GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-28-2012, 20:53   #1
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,644
Blog Entries: 64
Legally open carrying combat vet sues over Wyoming traffic stop

Combat vet sues over Wyoming traffic stop
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921

Last edited by RussP; 10-23-2012 at 20:20..
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 22:24   #2
willy1094
Senior Member
 
willy1094's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 611
Send a message via AIM to willy1094
I do not care much for open carry but I will say that I can see concealing on a bike to be a pain. I know it can be done but most gear is fitting for protection so open carry is the most comfortable way to go. I hope he wins for not other reason than for one of the comments the officer made. Sounds like a bad egg.

Last edited by willy1094; 09-28-2012 at 22:24..
willy1094 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 12:32   #3
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 15,846
It is a pain

Quote:
Originally Posted by willy1094 View Post
I do not care much for open carry but I will say that I can see concealing on a bike to be a pain. I know it can be done but most gear is fitting for protection so open carry is the most comfortable way to go. I hope he wins for not other reason than for one of the comments the officer made. Sounds like a bad egg.
take it from me, a bike rider and G17 carrier for twelve years now.
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 06:58   #4
beatcop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 1,862
This has gotten a lot of mileage from dopes on other sites. Aside from the issue at hand, I get tired of people throwing out their military experience as some character reference...I've seen at least a 20% total idiot rate on my deployments.

-I wonder if his account is accurate?
-If he was stopped for a MV violation/suspect, oh well, the stop is valid
-I would have kept him on the bike holding it up by the bars...keeps bs level down
-As far as comments to shoot him...sounds a little stupid.
-So far we have one side of the story from a guy who wants money
beatcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 13:18   #5
TDC20
Senior Member
 
TDC20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatcop View Post
I get tired of people throwing out their military experience as some character reference...I've seen at least a 20% total idiot rate on my deployments.
And what percentage of cops you know or have worked with are "total idiots?" And don't say none, because every profession has idiots, and we all need to work with or around them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatcop View Post
-If he was stopped for a MV violation/suspect, oh well, the stop is valid
Twice in my life I have phoned in complaints about life-threatening traffic situations that were intentionally caused by careless drivers. One was a duel between two road-raged drivers in rush hour traffic on a metro interstate, cutting off traffic, speeding in excess of 90MPH, and very nearly causing no less than 4 accidents that I observed (would have been very serious accidents). The other time, I was almost killed by an impaired driver late at night. Both times, I had locations and license plate numbers, and the dispatcher told me there was nothing that they could do about it, the action has to be observed by a LE officer. I understand the reasoning, since they would have to follow up on every driver reported for an illegal lane change. So I have 2 questions here: 1. When do officers pull over cars that were reported by citizens for speeding, and 2. Has anyone ever seen an RV equipped with a doppler radar? (report alleged that he was speeding in excess of 100mph, as determined by what?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatcop View Post
-I would have kept him on the bike holding it up by the bars...keeps bs level down
If you give attitude, you have to expect attitude. I think the cyclist being evasive about the weapon question was unwise to say the least, but honestly, was there any doubt the guy had a holstered gun? And you have to wonder if there was any reason for the traffic stop other than having a holstered gun. So it was a rather ridiculous question, and could be interpreted as attitude from the cop. BTW beatcop, I'm not picking on you personally, just your comments. There's a reason some people give cops attitude, and it starts with "bs level" things like "I would have kept him on the bike holding it up by the bars" The problem with wearing a uniform and acting like a jackass is that you color everyone you come into contact with that all cops are jackasses, which isn't true. But you're not doing your brothers any favors with such childish behavior. If you can't be a professional, there are a lot of other jobs and careers out there that don't require it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by beatcop View Post
-guy is playing to the tape recorder
Perhaps, but if the incident had not been recorded, and the cops denied anything that was said or done, who would the judge believe? In this day and age, every cop should assume that their actions and conversations are being recorded and act accordingly. Every citizen should have the benefit of a recorded encounter with the police to ensure they are treated fairly, with all their rights afforded to them.

