• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Close encounter of the unlawful detainment kind...

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
JKuz and I just got back from the park (what IS it with us and parks?!?) As we were preping to leave, a park ranger pulled up in his police explorer. Thought nothing of it, as there is NO law in Springfield regarding the OC of a firearm. As soon as we pulled out, Ranger Smith lit us up. Detained us for 15 minutes and insisted that OC was not allowed. "Did us a favor" by not citing. Never even ASKED my wife anything... never even knew SHE was carrying as she was in the car before he rolled up. Anyhow, video of the encounter is on the way...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JggKx8LQxDk not much action, but still bothersome to me. Sorry for the stupid phone not rotating the image...
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
(sigh) Even at this late date, we still have law-enfarcement personnel who make it up as they go along with regard to OC.

(sigh)

(sigh)

(siiiiiighhhhhhh)

Get 'em, BriKuz!!

For new readers and unfamiliar readers, the crucial point is not whether OC is prohibited, not whether the 'ranger' made a mistake of law. The crucial point is that the cop seized another human being without knowing to a dead moral certainty that he had the clear and unquestionable authority of law.

This is a point that police and police-apologists have tried to fog up repeatedly. They use ideas like, "well the cop didn't know whether you might be a crook." "well, the cop was just checking to make sure you weren't a crook." Or, my favorite, "Well, the cop has to check you out in case you might be dangerous. Even if there is no law against OC."

Rubbish.

One of my all time favorite US Supreme Court quotes:
No right is held more sacred or more carefully guarded than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of their own persons, free from all restraint and interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.

Basically, unless the cop knows with 100% certainty that OC is illegal, he cannot possibly know whether he has the authority of law to detain you. From another angle, if the cop cannot remember for sure that OC is illegal--not suspect its illegal, not guess its probably illegal--if the cop cannot remember for sure that OC is illegal, he cannot possibly know whether he has the clear and unquestionable authority of law to restrain or interfere with you. I mention this here in the context of OC, but the concept is much, much broader than that.

It goes to the foundational premises of delegated powers and representative democracy. Unless the government agent knows to a dead moral certainty that a certain power has been delegated, he cannot possibly know for sure whether he has the authority to act. Acting without authority is known as usurpation.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
A truism that is becoming more and more true:

Any time an officer tells you he's "I'ma goin' ta do ya a favor and not cite/arrest you for this heinously illegal act 'cause I'm such a nice guy an' any other cop would just haul you off to jail but I'm gonna be all nice..." he's unsure about the legality of his actions and is just truing to blow smoke up your alimentary canal.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
You handled yourself pretty well. (The butterflies sure get to churning, don't they?)

Several items of advice:(of which, I have also done, so please don't view my comments as "preachy" or condescending.)

The stop was, as you stated, unlawful. Without probable cause, there is no reason you should not be able to continue your peaceable journey.

The law enforcement officer , not you, is now "on the hook" for his behavior. Realize this. Have confidence in this. The law works as equally for you as it does for him.

I completely understand the tendency to comply with law enforcement. I also have an ingrained respect for authority. I have also responded to unlawful actions by law enforcement by complying with their unlawful demands. It's the butterflies. Something about the emotional content of the interaction, and the unlawfulness of the officer. I never seem to say the right things until after I review my actions. Then, I watch the video of my interaction and view myself kow-towing to the most egregious rights violations. I can watch a video of my interactions with law enforcement 5 minutes later, and cringe at some of the things I have willingly accepted. I think to myself, "Why didn't I say this?" or "Why did I answer that question?" or "Why did I agree to obey that unlawful command?".

Similarly, I see some of the things I have done in your video. This is why I'm pointing them out. Not as criticism, but to offer advice and relate my experience at overcoming the things I realized about my own interactions with law enforcement.

YOU are in the right. Realize this. Have confidence in this. Rely upon it. Take heart in the fact that you have done nothing wrong, and the officer is the one who needs to explain his actions to YOU.

There was no need to volunteer your CCW. While courteous, the only purpose it served was to justify the officer's actions. HE needs to request it. Don't make it easy on them by willingly tossing your rights away, not only upon request, but out of the blue.

If he did ask, remember: HE is the one justifying his actions to you, not the reverse. Upon request for your papers, he should be required to tell you why he wants to see them. Asking him "What probable cause do you have?" is always a good question that requires them to explain their actions. If their actions are lawful, they should have no problem answering your questions, right? (See how the interaction demographics are subtly being altered? Remember: HIS actions are unlawful, so why should YOU be answering questions?)

