982
Latest member
schulze

Share this page

Back
Top