You may think that I'm anti-cop, but I'm not. Most of the cops I know and have met are decent, fair, and professional. They earn respect by being respectful. I've also run into a few jackasses over the years, but it's nowhere near 20%. Being LE is a very difficult job. I know for a fact that I couldn't do it, so I don't. They have my my respect implicitly, unless they decide to act like a jackass. I suspect that the cyclist could have had bad interactions with jackass cops in the past, which adversely affected his attitude. Still, he did nothing illegal, and had his rights violated. Facts are facts, and the law is the law.
__________________
A handgun is only good for fighting your way to a rifle.
TDC20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 14:58   #6
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 11,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDC20 View Post
So I have 2 questions here: 1. When do officers pull over cars that were reported by citizens for speeding, and 2. Has anyone ever seen an RV equipped with a doppler radar? (report alleged that he was speeding in excess of 100mph, as determined by what?)
If units are availalbe, and are close-by enough, the agency will likely make an effort to correct the reported problem. I don't know if in your two situations, the LE agency had unit(s) available or close-by enough to intercept in a timely basis.

As for alleging the MC might have been traveling at over 100 mph, the driver probably probably was estimating. To a seasoned driver, estimating another car's traveling/passing speed really isn't that difficult.

If a seasoned driver is traveling at 60mph, and a car zooms past, the seasoned driver should be able to estimate if the passing car is going 20 mph faster or 50 mph faster.


Quote:
If you give attitude, you have to expect attitude. I think the cyclist being evasive about the weapon question was unwise to say the least, but honestly, was there any doubt the guy had a holstered gun? And you have to wonder if there was any reason for the traffic stop other than having a holstered gun. So it was a rather ridiculous question, and could be interpreted as attitude from the cop. BTW beatcop, I'm not picking on you personally, just your comments. There's a reason some people give cops attitude, and it starts with "bs level" things like "I would have kept him on the bike holding it up by the bars" The problem with wearing a uniform and acting like a jackass is that you color everyone you come into contact with that all cops are jackasses, which isn't true. But you're not doing your brothers any favors with such childish behavior. If you can't be a professional, there are a lot of other jobs and careers out there that don't require it.

OK, so how do you know the MC didn't have the attituide, which the LEO picked up on?


Quote:
You may think that I'm anti-cop, but I'm not. Most of the cops I know and have met are decent, fair, and professional. They earn respect by being respectful. I've also run into a few jackasses over the years, but it's nowhere near 20%. Being LE is a very difficult job. I know for a fact that I couldn't do it, so I don't. They have my my respect implicitly, unless they decide to act like a jackass. I suspect that the cyclist could have had bad interactions with jackass cops in the past, which adversely affected his attitude. Still, he did nothing illegal, and had his rights violated. Facts are facts, and the law is the law.
I don't wear a uniform but I love to people watch. Over the years I notice that very often, many, many people approached by those in uniforms immediately have attituides. The usual attituide is they're better than the uniformed person. If the uniform is a cop, people will exude an air of superiority, as in so why is this cop "bothering" me? Most will always have some snide remark like "why aren't you fighting real crime?" or something similar. God forbid if the uniform is a service person like the UPS guy or sanitation or even a building doorman.

What's my point? You may not believe it, but jackass people not in uniforms exist also.
__________________
Sounds like he has nothing left but be a monkey's uncle. It's not like he's got a monkey's manhood left.

And thank YOU for being perfect, all the time, every time. Go forth and reproduce. We need more of you.

