Glock Talk banner

Legally open carrying combat vet sues over Wyoming traffic stop

11K views 76 replies 30 participants last post by  SCmasterblaster 
#1 · (Edited)
#53 ·
I hope he gets a big check and those cops get fired. We don't need these types on the government payroles.

Out of curiosity for what would he get a big check?
 
#60 · (Edited)
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! :thumbsup: ........... and what does being a former combat vet have to do with anything?
 
#61 ·
The biker was 100% in the wrong.

The leo's pc for stopping him was the call about excessive speed and possibly reckless passing.

Since the biker was OCing, he should have just answered yes to the leos question. If later the leo wanted to search, the biker could have refused. I doubt seriosly though he would have made a request to search.

Leos do have the legal authority to ask any motorist/passenger about guns.

Had the biker just answered yes to the gun question, the leo would have just told him to slow down and be more careful when passing.

Here is my DL, registration, insurance and my MILITARY ID.

Five minute stop max!

Thank you and have fun.

I'm also a little more than disappointed that a USMC Captain does not have any respect for the potential dangers faced by leos everyday.

You would think someone in the military who has been in combat would be the first to understand.
But what was the purpose of asking if the motorist was OPEN CARRYING? That seems as dumb to me as looking at the sky and asking if it is blue. Non consent to a search would not hide the fact he had a firearm. :dunno:
 
#62 ·
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/24/3019255/combat-vet-sues-over-wyoming-traffic.html said:
CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- A Wyoming sheriff's deputy who detained a combat veteran in handcuffs for openly carrying a pistol offered to let him go if he agreed to let another deputy draw his weapon and shoot if the veteran made any sudden moves while driving away, court records show.
I read that first paragraph 4 times and still don't exactly get it, but I think someone needs to be kicked in the ass.
 
#64 · (Edited)
Gunnut 45/454 said:
It's my understanding -correct me if I'm wrong - but unless the officer observes the vehicle speeding they can't charge or write a ticket on the observation of a non LEO ie civilian.
If this is the case, what was the justification for the stop to begin with.
I agree. I thought the officer's probable cause was shaky in the first place. The officer really made the stop based on what another (phantom) motorist said, but he didn't observe the alleged violation?
"Sir, I stopped you because there is a report that you passed slower moving vehicles at a high rate of speed according to the driver of the slow moving vehicle."

That's fine, Officer, did you observe me speeding or disobeying any traffic laws?
"No. May I see your license?"

Sure, do you intend to issue a citation for speeding or any other citation based on what you observed?"
"I didn't see you do anything, it's another motorist that called."

Do you intend to issue a citation based on that information?
"I can't, as I said I'm not the one that saw you."

Do you have that motorists name so they can be called to testify against me for the citation that you're not going to write because you didn't observe any violations?"
"I'm not issuing you a danged citation, what part of that didn't you get?"

Oh, I got that part alright.
 
#67 · (Edited)
"Sir, I stopped you because there is a report that you passed slower moving vehicles at a high rate of speed according to the driver of the slow moving vehicle."

That's fine, Officer, did you observe me speeding or disobeying any traffic laws?
"No. May I see your license?"

Sure, do you intend to issue a citation for speeding or any other citation based on what you observed?"
"I didn't see you do anything, it's another motorist that called."

Do you intend to issue a citation based on that information?
"I can't, as I said I'm not the one that saw you."

Do you have that motorists name so they can be called to testify against me for the citation that you're not going to write because you didn't observe any violations?"
"I'm not issuing you a danged citation, what part of that didn't you get?"

Oh, I got that part alright.

I will offer a slightly different roadside conversation:

"Sir, may I see your license, registration and insurance please"

"Why did you stop me?" / "I did nothing wrong" / "I wasn't speeding/didn't run the light/did stop at the sign/there was no sign. Why do you need my license?"

"Sir, may I see your license,registration and insurance please?"

"But I did / didn't /need to know.."

"Stop. I am not going to ask you again. Give me your driver's license. The law (or state specific statute) requires you to have and display a license. I am not going to ask again. Give me your license or you will be arrested."

Drivers choice at this point.


That said, any news regarding the civil suit?
 
#68 ·
Since the officer has initiated a traffic stop, refusing to display/surrender a driving license isn't really an option, at least to me.
On the other hand, I can't see anything wrong with encouraging the officer to write whatever citation he intends to write; and if he doesn't intend to write a citation, why have I been detained?

OT, the civil suit proceeds apace (the insurance company for Plaza Security made a monetary offer of $(redacted but I really wish I had a dollar for every Km between Paris, France and Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan) to have one individual dropped from the suit. One condition was that the details not be shared lest it incur a $100 penalty. :rofl:

Currently we're waiting for the transcription of Officer's Bell and Dantzler's depositions.
 
#70 · (Edited)
My apologies Dragoon, I didn't think that anyone would have difficulties. Yes, it's hypothetical of how an officer might act if he was a jackhole.

If a cop's fishing for information to develop probable cause, I don't have any problem baiting a hook and throwing in a line just like he's doing. It's interesting the things they can inadvertently admit when they get all flustered. Ask the right questions and you can get them to admit that
A) they lack any reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct to initiate a detainment
B) that they know certain conduct is legal and
C) sometimes, you might even get them to admit under oath that they signed their name to a sworn document, knowing at the time of signing that the statement was false..... or so I've heard.
 
#71 ·
If a cop's fishing for information to develop probable cause, I don't have any problem baiting a hook and throwing in a line just like he's doing.
So telling someone why they stopped them is fishing for probable cause?

:rofl::rofl:

A) they don't have probable cause to make a stop
And that is relevant how exactly?

Here is something your lawyer should have already told you. Traffic stops do not require probable cause. Probable cause is needed only for an arrest. NOT for a traffic stop\ investigative detention.
 
#73 ·
and since I read and understand English I don't need a lawyer to help me understand the law. I can see where that might be the case for some.
And to think of all those years of law school that lawyers go thru when all they really need to do is read and understand English!

:rofl::rofl:

So you are saying you do not have a lawyer?
 
#74 · (Edited)
And to think of all those years of law school that lawyers go thru when all they really need to do is read and understand English!
:rofl::rofl:
So you are saying you do not have a lawyer?
Lawyers go to law school not to understand the law but to think like a lawyer. Understanding that "(b)(1) No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or components of firearms; firearms dealers; or dealers in firearms components" is hardly rocket science even though there are a lot of multisyllabic in there.


I have one for the civil suit involving Officer's Adam Bell and Rodney Dantzler, yes. I'm pretty sure they (or their department) has retained counsel for them as well. But that's distracting from this thread and better addressed in Man files suit over arrest in Gwinnett park, Part Deux

I'm sure it's no one you may have heard of though, just a hick lawyer in a hick town.:cool:
 
#75 ·
Lawyers go to law school not to understand the law but to think like a lawyer
That is very true, and the first thing they learn is to stop thinking that just because they can read English they understand the law.
 
#76 ·
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top