Sharp as a Marble - You will respect my AUTHORITAH!!! (Updated)

<< Science is FUN! | Home | Well, that'd explain it >>

You will respect my AUTHORITAH!!! (Updated)

I wonder if we're supposed to start and end each sentence with SIR!!!?

Our problem is not with open carry in and of itself. Our problem is that the advocates of open carry are asserting that the right to carry a firearm and to be immune to questions from authority is superior to every other interest. That is the real issue in the case of Frank Hannan-Rock, not whether he may or may not carry a firearm.

Hannan-Rock was arrested for obstructing an officer, in other words for not answering questions.

Remember who's the boss, mmkay?

Update – Wolfwood brings up a good point, and makes me reconsider my tone here. I know there's plenty of Open Carry activists who look for confrontation in order to make a point. I don't particularly care for that as I believe that harms more than helps, but that's my opinion and not a blanket statement condemning anyone.

This guy, from what little bit I've read, sounds like he refused to answer any questions. I bristled at the tone of the article because I read it as the author was claiming we should genuflect at a cops authority, something I'm not too fond of.

But from further reading, his points are salient – if there's a bunch of broken windows you want the cops to stop the guy walking down the street with the baseball bat.

So, mea culpa on this post. I really need more information before I make these kinds of assertions.

posted @ 9/21/2009 1:44:16 PM

Incoming Links

The View From North Central Idaho - Open carry as a political statement on 11/15/2009 3:02:44 PM

Comments

Wolfwood says:

on 9/21/2009 2:16:28 PM

It depends. The article notes that the police were investigating what I presume to have been a crime.

Let me ask you this: if Hannan-Rock hadn't answered the officer's questions (assuming that the officer was investigating a crime, of which he reasonably suspected that Hannan-Rock may have been involved), what should the officer have done?

Wolfwood says:

on 9/21/2009 2:18:54 PM

I ask the above because you will see an attorney who claims that his client shouldn't have to face an obstruction charge because he refused to answer an officer's questions about a crime for which he was a likely suspect get absolutely benchslapped (to the point where the other lawyers in the courtroom call their other lawyer friends to come in and see it) by the judge.

Robb Allen says:

on 9/21/2009 2:35:56 PM

In this case, I'm more concerned about the attitude of the article reading like we're subordinates to the police.

I have no problem answering basic questions to police officers. Lord knows I've had a rather interesting encounter that had me cuffed with about 30 guns pointed in my face - a complete case of mistaken identity which luckily was resolved right then and there. And a lot of that had to do with me being polite (even when I declined to answer some questions).

I'm sure it's possible Hannan-Rock was a dick about it. A lot of advocates look for confrontation (which I disagree with). I just get rubbed the wrong way when someone infers I should bow to authority as if that's the end all be all.

More information is required though, before I make such an assumption. I will edit the post to eat that tidbit of crow.

Sean Sorrentino says:

on 9/21/2009 3:50:46 PM

"I ask the above because you will see an attorney who claims that his client shouldn't have to face an obstruction charge because he refused to answer an officer's questions about a crime for which he was a likely suspect get absolutely benchslapped "

you're joking right? ever heard of the 5th Amendment?

ishida says:

on 9/21/2009 3:51:55 PM

"I know there are a lot of OCers who go around looking for conflict to prove a point"

That's bullshit, and you know it. It's statements like that that make me lose faith in any of the movement.

Robb Allen says:

on 9/21/2009 3:55:12 PM

ishida - I've met them. I've had conversations with them. Getting noticed via confrontation is important to some people.

I'm not saying "most", I'm just saying there's plenty of people like that.

Wolfwood says:

on 9/21/2009 4:58:11 PM

Sean Sorrentino,

I think you'll find that the courts don't see basic things like your name as being covered by the Fifth Amendment.

As for the Fourth Amendment, if the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime (for instance, illegal discharge of a firearm) has been committed and that you (the man with the gun in the place from which the shots were reported fired) did it, you can be detained (seized) by the officer and are obligated to answer the officer's questions; your answer to these questions will be inadmissible at trial unless you had been advised of your Miranda rights.

Of course, I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. If you are unsure on this issue you will need to look up the relevant law and come to your own conclusion.

Bob S. says:

on 9/21/2009 5:21:59 PM

I think the difference here is between not answering questions and not answering questions asked ONLY because he was openly carrying.

If the police could stop anyone in the area of a crime only because they were in the area of a crime, that would be a violation of our 4th amendment.

If the broken windows in the cars happened at a baseball field, would the cops be justified in holding everyone until they were questioned?

Also, there is a limited amount of information that can be compelled by a cop until reasonable suspicion can be established. That is the crux, is carrying a firearm on his own property enough to make a person suspect in a crime?

ATLien says:

on 9/21/2009 5:24:51 PM

@ wolfwood:

Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Linoge says:

on 9/21/2009 5:39:48 PM

That's bullshit, and you know it.

No, it really is not - it is a statement of fact. Here in Tennessee, open carry with a handgun carry permit is 100% legal anywhere you could concealed carry... and there are more than a few people who go for the "open" option just to get in people's faces about it.

To be honest, I am considering doing it to "scare the white people" a little, too, but I will be actively avoiding any direct confrontation, instead letting my peaceful, responsible presence speak for itself. A lot of open carriers, however, are not content with such a quiet solution, instead militantly and, dare I say, aggressively responding to any questioning of their exercising their rights.