Last edited by Patchman; 09-29-2012 at 15:27..
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2012, 00:18   #7
TDC20
Senior Member
 
TDC20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
If units are availalbe, and are close-by enough, the agency will likely make an effort to correct the reported problem. I don't know if in your two situations, the LE agency had unit(s) available or close-by enough to intercept in a timely basis.
Nah, I just think it goes back to the fact that they really can't legally do anything based on one person's call. For example, someone could have been pissed off about being stuck behind a slow driver in the fast lane and figured they could call in a complaint on them about reckless driving and get them in trouble. There's no way to prove or disprove if a complaint is valid in that situation. So I understand that. But in this particular case, if the deputy didn't actually witness any reckless driving or other traffic infractions when he caught up to the MC, does he still have a reason to pull him over? If he doesn't observe some kind of illegal activity or traffic infraction, what is the point in pulling him over? I don't think he could cite the guy based on someone else's observation of an alleged traffic violation, could he?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
As for alleging the MC might have been traveling at over 100 mph, the driver probably probably was estimating. To a seasoned driver, estimating another car's traveling/passing speed really isn't that difficult.
Good point, and I know this is true because after spotting cars for about 15 min. using a LADAR, I was able to call the speed to within +/-1mph. I'm not saying that I could come back a week later, without having the LADAR to "calibrate" my observations and still do that, but I believe that training makes this possible within an acceptable window of error. Which brings up another thing that I hadn't considered...maybe the call was made by an off-duty officer in the RV. That would explain why the MC was pulled over based on the complaint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
OK, so how do you know the MC didn't have the attituide, which the LEO picked up on?
I think it's pretty obvious that the MC had an attitude. In his mind, he was being detained for doing nothing illegal. The cop had an attitude, too. In the cop's mind, he considered the MC's evasion of his weapons question to be a threat to his safety. I hate to be a Monday morning quarterback, but when the guy said he didn't consent to any searches, the cop should have immediately replied with, "I'm not asking to search you, I'm asking if you have any weapons on you." Simply maintaining his question, instead of getting sidetracked, could have eliminated any misunderstandings, and may have prevented a lot of attitude on both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
I don't wear a uniform but I love to people watch. Over the years I notice that very often, many, many people approached by those in uniforms immediately have attituides. The usual attituide is they're better than the uniformed person. If the uniform is a cop, people will exude an air of superiority, as in so why is this cop "bothering" me? Most will always have some snide remark like "why aren't you fighting real crime?" or something similar. God forbid if the uniform is a service person like the UPS guy or sanitation or even a building doorman.

What's my point? You may not believe it, but jackass people not in uniforms exist also.
I have worn a uniform, and I know first hand about people's prejudice based on their experiences or perceptions about someone who wore the same uniform. I have no doubt that cops get attitude pretty much everyday they are in uniform, and it has nothing to do with that particular cop. It's more of an attitude about the uniform and the authority. In most cases, it's not even a conscious thing, but more an element of human nature. It's the same element of human nature that fosters racism and anti-semitism.
__________________
A handgun is only good for fighting your way to a rifle.
TDC20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2012, 16:58   #8
frizz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
If units are availalbe, and are close-by enough, the agency will likely make an effort to correct the reported problem. I don't know if in your two situations, the LE agency had unit(s) available or close-by enough to intercept in a timely basis.
That matches my experience, Patchman.

On an interstate after dark in a populated area, I used my cell to report a zooming and weaving driver, who was doing at least 85 in a 60 (my wife was driving) but I didn't expect the cops to do anything -- how could they?

Luckily, they just happened to have a car nearby, and they nailed his stupid, drunk/high ass a mere 3 miles down the interstate. The cop was stopped at the exit just waiting, and turned the lights on when the SUV was 200 yards away.

Seriously though, the interchange 3 miles ahead of where he was stopped has killed a lot of people.

