What to Say to the Police?

[thermocline]

what the heck are you talking about?

the law is abstract. it takes actual people to enforce it. actual people must obey it or accept consequences.

Then by all means, let's make it concrete. I don't want any members of LAPD to have any discretion, judgement calls or chances to turn blind eyes. Here's why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Division

The Rampart CRASH unit. Seventy, 70, of your brothers in blue were involved in perjury, cocaine-dealing and bank robbery only a few short years ago. For you to sit there with a straight face and argue that we should extend trust or the benefit of the doubt to any member of your disgraced force beggars belief.

I mean, really, YOU get to decide when you'll enforce the law?! Like Rafael Perez and David Mack did? I see you flying that flag in your header, but I honestly don't believe you have any idea what it stands for, nor the principles I spent 23 years defending.

YOU don't get to decide who you'll charge and who you'll let go. If you see a crime, your job is to to apprehend and charge. Guilt and innocence are for juries to decide.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Then by all means, let's make it concrete. I don't want any members of LAPD to have any discretion, judgement calls or chances to turn blind eyes. Here's why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Division

The Rampart CRASH unit. Seventy, 70, of your brothers in blue were involved in perjury, cocaine-dealing and bank robbery only a few short years ago. For you to sit there with a straight face and argue that we should extend trust or the benefit of the doubt to any member of your disgraced force beggars belief.

I mean, really, YOU get to decide when you'll enforce the law?! Like Rafael Perez and David Mack did? I see you flying that flag in your header, but I honestly don't believe you have any idea what it stands for, nor the principles I spent 23 years defending.

YOU don't get to decide who you'll charge and who you'll let go. If you see a crime, your job is to to apprehend and charge. Guilt and innocence are for juries to decide.

have you read the rampart report? i have, cover to cover. 70 may have been acccused, many were not guilty.


it has been proven that perez lied on the stand in order to try and save his own skin. he and mack (among others) were not enforcing laws, they committed criminal acts, on many levels against many people. they were both disgraces to the badge, and their background packets and psych interviews suggested they should never have been hired. what they did had NOTHING to do with anything i have discussed, suggested, or believe in.

you have no business comparing them to me, or anyone else who wears a badge, unless you have knowledge of wrongdoing. and you have gone way over the line in making the statement about the flag.


you want to make a blanket opinion of police work based on "bad seeds", go right ahead. you think you know what my job is, and how i should perform my duties better than i? think what you want.

believe it or not, i dont have to ticket every speeder i stop, nor do i want to.

some people need tickets, some people need to be arrested. some don't need either.

yes, i get to decide, some of the time. there are crimes for which i am obligated to arrest, but many i am not.

you want to remove any human element from enforcement? good luck with that. it shouldn't and won't ever be that way.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

you want to whine about this some more, start another thread.

let's respect the op's question and go back on topic.

 

[thermocline]

Yes, I'm over the line here. I have friends in LA. I went to visit them once. They took me to a restaurant in Century City to show off their town. The janitors in Century City were striking and picketing for another buck an hour. It was a peaceful demonstration.

I saw LAPD form a skirmish line with riot shields at one side of the quadrangle. Their leader barked an order and across the square they marched, swinging clubs and banging shields.

There was a young pregnant girl there that day, maybe twenty years old, and definitely in her last trimester. One of your brothers clubbed her square across the belly, while the guy on the other side caught her just above the left eye. She went down, bleeding from her forehead. They stepped on her as they went over.

My buddies knew me, and they all jumped me as I stood up and literally wrestled me to the ground. And this is a moment in my life, me on the ground with my buddies sitting on me screaming "You'll lose man, no one will care," looking at a mother and child who had already lost.

I hate myself for not doing more. I couldn't believe that men in uniform in my country had done this. Time passed. The LA Riots came. That died down just in time for the Rampart scandal to hit.

I honestly hope you were a man of honor on your watch. I'd like to think you weren't the officer smashing away at that pregnant young girl.

But I'm definitely bringing the argument I have with those men to your door, and for that I apologize.

 

[eccvets]

Is there a lenght law for California? Either way, my experience with police is that they scare the F out of me (even the guys I know which are LEO's...). At least you can count on a criminal to be a criminal, cops go both ways most of the time and you never know what your gonna get.

As for what I would tell a cop if I got pulled over with a large knife is nothing other then to answer honestly if he asked me directly if I do have a knife. If asked why I have a knife, I'd tell him/her that cuz I need to occationally cut things.

I suggest to always kiss ass, follow directions, and be nice. It's better then getting your ass beat like Rodney King!

 

[eccvets]

you want to whine about this some more, start another thread.

let's respect the op's question and go back on topic.

true we should get back on subject but its hard for most when people have such bad experiences with LEO's in general.