@ATLien: Yes, because answering police questions when they have probable cause that you may have committed a crime is exactly the same as aquiescing to a dictatorial monarchy.

divemedic says:

on 9/21/2009 5:52:48 PM

I don't think that a person should be arrested for refusing to answer questions. There is a concept called the 5th Amendment, and simply because I am legally open carrying a weapon in a neighborhood where shots was fired does not meet the standard of reasonable suspicion, any more than stopping all black men on a given street after a black male robs a store. The police are gonna need more than just "OMG! He had a guns." and even then, they would have grounds to arrest for the shooting, not for refusing to answer questions.

It is the job of the state to prove I am guilty. I cannot be compelled to supply to them the testimony with which to do it.

Wolfwood says:

on 9/21/2009 6:16:01 PM

Some non-legal advice from a non-lawyer to some reading this thread:

Please learn your rights and obligations before you get stopped and/or arrested by the police. Your opinions, whether objectively right or not, are not in line with what the Supreme Court has said the Constitution means. For the love of everything good in this world, do not represent yourself in court if you are arrested (and please learn ahead of time the difference between investigative detention and actual arrest); get an attorney. If you are arrested, BE QUIET and only speak with your attorney. Your judge will not care about your interpretation of the Fifth Amendment and your belief that the Supreme Court's rulings are slavery upon the American people. If you appeal, your appellate court (perhaps even the Supreme Court itself) will not care. Your judge may, however, also cite you for contempt of court if you act like enough of a jackass.

Not that I've ever seen defendants go to jail or prison because they didn't know the law or when to shut up. Well, okay, maybe once or twice or every time.

Wolfwood says:

on 9/21/2009 6:21:11 PM

Linoge,

Very minor quibble: "Probable cause" is the standard for arrest (and at the defendant's arraignment, a magistrate will decide whether it existed at the time of arrest). "Reasonable articulable suspicion" is the standard for investigative detention and is defined as "less than probable cause, but not unreasonable." It is this latter standard that covers things such as Terry stops.

Obligatory: IANAL. TINLA.

Linoge says:

on 9/21/2009 7:34:53 PM

I bow to someone with obviously way more knowledge of the pertinent vocabulary :).

ATLien says:

on 9/22/2009 1:20:24 AM

linoge, i have to disagree. Probable cause is very vague nowadays, and can be any kind of bullshit that the cop dreams up. The fact that people are advised not to EVER talk to the police under any circumstances without a lawyer kinda backs up my feeling that the "authorities" are little bit out of control. I don't like arbitrary "authority" as it is, and I certainly don't like cops thinking they're above me as a citizen somehow. And a lot of these types of confrontations sound like the cop being an asshole with a power trip.

And before you say "all cops are not like that", i will counter that i bet there are more like that than there are NOT like that.

chris says:

on 9/22/2009 1:43:58 AM

Me "Am I being detained?"
Officer "Yes"
Me "Of suspicion of what crime am I being detained?"
Officer makes something up
me "I need to speak with my lawyer"
Officer "Your name?"
Me "Am I legally required to answer?"

It isnt a hard concept.

mike w. says:

on 9/22/2009 1:18:39 PM

One should not acquiesce to whatever the cops want, but you can be reasonable & helpful while still asserting your rights.

While OC alone is not RAS for a stop the officer here got a call about shots being fired and he sees this guy in the area OC'ing. He is going to put 2 and 2 together and at least ask the guy some questions.

I'm not saying he should turn into a blabbermouth in this situation, but refusing to give the cop even basic information is going to cause him more harm than good.

IIRC you are required to at least identify yourself verbally. I know in DE you are not required to provide ID upon demand but you do have to provide at least your name.

I think we sometimes forget to look at these situations from the cops pserspective. He gets a call of shots fired and is approaching a man he knows to be armed and whom is also a total stranger. The guy is being totally uncooperative. Do you think the situation is going to be especially cordial?

Bob S. says:

on 9/22/2009 1:33:38 PM

In Texas, if carrying concealed a person must show identification upon request by law enforcement.

Not just tell your name, but also show your driver's license or state ID and CHL.

I don't have a problem obeying the law, but law enforcement should limit themselves to what is legal.

Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

on 9/22/2009 6:38:46 PM

I understand that the tone of "bow down to your masters" is generally disdained round these parts (Why yes, I am competing for the understatement of the year award. Why do you ask?). But libertarians do tend to forget that there are competing interests and insist that only the rights that exist are the rights of individuals against the actions of gov't (free speech, religion, due process, etc). But there are also the rights of individuals against other individuals (theft, murder, rape, etc.)

Now, there is a way we can ensure that gov't never infringes on anyone's rights. If you don't have a gov't, they very well can't infringe your rights, now can they?

But without a gov't pretty much the only thing that can protect your rights from other people is your own ability to project force. Of course, that means that the shut in granny with parkinson's pretty much has no rights whatsoever. Everything is legal for the biggest badass around.

We can also ensure that no individual ever violates the rights of another individual too. You lock everyone in solitary confinement. But, of course, that also means that in a generation the civilization is pretty much extinct. (I'm reminded of Terry Pratchett's "Sourcery", Wizard: What would humans be without love? Death: RARE.)

So the absolutes are completely untenable. We must accept that sometimes the other interest will win. The arguments can only be about where to draw the line. Since, gov'ts are able to do a heck of a lot more damage (due to synergistic effects) than any lot of individuals could on their own, it makes a ton more sense to err on the side of protecting against gov't infringement but sometimes protecting against infringement by other people is going to win out.

straightarrow says:

on 9/24/2009 3:09:02 AM

I can't tell you where I read it now, I think in comments at the website of the reporting paper, but not sure.

It was presented that the arrestee answered the cops questions about the pellet gun and raccoons and what was happening, but when the cops started being confrontational and probing into personal information the arrestee then refused to anwer any more questions.

Can't validate that, but it was presented by a commenter who seemed to intimate that he knew what went down.

Comments have been closed on this topic.