Have confidence in this. If you were, in fact, breaking any laws, there would be no question and answer session. You'd be immediately placed into custody.

I once heard a brilliant piece of advice: If you are currently NOT under arrest, you can't talk your way out of it. This leaves only one direction to talk yourself in.

I know from experience that it is hard to do, but faced with what I watched in the video, the officer shouldn't have been offered such compliance. He should have been asked if you were being detained and for probable cause. If told yes, you were detained, he should have been met with a request for an attorney and further silence. If told no, you weren't detained, he should have been met with a "Have a nice day." and your disappearing tail lights.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
A stop is a detainment - in this case w/o apparent RAS.

Could have, should have asked the question, "When am I being released from this detainment?"

Any answer other than, "Now, you are free to go." from the officer should generate nothing but, "I will provide all answers through my attorney. I have nothing else to say." Then KYBMS (keep your big mouth shut) - quoting Dan Hawes
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
A CCW endorsement is not required to CC or OC while in a vehicle in MO.
RSMo 571.030.3. Subdivisions ...Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person nineteen** years of age or older or eighteen years of age or older and a member of the United States Armed Forces, or honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces, transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. ...
Arrest vs. detainment. A detainment is a fabrication of the courts and is not supported in MO law.
RSMo 544.180. Arrest - An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
The OP should seek legal council.
 

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
A CCW endorsement is not required to CC or OC while in a vehicle in MO.
RSMo 571.030.3. Subdivisions ...Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person nineteen** years of age or older or eighteen years of age or older and a member of the United States Armed Forces, or honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces, transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. ...

I am fully aware, though thanks for bringing it up again so that others may learn. This ranger's justification was that we were still in the park when detained, so, somehow, this was illegal. Again, i think this man was confused, and fully intend to make contact with his supervisors to ensure that all rangers are properly trained on the law, both regards to OC in parks AND unlawful detainment.

Superlite, not my first rodeo (check the ohio board! lol) but I DID have some butterflies a churnin'. J and I have decided to start role playing out some scenarios again to help clean up our response to any future incidents.

Fallschirmjäger, i'm with you, and that's why i will explore administrative means to ensure that proper training is taking place to help reduce incidents such as this. If admin channels don't work, there is always the court system.
 

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
Springfield Municipal Code Sec. 82-1. - Park rules generally.

(a) Adoption; prohibited acts. Those rules and regulations adopted by the public park board of the city on March 16, 1971, relating to conduct within the parks of the city under the control and operation of the Springfield/Greene County park board are hereby adopted and approved by the city council, which rules and regulations read as follows:

(1) Conduct in parks. It shall be unlawful for any person while on property or in buildings under the operation and control of the park board to:

(k) Carry, possess or discharge any firearm, pellet gun or pistol, BB gun or other similar device, bow and arrow, crossbow or any other device capable of projecting a missile able to inflict harm to persons or animals or to injure property, except law enforcement officers in the performance of their duty or employees of the park board, and except in such places and under such special regulations as the park board may have adopted for practicing the use of any such devices or giving exhibitions or holding competitions in the use thereof.

Guess there will be some fun with regards to Amd 5 and SB 656 and its relation to the training of rangers.

https://www.municode.com/library/mo/springfield/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH82PARE_ARTIINGE

If anyone has info on Missouri open-records law, please post here or PM me... Thank you!
 
Last edited:

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
Just sent an e-mail to the Ranger Supervisor, CCing the parks director and the park board:

Mr. Coats,

Ranger Smith, badge # 1072. Detained my wife and I for Open Carry at Doling Park yesterday, Sunday, March 9th, 2015.

Ranger Smith apparently observed that I was openly carrying a sidearm as we were leaving Doling Park. After observing me smoking outside my vehicle while discussing dinner plans with my wife and kids inside the vehicle for approximately 10 minutes, Ranger Smith drove away (south)

Upon entering my vehicle and attempting to depart the park, Ranger Smith initiated a traffic stop. He insisted that open carry was not legal (Amendment 5 and SB 656 notwithstanding) He then demanded my Drivers License and Concealed handgun License and headed back to his vehicle for approx 8 minutes. He returned and stated that he was "doing me a favor" by not citing me and warned me NOT to OC in the park again of "you'll get in trouble"

SB 656 provides that any person with a valid Concealed Carry permit or license may open carry in ANY non-statutorily prohibited public place in the State of Missouri. A 10 minute detainment for a lawful activity is NOT acceptable.

