[cslade454]

update:

FIREARM ARRESTS: The Wilmington Community Policing Unit arrested two men on firearms charges Friday. Officers working with the department's drug, vice and organized crime unit answered a complaint about two armed men near South Jackson and Linden streets. The officers tried to stop the men, who fled. One man was caught at South Jackson and Maple streets, where he tossed away a loaded .357 Magnum., police said. Officers caught the second man at South Van Buren and Maple streets, where he tried to get rid of a loaded .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun. The men were identified as Shamar Lindsay, 20, and Erevu Wilson, 19. Both were charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon, resisting arrest and possession of a firearm in a school zone. Lindsay also was charged with assaulting a police officer.

I am sure glade the police got these two off the street illegal stop or not. I carry a gun because I am against criminals like these two. I assist the police in anyway I can to help get thugs likes these off the street. If the police what to see my ID I am happy to show it to them and have several times with no problems. Very little info on this site about crime prevention but lot of info about how to fight with the police. Who are you really scared of the cops or the criminals.

[David]

Its not about being scared of anyone, although personally I hope to not have interactions with either party. The fact is criminal defense lawyers know the laws and the system better than most police. An illegal stop produces evidence the defense counsel will attempt to have suppressed. Suppressed evidence leads to dropped charges and criminals walk free. Criminals then file civil charges for 4th amendment violations and taxpayers pick up the tab. The case law I have posted is simply to demonstrate that broad statements such as "running form the police is RS" is just not true. It could go either way, based on a host of issues and the abilities of your defense lawyer.

You carry a weapon because you have the right to do so. The fact that others choose to express their rights against illegal searches and seizures does not imply fear of anyone. I'm all for taking criminals off the street. I'm not for being treated like one simply because I carry.

[David]

Reading through this case summary, the Court does an excellent job summarizing the cases I have stated above and provides several detailed descriptions of seizure vs. a consensual encounter. A must read for anyone concerned with police interaction, the 4th Amendment and your right to just say no.

City of Columbus v. Charles E Body

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/ ... io-379.pdf

[Lascivious1]

Reading through this case summary, the Court does an excellent job summarizing the cases I have stated above and provides several detailed descriptions of seizure vs. a consensual encounter. A must read for anyone concerned with police interaction, the 4th Amendment and your right to just say no.

City of Columbus v. Charles E Body

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/ ... io-379.pdf

You really do learn alot from simple things like that

[dean]

Interesting read. It pisses me to see the rulings on consensual encounters. "Hey come here" definitely sounds more like a command than a request to me. It goes on to mention how a reasonable person would still feel free to leave. There must be a real lack of reasonable people out there because I'm quite certain that the majority of people would feel obliged to come to the officer in that situation.

These guys need to be watched constantly. I get sick of hearing about officer safety as well. Sure, you're in a dangerous line of work and you'd like to be safe but your safety shouldn't supersede the rights of American citizens. It's a dangerous line of work and you're well aware of that when you join a law enforcement agency. It's just like the military. It's not for everyone.

[George]

I know the world is not as polite it used to be, but if anyone I know were to stop a stranger on the street they would use somthing similar to one of the following phrases:
1. "Excuse me, could you tell me...."
2. "pardon me, if I could have a minute of your time"
3. "So Sweetie, How much for a date?

I would never dream of telling a stranger "Come over here" and would not respond to such. If said by a person in uniform I would take the lack of social nicities as a command

My .00037 gm of gold

[bmel17]

These guys need to be watched constantly. I get sick of hearing about officer safety as well. Sure, you're in a dangerous line of work and you'd like to be safe but your safety shouldn't supersede the rights of American citizens. It's a dangerous line of work and you're well aware of that when you join a law enforcement agency. It's just like the military. It's not for everyone.

I agree with a lot of your statement, but where is the line drawn? Yes, it is an inherently dangerous job. Should it be made less safe or more safe for them to do their said job? Just because I know my job in the military is dangerous doesn't mean I have to ignore my senses and do something dangerous because someone else thinks it is correct or because it's someone else's rights. I would violate someone's rights to ensure my life. I would do it gladly in certain situations. Especially if I had that funny feeling.

In the military and law enforcement, it is a dangerous occupation. That being said, it is not a requirement for me to do things unsafely. Is going door to door looking for terrorists and weapons dangerous? you bet! If I can reduce that level of danger should I? hell yes! Same for the cops.

Most non-leos do not see the other side of the coin and chock this up to their rights vs the man. When it really comes down to is their rights vs the officers rights. The officer has a right to live just as you have a right to (fill in the blank).

This statement is not saying it is right to violate rights, but rather in certain cases, I can't blame a cop for doing it. Doesn't make it right, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. This is more for those rarer occasions, not for the average OC'er.

As for being disarmed during a stop for officer safety, I have no issue with it. The cop is using their instinct. Someone could look like a normal person, but deep down inside they are a nut-case waiting to explode.

If a job is that unsafe and it is not backed by it's government and the law abiding citizens behind that gov't, no one would be doing the job. Why? fuck that. That's why. Just as no one on this site wants to be unarmed walking around in a bad part of town. If DE suddenly said no OC or CC, I'm pretty sure a good amount of people would move. They wouldn't CHOOSE to live in DE any longer. Much to my analogy that no one would want to be a cop.

These practices and officers DO need to be watched constantly. Not all cases require a violation of rights for officer safety. Officer safety can be reached sometimes without disarmnament. Sometimes, it can't be reached without.

"Sure, you're in a dangerous line of work and you'd like to be safe but your safety shouldn't supersede the rights of American citizens." This is the one part of your statement I do not agree with. My right to self defense supercedes the guy who is threating my life's right to exist. Same for when I feel in danger of serious bodily harm.

[cappilot06]

Who are you really scared of the cops or the criminals.

I personally am not scared of either one, but I have just as much a distrust of both. That is not saying I don't believe LEO's have a difficult job, but I don't trust many of them to not violate my rights because most have been trained that it is ok to do so.

[David]

Here's one for the crowd that says you should conceal your firearm to avoid police harassment. From the Florida District Court:

FL3: Possession of firearm justifies frisk, not withstanding concealed carry law

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D10-2415.pdf

Seeing a firearm on defendant’s person justified a patdown. While Florida is a concealed carry state, the officer does not have to exclude the possibility of a permit before the frisk. Mackey v. State, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4063 (Fla. 3d DCA March 14, 2012):

Mackey contends the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion to detain him for carrying a concealed firearm. He begins by noting that it is generally not illegal to possess a firearm in Florida. Mackey then argues in his brief, relying again upon Regalado, that "since, under Florida law, carrying a concealed firearm is illegal only if the individual does not have a permit and since the officer had no information suggesting that defendant did not have a permit, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him for carrying a concealed firearm." Whether, as a general proposition, mere possession of a firearm is not illegal in Florida, it is beside the point. Mackey was not observed in mere possession of a firearm; rather, he was observed in possession of a concealed firearm, and the officer testified that he observed a "piece of the handle sticking out" of Mackey's pocket, enabling the officer to identify it as a firearm. It is the concealment of the firearm, not merely its possession, which rendered Mackey's conduct illegal, and authorized the officer's actions in this case. Moreover, Mackey's argument necessarily overlooks the difference between an essential element of the crime and an exception, or affirmative defense, to the crime.

[cappilot06]

That is Fl code, not DE code. An individual open-carrying in DE cannot be stopped and frisked on a whim by a LEO.