How Hardnosed Should Cops Be?


PDA






Confederate
April 17, 2008, 10:00 PM
I have a friend who told me the story once of how he and his partner pulled over an elderly man. During the course of the stop, they, for whatever reason, asked the guy if he'd mind if they searched the car.

For whatever reason, he said yes and one of them found an old .22LR Jennings under the seat, unloaded and without a magazine. At that point, and I'm ashamed to admit that a friend of mine did this, they placed the old guy under arrest and charged him with carrying a concealed weapon.

I looked at my friend and said, "Why would you do that? Why wouldn't you just put it in the guy's trunk and tell him to be careful not to carry concealed weapons without a license?" My friend shrugged and said that if they hadn't done it and it became known that they hadn't done anything, they would have risked getting into trouble.

Well that's garbage. Police have wide discretionary powers on things like this and it was an old man who didn't even know the gun was there or who it belonged to. Anyway, I just began thinking of this again and it got my blood boiling. I much prefer living in a country with an Andy of Mayberry approach rather than that of Darth Vader's storm troopers. The fact that this happened in Arizona makes it even worse. It wasn't New York or Chicago.

Am I being too hard on my friend or was I right to give him hell? What do some of you LEOs have to say?

If you enjoyed reading about "How Hardnosed Should Cops Be?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gator
April 17, 2008, 10:05 PM
I'm not a LEO, but here's my opinion anyway! :)
You were NOT too hard on your friend. He should be ashamed of himself for what he did. Covering his own a** was more important to him than the welfare of that old man. Unfortunately this attitude is very prevalent today.

coelacanth
April 17, 2008, 10:22 PM
your "friend" is no better than any other bully or jackbooted thug who is more impressed with his own authority than with justice. When I see "To protect and serve." on the side of a police cruiser I can't help remembering those words don't always mean the same thing to the police inside that they mean to those of us watching it drive by.

Warner
April 17, 2008, 10:29 PM
Shame.

This is a " letter of the law, vs spirit of the law" example with LEO's whom don't appear to understand the concept.


W

lonegunman
April 17, 2008, 10:39 PM
LEO's and their fan club always claim that if they didn't trample on the rights of the rest of us they could get in trouble or some such silliness. The implication is that they simply enforce the law blindly and have the complete and total inability to distinguish a criminal from an 80y/o man who never did a thing wrong in his life.

My retired Dad was driving back from New York to Florida in about 1990 when he was stopped for speeding. The cop asked to search his car and he said no. The cop then harassed him for twenty minutes, cuffed him and stuffed him in the back of his car and sat there threatening him with arrest for refusing to allow a search. My 67y/o dad said he'd be happy to go to jail.

Well the cop finally announced he saw a weapon and searched the car and found my dad's ccw in a zippered closed toolbag, sitting on the floor out of view completely obsured by a small lunch cooler.

My dad posted bail asked for a trial, retained an NRA recommended lawyer and drove back to North Carolina in 60 days for a trial. After the cop testified under cross examination he knew the defendant had a gun because he had a ccw and searched without consent because he considered the ccw probable cause, the judge stopped the mess and dismissed the charges. My dad had his gun returned and drove home.

My dad was not from NC, nor was he stopping in NC, he has no criminal record of any kind and was a member of the Fraternal Order of Police of all things. Any reasonable person would have given him a ticket and got on with life.

This guy is part of a nationwide problem. These days cops consider anyone not a cop a badguy. They treat everyone equally bad and more than a few of them use any provocation as an excuse to dump on people.

I have lovely story about an out of control deputy pulling a gun on me for getting the mail from my company mailbox, in my company coat, driving my company truck. When he calmed down, he explained "he saw my radio and thought I needed help." So to help me he pointed a gun at me and screamed like a nut for five minutes.

Even his supervisor was embarassed. I got three apologies from various people. I accepted and asked them to restrain this guy or get him mental help before he killed someone. All they kept saying is, "Yeah he gets like that sometimes." We used to let them use our facility for training and had a nice relationship with them. Now for fear of being shot we don't allow them on the property.

Moonclip
April 17, 2008, 10:48 PM
It gets kind of tricky I suppose. I'd probably let him off with a warning and put the gun in the trunk but what if sometimes these cops didn't, say in the case of a young black man who did the same?

Picking and choosing what laws to enforce and with what people can be risky I'd say. Where did this occur? And I predict threadlock soon...

Erik
April 17, 2008, 10:58 PM
"This is a " letter of the law, vs spirit of the law" example with LEO's whom don't appear to understand the concept."

And if the letter and spirit of the law was complied with?