 

[Arkeld]

true we should get back on subject but its hard for most when people have such bad experiences with LEO's in general.

But we need to ask ourselves why that is.

I mean sure, some cops are just bad people, but I believe that the vast majority mean well and try their damnedest to do a great job out there. And most do.

The issue, if you ask me, is that the laws we are asking our cops to enforce are:

1) bloated to the point of being impossible to know (it often takes lawyers and judges hours to research certain laws for a case, how can an officer possibly know them while on patrol?)

2) in some cases absurd or impossible to enforce ("dangerous knife" is one of those, we all know it means nothing and everything)

3) completely outdated (laws not covering a new item, which will then be artificially associated with other illegal objects, see the butterfly knife being thrown in with switchblades, making it impossible for a citizen to know if his item is legal or not.)

Laws should be, imho, easy to understand and enforce. While I believe that we don´t need any laws concerning knives, IF we must have them, they should be something along the lines of: "One may carry on his person any knife with a blade not exceeding four inches". Simple and to the point. All an officer would need to make the right call would be a ruler.

 

[SDS]

I agree that in respect to the OP we should return to the topic at hand. If another thread is started in reference to the conversation that has pervaded this thread please post a link. I very seldom enter into such arguments since there can never truly be a winner but I believe you are a bit out of line thermocline. I can cite numerous instances of military abuse of power to include murder and rape. I would NEVER lump all military into the category of those criminals.

If another thread is opened please post a link.

Eccvets, I will never "asskiss" and would suggest that no one else do so either. It suggests weakness and a willingness to be treated improperly. Be respectful sure. Know your rights. Be polite.

If an officer is out of line getting belligerent in return solves nothing and even if he/she is wrong you are not likely to come out ahead by yelling back on the side of the street somewhere.

If asked, explain your reasons for carrying a knife. There is no need to fear an officer. If you are breaking the law you may have a reason to fear the legal system.

SDS

 

[grimtongue]

I've had both good and bad experiences with law enforcement, just as I have had with the general public. I used to hate cops, but that was back when I was drinking and drugging, usually up to no good. Now that I am clean and sober I have a new found respect for the police. As a matter of fact it was a LEO who helped to save my skin by putting me in jail for the last time and forcing me to look at my life and the direction that I was heading. With this respect, I have found, comes a certain amount of politeness.
I was recently stopped and asked if I had any "guns, knives, or bazookas" on my person, I freely offered up my Para-military for the officer to remove from my pocket. Now this knife is slightly longer than the law allows for here in the state of Michigan but after a short roadside interview in which I was polite and respectful, and no wrong-doing was found on my part, the blade was handed back to me and I was sent on my way.
I believe honesty, respect, and politeness is the best policy.
If I am looking for trouble, I will usually find it.

 

[Watchful]

The last time I checked it was 4 inches in Mo. That is State law. Many municipalaties have a 3-3 1/2 inch blade carry. Hard to figure why State law dosn't overide them?

I'm not sure if your question was rhetorical, but if not--or for those who are wondering--

State laws, in probably all cases, set the maximum length allowable by the state (say, four inches). Municipalities can set lower limits for themselves (say, three-and-a-half), but can't exceed the maximum (and allow six-inch blades).

Same as the national speed limit a bunch o' years back: the Feds set it at 55 mph... states could impose lower limits where prudent, such as 45 mph on a route... and municipalities could go lower (25-30 mph in residential areas). But no one could raise it past 55 mph until 1990 or so.

 

[glistam]

I just have one thing to add, and not to sound like a broken record: read the darn case law. Case law is the very thing that seeks to correct the problems of vague laws.

Take Maryland, (which I believe is where Confederate lives?) where "penknives" are excepted from weapon law. What's a penknife? It does not say anywhere in the law. However, supreme court decision (case law) says penknives are non-switchblade folders and have no length limit. A 11" blade gypsy navaja is technically legal. Heck, appeals have upheld murder charges but at the same time added to the court's opinion, "we however overturn the concealed weapon conviction. Knife fell within penknife exception."

Cops may not know any better on occasion, but I sure as heck don't argue the point with him or her in the street. That's the thing courts are for.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Yes, I'm over the line here. I have friends in LA. I went to visit them once. They took me to a restaurant in Century City to show off their town. The janitors in Century City were striking and picketing for another buck an hour. It was a peaceful demonstration.

I saw LAPD form a skirmish line with riot shields at one side of the quadrangle. Their leader barked an order and across the square they marched, swinging clubs and banging shields.

There was a young pregnant girl there that day, maybe twenty years old, and definitely in her last trimester. One of your brothers clubbed her square across the belly, while the guy on the other side caught her just above the left eye. She went down, bleeding from her forehead. They stepped on her as they went over.

