TexasCHLforum.com

Lesson to be learned. Your not going to win an argument with the police even if you think they could be wrong or they are wrong. Best do what they ask and take it up later with their supervisors or the courts.

I just don't understand why people insist on arguing w/LEO's. It's a no win situation. Even if there wrong your going to have to do what they are asking.

C-dub wrote:

gigag04 wrote:IMHO an empty holster is at least reasonable suspicion that an individual may have a handgun. If the officer can articulate that into a reasonable belief that a danger might be present, I think a Terry frisk is fine.

I don't understand this logic. If I'm wearing a fanny pack at school does that give campus police the right to search me for a weapon? I know you are pro-2A, but I just don't understand how you can get from an empty holster to a reasonable belief that a danger might be present any more so than any other time. I don't know what he was protesting, but OC is legal in WY, even on campus. Had his holster not been empty the only problem he would have had was possibly with school rules, but that wouldn't have been illegal and therefore not an issue for the police. I won't call it harrassment, but I just don't understand the reason for the need to search. BTW, there was no mention of him having a concealed gun once arrested. I'm fairly sure they searched him then.

Carrying on school grounds is not legal in WY. Concealed or Open.
My source is an iPad app I have here on my iPad, so I can't copy/paste. :(

pcgizzmo wrote:Lesson to be learned. Your not going to win an argument with the police even if you think they could be wrong or they are wrong. Best do what they ask and take it up later with their supervisors or the courts.

I just don't understand why people insist on arguing w/LEO's. It's a no win situation. Even if there wrong your going to have to do what they are asking.

I think that this case is different than most. I think his actions were passed on principle rather than being a drunk or argumentative jerk. That said, the end result was the same. The article didn't say whether or not he was booked, but I suspect he was. I just hope that the charges are dropped and he doesn't get caught up in the courts and end up with a conviction on his record.

RPB wrote:More context

This was LAST WEEK ... prior to an Ann Coulter speech, holding anti- Ann Coulter signs .... not part of this week's Empty Holster protests
http://www.ewoss.com/photos/deb8d671-c6 ... 646ea.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That significantly changes the dynamic, too. High profile political commentator coming for a visit and a guy has a sign which looks like he's personally attacking her and he has an empty holster. In that situation, I'd see an implied threat to her safety. Then he refuses to talk or work with the LEOs and gets aggressive, challenging them. Not wise.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

RPB wrote:More context

This was LAST WEEK ... prior to an Ann Coulter speech, holding anti- Ann Coulter signs .... not part of this week's Empty Holster protests
http://www.ewoss.com/photos/deb8d671-c6 ... 646ea.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That significantly changes the dynamic, too. High profile political commentator coming for a visit and a guy has a sign which looks like he's personally attacking her and he has an empty holster. In that situation, I'd see an implied threat to her safety. Then he refuses to talk or work with the LEOs and gets aggressive, challenging them. Not wise.

There was no indication that he was either aggressive or challenging the LEOs. The reports were that he just said "No" to their requests to search him and he refused to answer questions. Of course, I wasn't there so I don't know his demeanor. All in all, I am sure that the courts will decide that the LEOs had the right to arrest him. As I said before, I hope that the matter is quickly resolved with minimal impact to the individual.

WildBill wrote:There was no indication that he was either aggressive or challenging the LEOs.

I was referring to the bystander's account. "They told him many times if he didn't he could leave. He told them to make him leave." Telling cops who are asking you to leave to "make me" is having an adversarial attitude in my opinion.

Commander Cody wrote:With nothing to hide he should have complied with the request to search… IMHO.

You'd let the police come and poke around your house if they wanted to, because you have nothing to hide?

Hoi Polloi wrote:

WildBill wrote:There was no indication that he was either aggressive or challenging the LEOs.

I was referring to the bystander's account. "They told him many times if he didn't he could leave. He told them to make him leave." Telling cops who are asking you to leave to "make me" is having an adversarial attitude in my opinion.

Sorry, I didn't read those comments.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

WildBill wrote:There was no indication that he was either aggressive or challenging the LEOs.

I was referring to the bystander's account. "They told him many times if he didn't he could leave. He told them to make him leave." Telling cops who are asking you to leave to "make me" is having an adversarial attitude in my opinion.

Yep, and it sounds like they then arrested him for contempt of cop.

hirundo82 wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

WildBill wrote:There was no indication that he was either aggressive or challenging the LEOs.

I was referring to the bystander's account. "They told him many times if he didn't he could leave. He told them to make him leave." Telling cops who are asking you to leave to "make me" is having an adversarial attitude in my opinion.

Yep, and it sounds like they then arrested him for contempt of cop.

Pretty much.

Commander Cody wrote:With nothing to hide he should have complied with the request to search… IMHO.

Really? That guy in New Jersey who got a seven year prison sentence for having unloaded guns secured and locked in the trunk of his car didn't think he had anything to hide either. I don't have anything to "hide," so I should be AOK with the police searching me or my car or my house any ole' time they want? Sorry, "nothing to hide" isn't the standard embodied in the Constitution --left alone when there isn't probable cause is the standard for liberty. There may be some unusual circumstances where I'd consent to a search --this particular circumstance would probably be one of them-- but normally I'm not going to consent.

If "nothing to hide" is the standard then eventually you'll find you have the kind of government you do have something to hide from. Gun owners should be especially concerned when there is already, among other things, pending legislation to ban magazines over 10 round capacity. According to the NRA, the Bill is written such that possession of pre-ban magazines will merely be an affirmative defense at your trial, and you'll have to prove you bought them before the ban.

When I first saw the heading my first question was why did they want to search the individual and did it contridict the 5th Amendment.

WildBill wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

WildBill wrote:There was no indication that he was either aggressive or challenging the LEOs.

I was referring to the bystander's account. "They told him many times if he didn't he could leave. He told them to make him leave." Telling cops who are asking you to leave to "make me" is having an adversarial attitude in my opinion.

Yep, and it sounds like they then arrested him for contempt of cop.

Pretty much.

Some things just never change.

'Contempt of cop' was what landed me in the Nashville jail one Saturday night back in 1962. The cops wrote illegal possession (beer) and disorderly conduct on the citation but I know it was really 'contempt of cop'. FWIW, that one night of "Jailhouse Rock" broke me of any further need to display my superior knowledge/intellect or wit to any future LEO.

Oldgringo wrote:Saturday night back in 1962

OG, you are showing your age with this one

pcgizzmo wrote:I just don't understand why people insist on arguing w/LEO's. It's a no win situation. Even if there wrong your going to have to do what they are asking.

Yes, arguing may be no win, but refusal may not be. If you're asked to consent to a search, the police may not have probable cause. If you don't give your consent and it turns out they don't have probable cause they may not be able to introduce the results of their search into your trial if you end up being charged with something. You may think you don't have anything to worry about because you're not doing anything illegal --then again, that's probably what that guy in New Jersey thought who got seven years for guns he had locked in the truck of his car, which he believed he possessed legally.

And if, for instance, the police ask to search your car, how do you know you don't have anything to hide? How do you know some passenger, one you might not even know about --such as an acquaintance of a teenage son or daughter's friend-- didn't drop a joint, or a prescription bottle of some controlled substance under the seat?