Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by RussP, Sep 28, 2012.
Combat vet sues over Wyoming traffic stop
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.
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
I hope that he wins big time.
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?
Well heres the link from another thread that includes an article and the video/audio of the incident. I hope the captain wins big.
That article is biased. How about just the video so you can draw your own conclusions based what actually happened?
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.
Prepare to be disappointed.
At best he might get a chump change "nuisance suit" settlement.
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/...-sues-over-wyoming-traffic.html#storylink=cpy
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're being stopped for xxxxxx
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.
Looking for an issue:
You're being stopped for xxxxxx
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).
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.
I can now see more states passing laws that require persons in possession of a gun to inform leos they have a gun during official contacts.
Hopefully, they will go the route Arizona took and just require gun owners to answer truthfully if asked by leos about guns.
I wonder if there have been other armed drivers who have been stopped by the police and any court cases deciding what is or is not Consitutional during a traffic stop.
I wonder if it might have been better to disarm him after he was handcuffed, then unload the gun and if that might have elimianted a need to worry about covering him as they parted company.
I wonder if he is planning on a large settlement as a cornerstone of his lifetime financial security, and if so if he has a backup plan.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.