My buddies knew me, and they all jumped me as I stood up and literally wrestled me to the ground. And this is a moment in my life, me on the ground with my buddies sitting on me screaming "You'll lose man, no one will care," looking at a mother and child who had already lost.

I hate myself for not doing more. I couldn't believe that men in uniform in my country had done this. Time passed. The LA Riots came. That died down just in time for the Rampart scandal to hit.

I honestly hope you were a man of honor on your watch. I'd like to think you weren't the officer smashing away at that pregnant young girl.

But I'm definitely bringing the argument I have with those men to your door, and for that I apologize.

water under the bridge. i appreciate and accept you apology. i, too, can get defensive in some threads, and for this i also offer my apologies.

lapd has had numerous scandals over the years, some deserved, some blown up and exaggerated by the press.

fwiw, i am not, nor have i ever been, employed by the city of los angeles or the lapd.


and btw, i cant speak specifically about the incident you witnessed. however, verbal warnings to disperse should have been given, and the group should have been advised that force would be used should they fail to disperse.

im not advocating the whacking of a pregnant girl, but why was she there in front in the first place? was she unable to leave? i would think she saw the skirmish line coming. some people create their own exigency, then want to complain about how they were treated. is this a possiblity?

 

[MORIMOTOM]

true we should get back on subject but its hard for most when people have such bad experiences with LEO's in general.

ill bet ive had far more bad experiences with civilians than you have had with officers.

point is, we must avoid creating blanket opinions about any group based on only a few contacts.

But we need to ask ourselves why that is.

I mean sure, some cops are just bad people, but I believe that the vast majority mean well and try their damnedest to do a great job out there. And most do.

in every walk of life, there are bad people. when those make it to positions of power, their presence is magnified. the system is not perfect, but i would bet dirt for dollars that the relative number of "knuckleheads" in law enforcement jobs is far lower than any other profession.

The issue, if you ask me, is that the laws we are asking our cops to enforce are:

1) bloated to the point of being impossible to know (it often takes lawyers and judges hours to research certain laws for a case, how can an officer possibly know them while on patrol?)

we can't know them all. you know the ones that are regularly enforced, but often have to research the elements of more "obscure" crimes.

and case law is a whole different animal.

2) in some cases absurd or impossible to enforce ("dangerous knife" is one of those, we all know it means nothing and everything)

in this case, this is what we refer to as a "catch all". very subjective, and can be difficult to articulate. but there is often precedence which dictates behavior.

3) completely outdated (laws not covering a new item, which will then be artificially associated with other illegal objects, see the butterfly knife being thrown in with switchblades, making it impossible for a citizen to know if his item is legal or not.)

Laws should be, imho, easy to understand and enforce. While I believe that we don´t need any laws concerning knives, IF we must have them, they should be something along the lines of: "One may carry on his person any knife with a blade not exceeding four inches". Simple and to the point. All an officer would need to make the right call would be a ruler.

on the surface, i would agree.

but we still have the issue of what to measure. overall length? how does one measure blade length? should a choil be included in blade length?

hypothetically, what if a knife has an overall length of 10". the handle is about 4.5", and the blade portion is the rest, say 5.5". but the sharpened portion is only 2", like a chisel, at the end. what should be measured?

and plenty of gangsters carry around screwdrivers and other sharpened "shanks". how would we include these?

 

[blackscout]

hypothetically, what if a knife has an overall length of 10". the handle is about 4.5", and the blade portion is the rest, say 5.5". but the sharpened portion is only 2", like a chisel, at the end. what should be measured?

and plenty of gangsters carry around screwdrivers and other sharpened "shanks". how would we include these?[/QUOTE]


And that sir is where the real issue lies. criminals will make and carry a weapon out of anything. So really the only people that are affected, weather or not a knife is legal or not, are those that would not use it to commit any crime. It has always pissed me off that I can buy an assisted opener but a butterfly knife is illegal. criminals are criminals only law abiding citizens are affected by laws of this nature.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

And that sir is where the real issue lies. criminals will make and carry a weapon out of anything. So really the only people that are affected, weather or not a knife is legal or not, are those that would not use it to commit any crime. It has always pissed me off that I can buy an assisted opener but a butterfly knife is illegal. criminals are criminals only law abiding citizens are affected by laws of this nature.

not true. plenty of people who are otherwise criminals are arrested for weapons violations.

the point is, if any law is too specific it is uneforceable, too general, it is unenforceable.

as written above in a previous post regarding a simple definition of what constitutes a legal knife (or illegal), there are just as many questions and ambiguities. how to measure the blade is just one.

and there are custom knives similar to the one i mention. home made "shanks" or only another example.

 

[Confederate]

YOU don't get to decide who you'll charge and who you'll let go. If you see a crime, your job is to to apprehend and charge. Guilt and innocence are for juries to decide.