That said, I cannot imagine hooking the fellow if that was all there was to it. But it likely isn't the case that that was all there was to it. The question I'd follow up with your friend is why they asked to search the car? That's not something typically associated with elderly men and traffic infractions.

plexreticle
April 17, 2008, 11:00 PM
The justice system is a big numbers game.

Your buddy saw a good bust so he took it. I'm sure the DA will agree. The guy will plea out and have to pay some exorbitant fee and everybody can chalk one more dangerous gun off the street.

High Five!

Technosavant
April 17, 2008, 11:05 PM
Tell your friend we're all glad they're keeping us safe from old men with unloaded pot metal guns. Search the car of every AARP member, it's the only way we'll be able to stop the crime that infests our cities and the evil that walks our streets. God willing, the gangs of white haired (or no haired) elderly will finally be brought to heel, and the streets will be safe for modern youth groups to go forth, sell drugs, and liberate excess personal property from the rich.

I think we'd all agree your buddy did the world a service.

Ben Shepherd
April 17, 2008, 11:21 PM
I have several friends and family members that are LEO. NONE of them would have done that.

If I could see this guys rap sheet, and it showed up spotless but for this one thing........

Well-My reply is not fit for the high road.

And as for your friend you've leaned something. He's powerhungry and a :cuss: to boot. So watch your six around this "public servant":scrutiny:

vanilla_gorilla
April 17, 2008, 11:24 PM
This will be an unpopular opinion here, but I'll say that I don't have a problem, other than the law itself is unconstitutional.

There seems to be a prevalent opinion that old people cannot commit crimes or be "bad people." I was riding with a friend who's a deputy sheriff recently and went to back up another unit on a call. He's going to get the other half of the story on a domestic violence case. Already talked to the wife, who's not really cooperating. She changed her story a dozen times, so let's get his side, send her to her daughters home for the night, and go do cool stuff, right?

The 60+ year old husband (about 5'6 and maybe 175lbs) with titanium rods in his legs and a cane spoke to us. After he was asked about his wife, he then got agitated and tried to hit both deputies and me with his walking cane. Then he tried to bite the deputy. After that and before they got the cuffs on, he grabbed the cord from a lamp tried to hit me with it. :mad: That little old man managed to tear up the inside of the deputy's patrol car and wound up having to be restrained with a hobblestrap.

Just because he's a little old man who looks innocent doesn't mean there's no intent or no crime.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

WinchesterAA
April 17, 2008, 11:30 PM
60 is hardly elderly... My dad is 65, Assistant Chief, and can still kick my ass.

USMCDK
April 17, 2008, 11:46 PM
I am no LEO or a residence of AZ but some states have laws that you are to have a permit to just have a handgun.

With that said... They may have done the right thing MAY HAVE!!!
further more A police officer has the right to ask anyone ANYONE if he/she may search that car. Now the driver has the right as well to either say yes, no, or for what reason/probably cause do you have to ask said question sir/ma'am?

If the old man felt that there was nothing to hide in the car then hell why shouldn't he let them do the perverbial job???

It's a dubba edged sword my friend. and it doesn't look pretty no matter how you cut the mustard with it.

Also I would like to point out that there is a statement/law out there that obligates all drivers to know what is and isn't inside the car before and after driving it. Also the responsibility to report anything that would be henceforth illegal.

Ignorance may be bliss but it not a legitamate excuse for illegalities.

Also may I add that in most, if not some/all, states you have to keep the weapon in the trunk without any ammo present there as well. In some states it goes as far as having the weapon disassembled, I do believe, as well just for safety sake.

Please anyone correct me if I am wrong here.

BTW you ask our opinion and this is just mine.

Respectfully,

USMCDK

Confederate
April 17, 2008, 11:48 PM
Thanks for the replies.

I've never been one of those people who believe that each and every person ought to be treated the same. That's part of today's make-believe hypocrisy, and it doesn't work in reality.

An elderly white man with a Jennings is a far cry from a young man (regardless of color) who's driving an expensive car with smoked glass windows and the *BOOM, BOOM, BOOM* of a stereo stem cranked up to its limit. A cop's gotta go with his gut, I think. If he calls in the license and there are no priors, no restraining orders, and the guy has a calm, gentle demeanor, is respectful, he ought to take that into account.

When I'm pulled over, I have my license and insurance out of my wallet, the registration out of the glove box (which I leave open) and my hands and the items on my steering wheel. I answer the officer's questions succinctly and with the same respect I expect from him (or her). When the officer hands me back my items, I keep them in my hands and my hands remain on the wheel. If he asks for something else, I put everything on the passenger's seat and move very slowly. If he asks for permission to search my car (and no cop has ever done so), I would respectfully decline.

