Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by bucksnort1959, Dec 2, 2012.
Yeah, I know, 18, 19 what's the difference...
Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
Lets see: Violating the law while carrying; interaction with law enforcement during a traffic stop; perceived civil rights violation while carrying; civil rights lawsuit for violation of 2nd Amendment Right.
Sounds like a disgruntled person to me. Own up & identify your mistakes & learn from them. A beer, a car, speeding... lots that could have avoided the whole thing if even true.
Good luck. & yeah stop posting about it.
Did any other vehicles have to maneuver to avoid you?
He's been around since April 2008. Just has a low post count.
What color was the Yield sign? (yes, it matters) and were there any other cars coming?
I'm curious about that previous incident, too.
He said it was an internal investigation, not litigation.
I wasn't there to see exactly what happened however a yield sign is to be treated as a stop sign if there is any approaching traffic. It does not mean to merge into traffic even if there is perceived open spots available.
It goes from this, to pulled over while speeding, drinking, etc. And not the first time.
I don't believe there is a lawsuit pending. Sounds like sour grapes over a justified arrest and citation.
Drinking, speeding, carrying a firearm. Yep, it's the cops fault. Classic.
If it's red and white. Yellow means merge, hence my question on its color.
I think he's going to need a little more than luck to do that with the facts he's presented.
First, officers looking nervous on video has NOTHING to do with the legality of their actions.
Good luck with your civil suit.
I've arrested people for DWI without doing field sobriety and won. I've arrested people for DWI that later tested at less than .08 and won. Of course, BAC over .08 and DWI are two separate charges in my state. For DWI all that really matters is your level of impairment. In other words, if the officer can articulate why he had PC to arrest you, he's probably fine.
Good luck with your civil suit.
Somebody will probably chime in here that Arizona v. Gant removed searches of vehicles incident to arrest, which isn't true. The decision removed arbitrary or procedural searches incident to arrest. With a DWI there stands a pretty good chance that there's going to be evidence of the crime in your vehicle (cans, bottles, etc), and a search incident to arrest for evidence related to the crime the individual was arrested for is reasonable. Furthermore, at least in my state, an officer detecting or believing in good faith that he detects an odor of marijuana in your vehicle has PC to search.
Again, good luck with your civil suit.
Further-urthermore, if the arrest is deemed legal, the confiscation of your weapon as evidence of probably yet another crime (possession of a firearm while intoxicated...) is golden as well. I sincerely doubt the officer used the word "steal" in reference to your firearm and the wording matters. Even if he did, a joke in poor taste makes you look stupid in court but doesn't necessarily mean you lose.
Good luck with your civil suit. Seeing a theme?
Of course, the above is all written based on the assumption that you really have a pending civil suit and your post wasn't simply "I want to be one of the tough guys" internet chest-thumping.
Yes I know the difference. As the poster indicated, he was written for failing to come to a complete stop which to me means it wasn't a merge sign.
Heck, someone just tell me which thread the "orignial" comment which started this whole thing came from. The content of this thread is not bearing much fruit.
Post #1 is the "orignial" comment. The topic is about police officers, traffic stops and their inquiry about and reaction to the vehicle's occupants having firearms.
Thank you, sir.
This thread delivers.