LEO encounter script, first draft? Bad idea in general? Feedback welcome.

[Deanimator]

I was thinking along the lines of Disorderly Conduct: creating the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

You mean like a Black person walking through a predominately White neighborhood?

Or a Jew or a Muslim walking through a predominately Catholic or Baptist neighborhood?

Or two men holding hands as they walk down the street?

It's known as a 'catch all'.

It's known as a 1983 violation of Federal civil rights.

[Deleted]

I was thinking along the lines of Disorderly Conduct: creating the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.
It's known as a 'catch all'.
A person calls in and reports that they are terrified of a man with a gun. They are reporting a crime. So, the LEO responds to investigate the 'alledged' crime.
On one hand they have a complainant who claims to be terrified, they have a law that could be spun into covering the action, and on the other hand, a guy who won't cooperate. How this will turn out? Does anyone think the LEO will just let the subject of a complaint walk away? So the LEO finds himself between a rock and a hard place.
I can see the OC possibly being cited for Disorderly Conduct.
That's my concern.
And again, guilty or not guilty, I don't see it taking a good turn for gun owners.
But lets turn it back over to P Pro. He seems to know what our future holds.......

Remember.....you can't pick and choose parts of a statute, you have to apply the whole statute. Yes, disorderly conduct centers around causing public alarm but there are a number of plug ins that you have to add to it... like pick one from column a and one from column b. In column b you have 1) fighting 2) loud noise and finally 3) Serves no LEGITIMATE purpose. That's why it does not fit....you would have to prove that OC alone without any other factor serves no legitimate purpose. The courts have recognised that OC ALONE is full of legitimate purposes.

[Edg]

but it is law they are not allowed to ask without due cause and is labeled a crime on their part.

What law is that? They can ask anything they want to. They can lie. You need to know what you are or arent required to provide depending on the situations. Personally, I would attempt to leave. If stopped, blocked, or inhibited in any way I would ask for a supervisor.

[jeep]

Exercising your rights is all well and good, until your actions and their unintended consequences, cause all of us to lose the very freedoms you're exercising.
What if your OC alarms someone? Is it ok to alarm someone?
Apparently it's not or you could exercise your freedom of speech, and yell fire in a crowded theater.
At some point, I think OC accompanied by what looks like bad manners/criminal behavior (failing to produce ID) will force an LEO to make an arrest.
If the OC is found not guilty, it will cause the legislature to take action to make sure municipalities, agencies, etc are protected from lawsuits in the future. Our rights will slowly be taken away thru legislation.
If the OC is found guilty, then the case will become case law, and our rights will be taken away much quicker.
Neither is a good result for gun owners.

If the color of your car alarms me , should i call the police and force you to paint your car a color that is not alaming to me ?

As far as me not showing ID to a LEO being bad manners/criminal maybe it is bad manners but I dont give a shit the LEO has no lawfull reason to ask me for my ID unless im commiting a crime. I will ask if I am being detained/arrested and when im told no I WILL SAY HAVE A NICE DAY TURN AND WALK AWAY if i catch a tazer in the back well then I will be sueing .


If the LEO says yes im being detained I will keep my mouth shut until my attoney gets to the police station

[ViperGTS19801]

I was thinking along the lines of Disorderly Conduct: creating the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.
It's known as a 'catch all.'

Doesn't work that way. Ask me how I know.

[yeager484]

Doesn't work that way. Ask me how I know.

Dang when I saw you post I thought you were going to give tips

It's like I'm amongst a celebrity, I cant even talk properderderder.

(Not being an ass, text based emotion can be hard to construe)

[BimmerJon]

Too complicated...

Am I free to go? No?
I'll be silent until my lawyer gets here.

Am I free to go? Yes?
Later

[JesterPgh]

Unfortunately, many a police officer believes that they have every right to demand identification and detain you and disarm you to make sure you're not a bad guy and ensure the gun isn't stolen, just on the basis of a "mwag call" or observation of someone engaged in open carry. I just had this very conversation with a police officer yesterday. I kindly referred him to Municipal Police Officers’ Education & Training Commission Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
IX. UNIFORM FIREARMS ACT UPDATE:
“OPEN CARRY”
To which the summary is:
If an officer can develop reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, by a person engaged in open carry, then the temporary seizure of the person and confiscation of the firearm would be justified, because the person is known to be armed and dangerous based on the suspected criminal activity and visible possession of a firearm. A further frisk would also be warranted to ensure the person was not in possession of any other weapons. If the officer’s investigatory detention leads to probable cause, then the person may be placed under arrest for the crime that has been committed. However, if the officer’s suspicion is allayed then any seized firearms must be returned to the citizen and the citizen must be released from the investigatory detention. A firearm may be seized from a person who the officer knows to be prohibited from possessing a firearm under State or Federal law.
Officers should be aware that citizens may become alarmed or concerned when they witness persons engaged in open carry. This may be due in part to individual sensibilities regarding firearms and the fact that persons engaged in open carry are infrequently encountered in Pennsylvania. However, a citizen’s alarm or concern does not alone negatively impact the rights of a person engaging in the lawful open carrying of a firearm. Officers receiving citizen reports of a “man with a gun” would be prudent to respond to determine the nature of the report. However, the rights of any person engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm must be carefully considered when interacting with such person. Persons engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm are not subject to seizure of their person or property based solely on the fact that they are engaging in open carry, nor may they be required to produce identification or other documents. A person who is engaging in open carry in Philadelphia or in an area of declared emergency may be required to produce a valid and lawfully issued license to carry a firearm or establish an exemption. Of course, a person engaged in the open carrying of a firearm may engage in violations of other laws or handle the firearm in an inappropriate manner which could constitute offenses such as: disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, simple assault by physical menace, etc. However, merely engaging in the open carrying of a firearm would not necessarily constitute such an offense.
An officer who observes a person who is engaged in the open carrying of a
firearm in the vicinity of a public event attended by the President or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service must consider whether any violation of Pennsylvania law is occurring, If there is not a clear violation of the law, it would be prudent to bring the presence of this person to the attention of the Secret Service who is empowered under various federal statutes to regulate the possession of firearms in the vicinity of persons under Secret Service.