Per 610.100.2, RSMo, I am hereby requesting electronic copies of any incident reports, audio/video recordings (including Ranger Smith's body cam recordings and his vehicles on-board recording equipment), and/or any telephone calls for dispatch of a Ranger in relation to a "man with a gun" or "woman with a gun" call between 1500 and 2000, 9 Mar, 2015. Please let me know of any issues with the expeditious release of said information.

Feel free to contact me at (330) nnn-nnnn or at nnn@nnn.com with any questions.

Sincerely,

BriKuz
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Springfield Municipal Code Sec. 82-1. - Park rules generally.

(a) Adoption; prohibited acts. Those rules and regulations adopted by the public park board of the city on March 16, 1971, relating to conduct within the parks of the city under the control and operation of the Springfield/Greene County park board are hereby adopted and approved by the city council, which rules and regulations read as follows:

(1) Conduct in parks. It shall be unlawful for any person while on property or in buildings under the operation and control of the park board to:

(k) Carry, possess or discharge any firearm, pellet gun or pistol, BB gun or other similar device, bow and arrow, crossbow or any other device capable of projecting a missile able to inflict harm to persons or animals or to injure property, except law enforcement officers in the performance of their duty or employees of the park board, and except in such places and under such special regulations as the park board may have adopted for practicing the use of any such devices or giving exhibitions or holding competitions in the use thereof.

Guess there will be some fun with regards to Amd 5 and SB 656 and its relation to the training of rangers.

https://www.municode.com/library/mo...of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH82PARE_ARTIINGE

If anyone has info on Missouri open-records law, please post here or PM me... Thank you!

What's the penalty for violation of said park code? Trespassing?

Most of their buildings are posted, however, I haven't noticed it at the outside areas.

I would ask for the case he 'convicted' this other person not too long ago. More than likely, it probably it's not the same/similar circumstances. If there isn't any, you can know show this Ranger will say anything and therefore cast doubt on his statements.

Keep us posted.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Just sent an e-mail to the Ranger Supervisor, CCing the parks director and the park board:...
I would have asked for their training material on SB656, Amendment 5, and open carry.

Unfortunately, Missouri's open records laws are not as advantageous to a citizen as other places, Ohio for example. In MO, you can be charged for the time it takes to get and copy records. As you can imagine, this discourages governmental oversight because you've got to shell out money for various things.

I don't know how they would handle such a request, but if they come back with a cost that you dislike, tell them you merely want to view the information you requested.
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
You handled yourself pretty well. (The butterflies sure get to churning, don't they?)

Several items of advice:(of which, I have also done, so please don't view my comments as "preachy" or condescending.)

The stop was, as you stated, unlawful. Without probable cause, there is no reason you should not be able to continue your peaceable journey.

The law enforcement officer , not you, is now "on the hook" for his behavior. Realize this. Have confidence in this. The law works as equally for you as it does for him.

I completely understand the tendency to comply with law enforcement. I also have an ingrained respect for authority. I have also responded to unlawful actions by law enforcement by complying with their unlawful demands. It's the butterflies. Something about the emotional content of the interaction, and the unlawfulness of the officer. I never seem to say the right things until after I review my actions. Then, I watch the video of my interaction and view myself kow-towing to the most egregious rights violations. I can watch a video of my interactions with law enforcement 5 minutes later, and cringe at some of the things I have willingly accepted. I think to myself, "Why didn't I say this?" or "Why did I answer that question?" or "Why did I agree to obey that unlawful command?".

Similarly, I see some of the things I have done in your video. This is why I'm pointing them out. Not as criticism, but to offer advice and relate my experience at overcoming the things I realized about my own interactions with law enforcement.

YOU are in the right. Realize this. Have confidence in this. Rely upon it. Take heart in the fact that you have done nothing wrong, and the officer is the one who needs to explain his actions to YOU.

There was no need to volunteer your CCW. While courteous, the only purpose it served was to justify the officer's actions. HE needs to request it. Don't make it easy on them by willingly tossing your rights away, not only upon request, but out of the blue.

