Is It Impersonating an Officer to Not Inform Someone You Are Not One

[BeGe]

jk: I do find it a bit ironic that you call me rude after the very first thing you wrote was accusing me of having "other problems beyond the weapon issue" simply because I stated I don't want people calling the police on me under false pretenses. Such grand assumptions of guilt based on nothing have a tendency to put people off. Don't be rude to people, and they won't be rude back.

"Bad situation all around" is indeed an accurate description. Police coming to a scene where they have been called about an armed person are not in the most cordial of moods. I've had police pull a weapon on me and handcuff me because they drove by and saw me in my own office building, that I own, at 8:00 PM and that was suspicious to them. Sure, it turned out fine because I wasn't doing anything illegal...but it was still a bad situation. So is it hard to believe that I might have a gun pointed at me and get handcuffed when they've been called by someone suspecting I have an illegal weapon? Sure they'd check my CPL and all would be fine in the end. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a "bad situation" up until that point. Police officers (rightly) do not assume you're harmless until they are sure of it. That sucks to put police officers in that position when the person is innocent, and sucks worse for the innocent person under suspicion, and is definitely a "bad situation" for both parties (i.e. "all around"). Your pedantry about how calling it a "bad situation" as opposed to "less than desirable" somehow means I've got "other problems" is very rude. So expect people to be rude to you when you make such statements.

Though you should write more clearly. Writing "you may be impersonating an officer by not denying the question" is quite a contradiction from "you can [...] ignore them.". "Ignor[ing] them" is quite definitely a form of "not denying the question". Thanks for clearing it up...but stop acting like you're holier than thou because I needed clarification on such grossly contradicting statements.




cdwjava: Thanks for being polite in your answers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but per my understanding there are zones where even CPL holders must open carry instead of conceal. In those zones I do switch to open carry, even though it's not my favorite way to carry by any means. In our current polarized gun climate people like to make a big deal about carrying when they don't like it, and even raise accusations. For example, jk doesn't like open carry, and look at how he was able to turn such a obvious statement as me saying that having the police called on me is "bad" into accusations of wrongdoing. He's by no means the only one that turns into an ass to try to provoke people that are carrying or find some way to get them in trouble.

Typically I find that before they make a fuss they ask if I'm an officer first...I guess they see no point in making a fuss about an officer carrying. The idea is that if they can't get a definite "no" from me then hopefully they won't be confident enough to raise that fuss. That is why I'm seeking clarification about whether I have to say "no", or if I can simply ignore the question and hope they drop the issue.

[Mr. Knowitall]

If somebody asks you if you are a police officer, and you're not a police officer, the appropriate answer is "no". If you want to pretend not to hear the question, nobody is making you answer. If you want to try to come up with an artful answer that gives the person the impression that you are a police officer without being technically dishonest... odds are your carefully constructed answer is not going to be remembered if the police end up investigating you for impersonating an officer, and instead people will remember that you intentionally gave the person who asked the question (and any people who overhear the exchange) the impression that you are an officer.

Honesty isn't a bad policy.

[souperdave]

..... ......Correct me if I'm wrong, but per my understanding there are zones where even CPL holders must open carry instead of conceal.......

I am at a loss here to comprehend where, or in what sorta circumstance, that your being a CCW license holder "requires" you to open carry. That just does not make sense to me.

I have a CCW and all the regulation(s) I've ever seen have concise rules for what is allowed and was is restricted and/or not allowed. I have never seen any 'requirement' that stipulates anything about there is an open-carry "rule".

Would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to what sorta scenario requires you to open-carry as opposed to maintaining CCW? Inquiring minds really do wanna know!

And just as an FYI, if you even represent/imply/miscontrue yourself as any sorta LEO, and are in possession of a firearm, then it's a felony charge in a lot of states!

[cdwjava]

cdwjava: Thanks for being polite in your answers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but per my understanding there are zones where even CPL holders must open carry instead of conceal.

There may be. I am not familiar with the concealed and open carry laws in your state, so I really can't answer that. The answers I might find will be the same ones you could find with an internet search as I have no special insight on your state's gun laws.

In our current polarized gun climate people like to make a big deal about carrying when they don't like it, and even raise accusations.

A lot of people are concerned about people carrying guns so, of course, they will call the police. They don't know if you're a good guy or a bad guy, and permit holders have no badge that might identify them as someone authorized to carry, so it should be no surprise that you might get questioned or even reported.

The idea is that if they can't get a definite "no" from me then hopefully they won't be confident enough to raise that fuss. That is why I'm seeking clarification about whether I have to say "no", or if I can simply ignore the question and hope they drop the issue.