Based on the tone of voice from the operator, I conclude that area law enforcement (dispatchers included) take drunk/reckless reports especially seriously. She questioned me in a manner that was clearly designed to get the important facts from me very quickly.
frizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2012, 19:54   #9
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 11,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
If units are availalbe, and are close-by enough, the agency will likely make an effort to correct the reported problem. I don't know if in your two situations, the LE agency had unit(s) available or close-by enough to intercept in a timely basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDC20 View Post
Nah, I just think it goes back to the fact that they really can't legally do anything based on one person's call. For example, someone could have been pissed off about being stuck behind a slow driver in the fast lane and figured they could call in a complaint on them about reckless driving and get them in trouble. There's no way to prove or disprove if a complaint is valid in that situation. So I understand that. But in this particular case, if the deputy didn't actually witness any reckless driving or other traffic infractions when he caught up to the MC, does he still have a reason to pull him over? If he doesn't observe some kind of illegal activity or traffic infraction, what is the point in pulling him over? I don't think he could cite the guy based on someone else's observation of an alleged traffic violation, could he?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frizz View Post
That matches my experience, Patchman.

On an interstate after dark in a populated area, I used my cell to report a zooming and weaving driver, who was doing at least 85 in a 60 (my wife was driving) but I didn't expect the cops to do anything -- how could they?

Luckily, they just happened to have a car nearby, and they nailed his stupid, drunk/high ass a mere 3 miles down the interstate. The cop was stopped at the exit just waiting, and turned the lights on when the SUV was 200 yards away.

Seriously though, the interchange 3 miles ahead of where he was stopped has killed a lot of people.

Based on the tone of voice from the operator, I conclude that area law enforcement (dispatchers included) take drunk/reckless reports especially seriously. She questioned me in a manner that was clearly designed to get the important facts from me very quickly.
Well TDC20, I guess everyone's mileage will differ.
__________________
Sounds like he has nothing left but be a monkey's uncle. It's not like he's got a monkey's manhood left.

And thank YOU for being perfect, all the time, every time. Go forth and reproduce. We need more of you.
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2012, 23:40   #10
TDC20
Senior Member
 
TDC20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by frizz View Post
That matches my experience, Patchman.

On an interstate after dark in a populated area, I used my cell to report a zooming and weaving driver, who was doing at least 85 in a 60 (my wife was driving) but I didn't expect the cops to do anything -- how could they?

Luckily, they just happened to have a car nearby, and they nailed his stupid, drunk/high ass a mere 3 miles down the interstate. The cop was stopped at the exit just waiting, and turned the lights on when the SUV was 200 yards away.
frizz, is it possible that the cop that was waiting for him got the guy on radar for speeding? I'm guessing that's why he was able to nail him without the need for a sworn statement from you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I highly doupt the RVers stuck around or made a statement.
In the audio, the officer stated at the end that the RVer didn't want to make a formal complaint, so he was releasing the MC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatcop View Post
It is part of standardized police training to leave motorcycle operators on the bike, with the kick stand up. You mistake an industry "best practice" with ball busting. That is the problem with a citizens analysis of a particular procedure.
My bad. I didn't understand your original statement and had a mental picture of a guy standing alongside his bike, holding it up by the handlebars. I understand now, and I understand your reasoning for requiring someone to keep their hands on the handlebars (same as having a motorist keep their hands on the wheel).

I'm not a fan of open carry. I live in a state that allows it, but I have never done it. If I'm armed, I would rather it be concealed for a number of reasons that I see as an advantage over OC'ing. However, I'm not aware of a lot of shootings happening with OC'ers, though I know of a few. As a cop, I would be more concerned about the gun I can't see/don't know about rather than one I can plainly see in the open. Every time I go to the range, it's a discrete possibility that the guy next to me could swing his weapon and pop me in the head, but do I ever worry about that happening? No, or I wouldn't go to the range. When I visited Israel a few years ago, all kinds of people had guns, some very young. I saw 18-20yr olds with M-16's at the bus stop, lots of security guards with Uzi's. I never felt safer in my life. It's about WHO has the guns. Now I understand, in the situation with a police officer and a stranger with an OC weapon, you don't know who the person is. But, if I was a felon in possession of a weapon, would I be wearing it OC? I'm all for officer safety, but I think some of this stuff over OC conflicts is borderline paranoia. I'm a hunter and I run into people in the woods or in the field with shotguns and rifles regularly, but the last thing on my mind is that they're going to shoot at me. How do you think game wardens handle it, checking hunters with loaded weapons all the time? "I'm not going to shoot you if you don't shoot me" seems like it works OK 99.999% of the time.