If he did ask, remember: HE is the one justifying his actions to you, not the reverse. Upon request for your papers, he should be required to tell you why he wants to see them. Asking him "What probable cause do you have?" is always a good question that requires them to explain their actions. If their actions are lawful, they should have no problem answering your questions, right? (See how the interaction demographics are subtly being altered? Remember: HIS actions are unlawful, so why should YOU be answering questions?)

Have confidence in this. If you were, in fact, breaking any laws, there would be no question and answer session. You'd be immediately placed into custody.

I once heard a brilliant piece of advice: If you are currently NOT under arrest, you can't talk your way out of it. This leaves only one direction to talk yourself in.

I know from experience that it is hard to do, but faced with what I watched in the video, the officer shouldn't have been offered such compliance. He should have been asked if you were being detained and for probable cause. If told yes, you were detained, he should have been met with a request for an attorney and further silence. If told no, you weren't detained, he should have been met with a "Have a nice day." and your disappearing tail lights.

If the Parks code does not allow the open carrying of firearms on the premises, the un-educated Ranger believes he has RAS, because he has been told no firearms on the park property.

This Ranger is in for some re-education. Hopefully the Parks Board will be too.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Sec. 1-7. - General penalty; continuing violations.

(a)

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other ordinance of the city or provision of this Code to the contrary, whenever in this Code or any other ordinance of the city an act is prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, or the doing of any act is required or the failure to do any act is declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, and no specific penalty is provided therefor, the violation of any such provision of this Code or other ordinances of the city shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment in jail for a period not exceeding 180 days, or both such fine and imprisonment.

(b)

Every day any violation of this Code or any other ordinance of the city shall continue, such violation shall constitute a separate offense.

(c)

In no event shall any person be imprisoned for a period of more than 180 days for a violation of this Code or any other ordinance of the city, whether such imprisonment shall be because of sentence of imprisonment or because of failure to pay a fine imposed, or because of both such a sentence and failure to pay a fine imposed.

(Code 1981, § 1-7; G.O. No. 5280, § 2, 7-14-2003)
For not violating State law!!!!!!
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
E-mail sent to Springfield officials and the Police Chief, which included a .pdf of the recent STL Amendment 5 court decision and a records request regarding training materials.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
E-mail sent to Springfield officials and the Police Chief, which included a .pdf of the recent STL Amendment 5 court decision and a records request regarding training materials.
Well, I hit Springfield officials and the Police Chief, only to find out that (as I would have had I read more carefully) <hangs head> that Springfield has no anti-OC ordinance. :cool:

Park rangers are commissioned as deputies by the County Sheriff. The Chief forwarded my e-mail to Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott and Springfield Greene County Park Director Bob Belote for processing.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Well, I hit Springfield officials and the Police Chief, only to find out that (as I would have had I read more carefully) <hangs head> that Springfield has no anti-OC ordinance. :cool:

Park rangers are commissioned as deputies by the County Sheriff. The Chief forwarded my e-mail to Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott and Springfield Greene County Park Director Bob Belote for processing.

That makes sense...its the Springfield-Greene County Park Board. Because there are parks and such outside of the city, they combined. Sheriff Arnott has seemed to be pro-carry.....if he stays true to his colors, the park code will probably see change. Not real familiar with Bob.....scuddlebutt is he is a governmental bureaucrat....so making a change may be hard.....the bureaucrats don't like to give control. Hope he is the exception.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
That makes sense...its the Springfield-Greene County Park Board. Because there are parks and such outside of the city, they combined. Sheriff Arnott has seemed to be pro-carry.....if he stays true to his colors, the park code will probably see change. Not real familiar with Bob.....scuddlebutt is he is a governmental bureaucrat....so making a change may be hard.....the bureaucrats don't like to give control. Hope he is the exception.
I received a very nice e-mail from a Major with the Greene County Sheriff's office. He explained a few things, and included the information that "Park Rangers have been given a second authority by the Springfield City Counsel which allows them to enforce Springfield Municipal Ordinances on park properties".

The Major also made it clear that the Sheriff "is a concealed carry proponent" and offering the assurance that there are "no anti concealed carry movements or sentiments in place at the Greene County Sheriff's Office". It should be noted that he said nothing about open carry, though. I'm going to leave that lay for the time being.

So... I've written back to Chief Williams of Springfield (copying in the council and city manager) so that he can address the park rule (cited previously) which prohibits ALL carry in Springfield parks.

Interesting stuff.
 
Top