As you have been told, unless there is a law or condition of a license that requires you to answer this question to John Q. Public, you may remain silent. But, that also means that the person making the inquiry can draw his or her own inference and act as they feel might be necessary.

[jk]

BeGe;710501]jk: I do find it a bit ironic that you call me rude after the very first thing you wrote was accusing me of having "other problems beyond the weapon issue" simply because I stated I don't want people calling the police on me under false pretenses. Such grand assumptions of guilt based on nothing have a tendency to put people off. Don't be rude to people, and they won't be rude back.

accused? where" I suggested and it was based on your statement that a contact with the police would result in a BAD situation. I have contact with police occasionally. Can't think of a single time I would see it as a BAD situation; maybe not desirable but definitely BAD.


Even with your claim of being called due to you carrying a weapon; same thing. Never a BAD situation. Maybe the police in your area are less than professional. Maybe you live in an area where it is presumed a person with a weapon is there for nefarious reasons.

Though you should write more clearly. Writing "you may be impersonating an officer by not denying the question" is quite a contradiction from "you can [...] ignore them.". "Ignor[ing] them" is quite definitely a form of "not denying the question". Thanks for clearing it up...but stop acting like you're holier than thou because I needed clarification on such grossly contradicting statements.

No, it's not. They are two completely independent statements, complete in themselves. One addresses verbal responses; the other addresses your physical actions.

Typically I find that before they make a fuss they ask if I'm an officer first...I guess they see no point in making a fuss about an officer carrying. The idea is that if they can't get a definite "no" from me then hopefully they won't be confident enough to raise that fuss. That is why I'm seeking clarification about whether I have to say "no", or if I can simply ignore the question and hope they drop the issue.

maybe it's something about you or your personality that is the problem. I know dozens of guys that carry and none of them have had any problems even close to what you describe.

- - - Updated - - -

I am at a loss here to comprehend where, or in what sorta circumstance, that your being a CCW license holder "requires" you to open carry. That just does not make sense to me.

and in MI it's a CPL (concealed pistol license).



http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ms...2_336854_7.pdf

MCL 28.425o provides that a person with a valid
CPL shall not carry a concealed pistol in a pistolfree zone. First offense is a state civil infraction.
The following is a list of the premises (excluding
parking lots) included in the statute:


 School or school property, except a parent or
legal guardian who is dropping off or picking up a
child and the pistol is kept in the vehicle
 Public or private day care center
 Sports arena or stadium
 A bar or tavern where sale and consumption of
liquor by the glass is the primary source of
income (does not apply to owner or employee of
the business).
 Any property or facility owned or operated by a
church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other
place of worship, unless authorized by the
presiding official
 An entertainment facility that has a seating
capacity of 2,500 or more
 A hospital
 A dormitory or classroom of a community college,
college, or university
 A casino (R 432.1212, MCL 432.202)



Note, the above statute applies to CPL holders
carrying a concealed pistol. If the CPL holder is
carrying a non-concealed pistol, the statute does
not apply. As noted above, the unlawful
premises listed in MCL 750.234d do not apply to
persons with a valid CPL. Therefore, a person
with a valid CPL may carry a non-concealed
pistol in the areas described in MCL 28.425o
and MCL 750.234d.

the problem:

MCL 750.234d provides that it is a 90 day
misdemeanor to possess a firearm on the
premises of any of the following:
 A depository financial institution (e.g., bank or
credit union)
 A church or other place of religious worship
 A court
 A theater
 A sports arena
 A day care center
 A hospital
 An establishment licensed under the Liquor
Control Code

so yes, there are a few places where a person with a CPL is ALLOWED to carry a weapon if they carry it open that a person without a CPL is not allowed to carry at all. Now, while it would be simpler to secure the piston in your vehicle rather than going and strapping on an exposed holster just so you can carry the pistol, apparently the OP is one of those that believes since he has the right to carry, he is going to do it, even if it causes problems.

[BeGe]

accused? where"

I quoted it...in quotation marks...you quoted my quoting of it in a forum quote when you wrote this...

I suggested

Yes...you suggested the accusation...

and it was based on your statement that a contact with the police would result in a BAD situation. I have contact with police occasionally. Can't think of a single time I would see it as a BAD situation; maybe not desirable but definitely BAD.

So the story I gave right in that post...which I'm POSITIVE you read (because you say you read my posts thoroughly before replying, and I trust you in that...) about having a gun pointed at me and handcuffed for being in my own office building at 8 PM was not bad?