One more thing about this particular incident. When the MC says he doesn't care about officer safety, he's just being a jackass. I know he said it to be argumentative about the stop, but it's still an ignorant and selfish thing to say. This particular stop, including recording, seems to parallel the all-too-familiar OC'er with recording trying to drum up an incident with LE that he can post on the internet. I found it interesting that his claim about the officers "allowing him to leave if his partner can cover him in case he makes a move" was conspicuously absent from the audio recording. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did, why was it edited out?

There's plenty of fail on both sides of this story.
__________________
A handgun is only good for fighting your way to a rifle.
TDC20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2012, 09:24   #11
happyguy
Na Ben Don Chat
 
happyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 14,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatcop View Post
This has gotten a lot of mileage from dopes on other sites. Aside from the issue at hand, I get tired of people throwing out their military experience as some character reference...I've seen at least a 20% total idiot rate on my deployments.

-I wonder if his account is accurate?
-If he was stopped for a MV violation/suspect, oh well, the stop is valid
-I would have kept him on the bike holding it up by the bars...keeps bs level down
-As far as comments to shoot him...sounds a little stupid.
-So far we have one side of the story from a guy who wants money
The 20% idiot rate seems to apply across the board with the entire population in my experience.

Some government agencies (like the BMV)seem to be a bit higher and some like most LE agencies seem a little lower, but not a lot lower.

Regards,
Happyguy
__________________
"Success isn't a result of spontaneous combustion. You have to set yourself on fire." - Arnold H. Glasgow

Last edited by happyguy; 09-30-2012 at 09:28..
happyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 08:22   #12
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 15,846
I hope that he wins big time.
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 09:22   #13
jbglock
Senior Member
 
jbglock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 467
Sounds like one whole side of the story here. Yeah. Let's all just crucify the officers involved when we know basically only one person's account. Screw fairness right? I mean we want fairness applied towards us by the police but they don't deserve any. Do they?
jbglock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 09:30   #14
SGT HATRED
Senior Member
 
SGT HATRED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: PHX AZ
Posts: 2,942
Well heres the link from another thread that includes an article and the video/audio of the incident. I hope the captain wins big.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w284.html

Last edited by SGT HATRED; 09-29-2012 at 09:31..
SGT HATRED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 10:06   #15
jph02
Senior Member
 
jph02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT HATRED View Post
Well heres the link from another thread that includes an article and the video/audio of the incident. I hope the captain wins big.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w284.html
That article is biased. How about just the video so you can draw your own conclusions based what actually happened?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=xXwW2nrV0bY

If you ask me, there's fault on both sides, but the biker started it off with "I don't consent to any searches" when the deputy asked if he had any weapons. While I appreciate the biker's military service, that has nothing to do with this situation, nor should it. I don't think he's entitled to any money, but I suspect the county will end up settling the case.
jph02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 10:14   #16
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT HATRED View Post
I hope the captain wins big.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w284.html
Prepare to be disappointed.

At best he might get a chump change "nuisance suit" settlement.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.

Last edited by Dragoon44; 09-29-2012 at 10:15..
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 10:44   #17
robhic
Platinum Membership
WOLVERINE!!!!
 
robhic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,763
What did I miss? Pierson said he was detained because he wouldn't tell whether he had a gun or not. Wasn't he open carrying?! Of course he had a gun -- it was right there in the open!!! This doesn't make much sense to me.
__________________
-- Robert --
NRA Life Member