To disallow any discretion on the part of individual officers is to usher in a police state. I know an Arizona cop who pulled over a guy who was speeding. He was fully cooperative and harmless, but they asked him if they could search his car and he, feeling nothing to hide, answered yes. So they searched.

Under the passenger's seat, all caked in dust and debris, was a Jennings J22 pistol. No ammunition was in the car and there was no magazine. It looked like it had been kicking around the car for some time. The driver said he had no idea where it came from and these two cops believed him.

But they still arrested him.

I told my friend that he should have put the tiny pistol in the trunk, had the guy lock it and then warn him to be careful when driving around when you don't know what's under your seat. If you just want to be a jerk, I told him, he could confiscate the pistol and send the guy on his way. But no, my friend and his partner hauled him in and it was a waste of everyone's time and effort. Not so many years ago this would have been a routine traffic stop and a small slap on the wrist. Now if the guy had a magazine in the gun and it was loaded, and functional, that might have been one thing. But the gun was old, dirty, nonfunctional and the driver had no "priors".

Cops, magistrates, juries, judges and what not have, and are supposed to have discretion, otherwise we end up with a police state.

With knives, 4-inchers can be adequately used as a weapon and longer blades really don't add much to their lethality. Police have to look at the guy they've stopped and size him up. Take away discretion and it doesn't work.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

police state = bad

isn't az a "shall carry" state? that is, concealed carry is legal and common (permitted, of course)?

it is odd that he had a pistol in his car and didn't know it. but i suppose he could have just said its a paperweight, and that would have been pretty truthful.

 

[Arkeld]

ill bet ive had far more bad experiences with civilians than you have had with officers.

point is, we must avoid creating blanket opinions about any group based on only a few contacts.

Also, most of the time when one does deal with a LEO, it´s because something went wrong in the first place, so yes, I agree that the numbers are lower than wer perceive them to be.

in this case, this is what we refer to as a "catch all". very subjective, and can be difficult to articulate. but there is often precedence which dictates behavior.

True. The problem is that the civilian has no way of knowing these. Even well-written laws leave room for interpretation, but if they´re vague to begin with, that´s just asking for trouble imho.

on the surface, i would agree.

but we still have the issue of what to measure. overall length? how does one measure blade length? should a choil be included in blade length?

hypothetically, what if a knife has an overall length of 10". the handle is about 4.5", and the blade portion is the rest, say 5.5". but the sharpened portion is only 2", like a chisel, at the end. what should be measured?

and plenty of gangsters carry around screwdrivers and other sharpened "shanks". how would we include these?

The common understanding would be that a knife has two parts: a handle and a blade. Therefore, everything that isn´t the handle is the blade. At least that´s the way most people would understand the law as I proposed. In any case, a citizen adhering to the law would have a knive where the blade portion (sharpened or not) is 4 inches or under, so there would be no issue there.

As for makeshift weapons, such as the ones you describe, well, they clearly are not knives and should be covered by another law concerning such.

Understand that I know full well that there is no such thing as a "perfect" law. But I believe we can certainly do a hell of a lot better than what we currently have in many countries/states.

 

[KruppStahl]

i have mostly negative experience with cops.
many bad situations where " young, underdeveloped, kids " that were beaten up in school suddenly turn cop and have all the authorithy they never had before.
and now flex their muscles.
i lived in Miami once, where the chief of police jumped of a building because it came out he was comitting rape to arrested guys, drug sales, gun trafficking...extortion etc.
Miami is tough, though. i have met many crooked cops along the way...that thought they are untouchable because they carry a badge.
my girlfriends neighbor.....1 miles away....on his 25 acres farm...
shoots fully automatic weapons all weekend long. untouched.
not that i dont like it !

but he would arrest you for carrying a Benchmade 3550.
personally, when i carry an opening assisted knife, i also carry a print out of the law that explains its an open assist knife....not an automatic.
you know why ? a cop told me...i am the law, if i say thats automatic, its automatic !- and you are going to jail for it !!!!!!

 

[gnius]

in this case, this is what we refer to as a "catch all". very subjective, and can be difficult to articulate. but there is often precedence which dictates behavior.

That's the problem.

A "catch-all" is a legal equivalent of a computer "exploit"... a bug that allows the user to obtain elevated privileges without permission. The very existence of these laws is an affront to any "freedom" within our society as defined by the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Catch-all laws as well as all non-specific laws effectively reverse the situation. In effect, they postulate that the government/police/bureaucrat/etc... GRANT rights to the people, and everything outside of that is illegal, by virtue of legal vagueness that criminalize non-compliance. This way, the burden of determining the legality of many actions falls solely to the law enforcement personnel.

That's why most threads in this section of the forum deal with the question: "how can I make sure that this [object] is legal?".