You seem to have a very narrow view of "Never", which seems to only encompass your personal experiences, which you apply to everyone and chastise them as wrong when theirs are different.

Even with your claim of being called due to you carrying a weapon; same thing. Never a BAD situation. Maybe the police in your area are less than professional. Maybe you live in an area where it is presumed a person with a weapon is there for nefarious reasons.

I visit such areas often, that is why I carry. We have 4 of the top 10 most crime riddled cities in the US. I own property in one, have in-laws in another, have family in another, and drive through the 4th to get to 2 of them. Yes, having the police called on you in any of those areas is BAD. They will point guns and handcuff first...probably very physically...then ask questions once they know they are safe. They are right to do this because if they didn't it would eventually kill them. But because of that, it's a good idea to avoid that BAD situation by not getting them called on you.

This again supports the theory above, which I'll re-quote: "You seem to have a very narrow view of "Never", which seems to only encompass your personal experiences, which you apply to everyone and chastise them as wrong when theirs are different."

No, it's not. They are two completely independent statements, complete in themselves. One addresses verbal responses; the other addresses your physical actions.

The statement: "you may be impersonating an officer by not denying the question", if taken as complete in itself, can be done verbally, not just via actions. Which is why clarification was needed: because I did take it as a statement complete in itself when it actually wasn't complete in itself, it only applied in light of the preceding statement about actions instead of verbal response.

maybe it's something about you or your personality that is the problem. I know dozens of guys that carry and none of them have had any problems even close to what you describe.

This statement again supports my theory of you stated above. I'll re-quote it here as well: "You seem to have a very narrow view of "Never", which seems to only encompass your personal experiences, which you apply to everyone and chastise them as wrong when theirs are different."

Now, while it would be simpler to secure the piston in your vehicle rather than going and strapping on an exposed holster just so you can carry the pistol, apparently the OP is one of those that believes since he has the right to carry, he is going to do it, even if it causes problems.

Yes, because every time one carries while walking in Detroit (a very good idea by the way) they are right next to their car when they need to walk into one of the areas listed and are required to switch to open carry (end sarcasm)...or do you propose I leave the pistol outside hung on a lamp post? (ok, I guess that was sarcastic too) Not everyone is in a car driving to everywhere they go throughout the day.

Again, I'll re-quote my theory of you for dramatic effect, since it applies yet again: "You seem to have a very narrow view of "Never", which seems to only encompass your personal experiences, which you apply to everyone and chastise them as wrong when theirs are different."

- - - Updated - - -

If somebody asks you if you are a police officer, and you're not a police officer, the appropriate answer is "no". If you want to pretend not to hear the question, nobody is making you answer. If you want to try to come up with an artful answer that gives the person the impression that you are a police officer without being technically dishonest... odds are your carefully constructed answer is not going to be remembered if the police end up investigating you for impersonating an officer, and instead people will remember that you intentionally gave the person who asked the question (and any people who overhear the exchange) the impression that you are an officer.

Honesty isn't a bad policy.

Thanks. I have no intention of artful answers. Just ignoring and letting them wonder. If ignoring becomes a non-option then a "no" would definitely be my answer.

Though I did figure I could ignore (but it's good to confirm, as multiple people have, and I thank you all for that). The part I'm even more curious about is if I become aware that someone has already assumed I'm a police officer even though I did nothing to make that assumption other than carrying (e.g. I hear one person tell another "there's an officer over there with a gun") do I have an obligation to make contact in order to rectify the assumption, or am I allowed to ignore that as well?

I'm betting that's a grey area depending on much, but we'll assume I've done zero to imply I am one other than carry a weapon, since I have no plans of implying I am one!





And yes, jk, that assumption does happen. I hate to pull race into it, but in Detroit if the only white guy around is noticed to be carrying, people absolutely do assume him to be a plainclothes officer for race and armament alone. Some assume outright, others ask. Sad, but very true. It's very common.






To souperdave: basically, in MI many of the "zones" where a CCW (or in this case CPL) holder normally cannot carry in most states, here we still can carry as CPL holders but only openly. Jk outlined the zones.

[jk]

failing to reply in the negative is not impersonating an officer, period.

acting in a manner that suggest you are a cop, even if you deny it when queried, might get you charged with impersonating an officer.

So, it gets down to what the person observing you perceives. If either your actions or statements are of such that a person would believe you are a cop (and no, not the simple; white guy with gun in a black neighborhood suspicion), you could be charged with impersonating an officer.