"Giving Money and Power to Government is Like Giving Whiskey and Car Keys to Teenage Boys" - PJ O'Rourke
robhic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 13:27   #18
pipedreams
Member
 
pipedreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by robhic View Post
What did I miss? Pierson said he was detained because he wouldn't tell whether he had a gun or not. Wasn't he open carrying?! Of course he had a gun -- it was right there in the open!!! This doesn't make much sense to me.
This is what I don't understand. If the person in the motor home saw the gun why couldn't the officer if he is open carrying? Why all the questions?
__________________
NRA Patron Member
GOA Life Member


Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.
pipedreams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 13:46   #19
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by pipedreams View Post
This is what I don't understand. If the person in the motor home saw the gun why couldn't the officer if he is open carrying? Why all the questions?
Where did you see that the complaint was a MWAG call? the only thing I read was that the complaint was about him passing vehicles at over 100 mph.

As for whether or not the officer had seen the gun and why did he ask. there can be multiple reasons for that.

Keeping in mind that the initial reason for the contact was a complaint about basically reckless driving one of the first things any officer is going to try and do is determine who and what he is dealing with on this stop.

That may very well entail me asking a question I already know the answer to in order to see what kind of response I get and how the person reacts to it.

overall I think the officer handled the situation poorly as the stop progressed. perhaps do to lack of experience or perhaps he is just not cut out to be an officer.

I think for the most part the officer simply became frustrated rather quickly and did not know how to handle the guy.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 10:38   #20
Gunnut 45/454
Senior Member
 
Gunnut 45/454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,039
beatcop
So passing slower traffic is a violation? "A person had reported that someone matching Pierson's description had passed a number of slow-moving motorhomes, authorities said" Explain why this is a violation of the law?

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/2...#storylink=cpy

__________________
Gunnut45/454-One shot one kill!
Gunnut 45/454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 10:49   #21
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
beatcop
So passing slower traffic is a violation? "A person had reported that someone matching Pierson's description had passed a number of slow-moving motorhomes, authorities said" Explain why this is a violation of the law?

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/2...#storylink=cpy

Listen to the audio tape. The officer tells the guy the reason he has stopped him is that he was the subject of a complaint about him passing vehicles at over 100 miles an hour.

Just a few observations,

in all my years as an LEO the only people that ever told me "I wasn't\ I didn't" do anything illegal were the ones that had in fact done something illegal. People that genuinely were not doing anything illegal never seem to feel the need to make such a statement.

When asked if he was armed the guy responds with an off the wall, " I do not consent to any searches". Off the wall responses are red flags and are going to get the individual making them much greater scrutiny to find out what is going on with them. And a response like that to a question "are you armed"? is going to result in the officer(S) being far more cautious and prepared for potential violence.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 11:02   #22
Chris Chris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
Listen to the audio tape. The officer tells the guy the reason he has stopped him is that he was the subject of a complaint about him passing vehicles at over 100 miles an hour.

Just a few observations,

in all my years as an LEO the only people that ever told me "I wasn't\ I didn't" do anything illegal were the ones that had in fact done something illegal. People that genuinely were not doing anything illegal never seem to feel the need to make such a statement.

When asked if he was armed the guy responds with an off the wall, " I do not consent to any searches". Off the wall responses are red flags and are going to get the individual making them much greater scrutiny to find out what is going on with them. And a response like that to a question "are you armed"? is going to result in the officer(S) being far more cautious and prepared for potential violence.
There is much Real World wisdom there! Life is not a 'discussion' on the Internet, where rights and responses can be debated at length. The Real World sometimes happens quite quickly.
__________________
Arguing with a fool is like rolling around in the mud with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
Chris Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 11:53   #23
beatcop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 1,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
beatcop
So passing slower traffic is a violation? "A person had reported that someone matching Pierson's description had passed a number of slow-moving motorhomes, authorities said" Explain why this is a violation of the law?

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/2...#storylink=cpy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatcop
If he was stopped for a MV violation/suspect, oh well, the stop is valid
Note the bold...

-The lewrockwell article is trash
-2 minutes in and have heard enough
-guy wants to debate on the roadside while being detained
-cop is stupid for engaging in debate
-guy is playing to the tape recorder


I really don't have any objections to OC, but this guy wanted to generate nonsense and succeeded.

Normal exchange:
You're being stopped for xxxxxx
ok
you have any weapon?
yes, a pistol...here
ok, don't take it out
let me see your ID & stay on the bike holding the bars.
ok.

Looking for an issue:

You're being stopped for xxxxxx
ok
you have any weapon?
I don't consent to searches
Great, I'd prefer not to get shot today, at this point I'm assuming you're armed...and until I determine if you're a crook we're going to do things my way.
What's your name and badge number?
It will be on the bottoom of the ticket.

Guys are wrapped around the axle thinking LE "justifies" certain behavior because of officer safety. YES, certain things are going to change based on the suspects behavior. Does it mean we're throwing out the Constituition? Hell no...but it does mean I'm not going to make it EASY for you to shoot me when you start playing a little games that can easily be seen as things real crooks do (no straight answer to a simple question, ID games, bantering & distracting, passive aggressive games).

Last edited by beatcop; 09-29-2012 at 12:35..
beatcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 20:43   #24
FireForged
Millenium #3936
 
FireForged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Rebel South
Posts: 4,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatcop View Post
Note the bold...

-The lewrockwell article is trash
-2 minutes in and have heard enough
-guy wants to debate on the roadside while being detained
-cop is stupid for engaging in debate
-guy is playing to the tape recorder


I really don't have any objections to OC, but this guy wanted to generate nonsense and succeeded.

Normal exchange:
You're being stopped for xxxxxx
ok
you have any weapon?
yes, a pistol...here
ok, don't take it out
let me see your ID & stay on the bike holding the bars.
ok.

Looking for an issue:

You're being stopped for xxxxxx
ok
you have any weapon?
I don't consent to searches
Great, I'd prefer not to get shot today, at this point I'm assuming you're armed...and until I determine if you're a crook we're going to do things my way.
What's your name and badge number?
It will be on the bottoom of the ticket.

Guys are wrapped around the axle thinking LE "justifies" certain behavior because of officer safety. YES, certain things are going to change based on the suspects behavior. Does it mean we're throwing out the Constituition? Hell no...but it does mean I'm not going to make it EASY for you to shoot me when you start playing a little games that can easily be seen as things real crooks do (no straight answer to a simple question, ID games, bantering & distracting, passive aggressive games).
Exactly! ........... and what does being a former combat vet have to do with anything?
__________________
"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

Last edited by FireForged; 10-02-2012 at 20:46..
FireForged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 11:40   #25
countsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 190
Sounds like it was possibly a good stop if the guy was wreckless driving or speeding. Not sure what the open carry thing had to do with it. I definitely wouldn't like the idea of having the other cop point a weapon at me while I drive away. I hope this isn't considered normal procedure. I think the military officer will get a little cash and while firing deputy "let my parnter cover you with his weapon while you drive away" may be a little harsh, the guy at leasts needs some retraining and a good amount of corrective supervision.

Final thoughts, I think the military angle doesn't really do much with the exception of their mutual oaths but contrasting views to support and defend the Constitution. We don't suspend the Constitution in the military to ensure "we go home at night". Like police officers, if we ignore our oaths we're probably in the wrong line of work. Most of us don't go home at night and as I can attest from the last Fallen Comrade Ceremony, some of us will never go home. We're stuck here in places like Afghanistan, however we don't suspend our oath to support and defend the Constitution. Actually, we give up some of our rights espoused in the Constitution as part of our military service so I don't think it's too much to ask that we don't have to give up our rights when we return home. So to Officer Bassett, wherever you are tonight, please don't suspend this old Vets Constitutional rights if and when I return home. If you can't keep your Constitutional oath during the conduct of your duties please find a less demanding profession.

Last edited by countsk; 09-29-2012 at 11:40..
countsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:08.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,099
360 Members
739 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42