Even worse; you have no control on what anybody else thinks. You can attempt to sway their perception or assuage their concerns, fears, or curiosity but in the end it is what they perceive you to be based on the totality of your presence.



You want a black and white answer but there is not one.

[BeGe]

In my last post:

I'm betting that's a grey area depending on much

In your very next post after that:

You want a black and white answer but there is not one.

Your reading skills fail to impress.

Just leave be. I'm doing fine with all the other responders except you. They are all providing useful information without rudeness, and I have been accepting it and thanking them for it. It's solely you where I've had a problem due to your rudeness on everything involving a law that you don't agree with and the assumptions you place on others because of your viewpoints.

I thank you for what answers that you have provided in non-rude ways. You have every right to continue arguing with me about open carry morals if that suits your blood pressure somehow, but I would think it would be better if you just left it be since the assumptions you've put on my occasional open carry habits (the wildly imagined situations where I tote around an open weapon to make a statement) we've established are exactly that: assumptions based solely on your imagination. I open carry when I am forced to switch my holster from concealed to open, and the entire thread is based on an attempt to avoid confrontation when doing so. How that can be interpreted as me being thrown in your defined group of people that are wearing weapons to cause a scene is quite hard to understand.

[jk]

In my last post:


In your very next post after that:


Your reading skills fail to impress.

Just leave be. I'm doing fine with all the other responders except you. They are all providing useful information without rudeness, and I have been accepting it and thanking them for it. It's solely you where I've had a problem due to your rudeness on everything involving a law that you don't agree with and the assumptions you place on others because of your viewpoints.

I thank you for what answers that you have provided in non-rude ways. You have every right to continue arguing with me about open carry morals if that suits your blood pressure somehow, but I would think it would be better if you just left it be since the assumptions you've put on my occasional open carry habits (the wildly imagined situations where I tote around an open weapon to make a statement) we've established are exactly that: assumptions based solely on your imagination. I open carry when I am forced to switch my holster from concealed to open, and the entire thread is based on an attempt to avoid confrontation when doing so. How that can be interpreted as me being thrown in your defined group of people that are wearing weapons to cause a scene is quite hard to understand.

me contunuing to argue? I gave you a very concise and correct answer. You are the one that felt a need to continue with an argument where a "thank you" would have been quite appropriate and all that was needed.



btw: WE don't have 4 of the top ten crime ridden cities in any list I could find. Since Michigan is nearly 97k square miles, it is not really relevant even if WE did have 4 of the top 10 most crime ridden cities in the country.

but I think I see why you seem to have such a problem with the police. It shows.

I open carry when I am forced to switch my holster from concealed to open, and the entire thread is based on an attempt to avoid confrontation when doing so. How that can be interpreted as me being thrown in your defined group of people that are wearing weapons to cause a scene is quite hard to understand.

did I say that applied to you? No, I didn't. It might, it could, but it was not I that lumped you in that group. There was a comment made by cdwjava and I wrote how we have such yahoos around my area. In fact, it specifically did NOT include you due to the fact the situation I spoke of was concerning a person without a cpl. If you feel it applies to you, then maybe you really do have a problem. I spoke of people that carry open with intent to attract attention. Is that why you are doing it? You say no but your argument suggests otherwise.

yes, much to my dismay, it is legal to open carry with no permit whatsoever in Michigan as long as you can legally possess the gun in question. We have a yahoo that wanders around my area once in awhile, kind of like those guys up in Washington that do it just to provoke an engagement with the police so they can tell them how lawful they are being.

[cdwjava]

And the thing about carrying openly in a place where there ARE bad guys ... they just know that they have to drop YOU first.

The problem is that "good" guys tend to hesitate. Why? Because we are "good" and we ask ourselves if we are making the right decision. The "bad" guys don't care. They will act. If they are intent on causing serious harm, they don't care if their perceptions are right or not. The obvious possession of a firearm in one of these neighborhoods or locations merely makes it certain that you will be a target. Might you deter a criminal act against you? Maybe. But, you also transmit to the bad guys that you have something they might want - a gun! Unless you are drawing down on everyone that gets close to you (and that would get you in trouble), your possession of that firearm merely makes you a target.

Something they teach you in cop class 101 - there is always a gun at every location you go to! ... Yours.

I wonder what the stats are in MI? How many open carry folks lose their guns or have it used against them compared to REAL crimes that are interrupted or stopped as a result? Certainly we cannot tell whether there was a deterrent effect, but I wonder how often an open carry subject has interceded on an actual criminal event?