If all that doesn't work, I raise my voice and ask him why he isn't out catching criminals and threaten to have his badge. I then will demand his badge number and remind him that I help pay his salary. And when he hands me the ticket, I tear it in half and throw it on the floorboard of my car. But I only do all that if I want to spend some quality time with a 300-pound inmate named Chuck, who is bald and has tattoos on his arms and neck and who frequents the county jail on most weekends. :D

Addendum: I believe that any cop should be able to ask any person if he or she may search a car. I strongly recommend that anyone not do so if asked. I believe courts have ruled that failure to grant such a request does not constitute "reasonable cause." Even if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to gain by saying no. I think most attorneys would agree.

USMCDK
April 18, 2008, 12:08 AM
If all that doesn't work, I raise my voice and ask him why he isn't out catching criminals and threaten to have his badge. I then will demand his badge number and remind him that I help pay his salary. And when he hands me the ticket, I tear it in half and throw it on the floorboard of my car. But I only do all that if I want to spend some quality time with a 300-pound inmate named Chuck, who is bald and has tattoos on his arms and neck and who frequents the county jail on most weekends.

I sincerely hope and feel that this was a joke.

Addendum: I believe that any cop should be able to ask any person if he or she may search a car. I strongly recommend that anyone not do so if asked. I believe courts have ruled that failure to grant such a request does not constitute "reasonable cause." Even if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to gain by saying no. I think most attorneys would agree.

yes and no. LEO's do have the right to visually inspect the contents of your car when they walk by. by flashing the light and scanning without ever getting in the car. also if you decline and they give you the reasonable cause and you still decline they also have the write to call in a warrent with said reasonable cause and if granted then you are screwed, cause they have the right. and boy let me tell you, some cops at that point will find anything that they can and when they do GOOD-BYE!!!

I only know this cause like you I have friend in the force here in Manchester NH!!! and they tell me everything I need to know to keep my nose and record clean.

.41Dave
April 18, 2008, 12:13 AM
Also I would like to point out that there is a statement/law out there that obligates all drivers to know what is and isn't inside the car before and after driving it. Also the responsibility to report anything that would be henceforth illegal.

Ignorance may be bliss but it not a legitamate excuse for illegalities.

What about the whole principle of mens rhea?

hirundo82
April 18, 2008, 12:51 AM
also if you decline and they give you the reasonable cause and you still decline they also have the write to call in a warrent with said reasonable cause and if granted then you are screwed, cause they have the right.If they think they have probable cause then it doesn't matter if you decline; they can legally search your car, no warrant required (vehicles are held to a lesser standard than one's home, which does require a warant).

At that point, if something is found all you can do is challenge in court that the officer had PC.

BBroadside
April 18, 2008, 04:15 AM
Confederate, did your friend tell you why the man was stopped? Just curious. If it's something approaching reckless driving, and he gives the officers a funny vibe, and then it turns out the driver possesses a pistol he doesn't know about, maybe they had more reason to arrest him than we know.

I'm not a cop, so I don't know exactly what a "funny vibe" would be. I gather that cops are pretty good at picking up on subtle signals that would be lost on most of us. I'm not saying I think the old guy was a creep, I'm just saying the cops may have had reason to suspect him that they didn't let on. (In any case, I do hope they try to figure out the gun's origins; it could have been tossed through an open window or something.)

Anyway, I don't condone any laws making it illegal to have an unloaded gun in your car, but they are on the books; I don't fault the cops.

You know your friend better than I, so maybe you had reason to criticize him.

Edit: I just read your next post, Confederate, so a lot of my questions have been answered. Old guy with a gentle manner and no priors ... they probably should have let him alone.

flyby
April 18, 2008, 04:29 AM
Gator nailed it. . . . . +2
...a vid on the people that keep us Safe! (Canadian ver) :D ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJggEvIlsJ4

KD5NRH
April 18, 2008, 05:03 AM
What about the whole principle of mens rhea?

A large South American birdbrain? Or do you mean thinking like that woman from Cheers? :p

evan price
April 18, 2008, 07:43 AM
An elderly white man with a Jennings is a far cry from a young man (regardless of color) who's driving an expensive car with smoked glass windows and the *BOOM, BOOM, BOOM* of a stereo stem cranked up to its limit. A cop's gotta go with his gut, I think. If he calls in the license and there are no priors, no restraining orders, and the guy has a calm, gentle demeanor, is respectful, he ought to take that into account.

Why does any of this matter? Does that mean that you think a young guy with a loud stereo deserves less Constitutional rights than an elderly white guy? That somebody with an expensive car with tinted windows is not supposed to be having the same rights as the guy with the beater work truck? That choice of music means criminality?
:rolleyes:

Do tell, I'd like to hear the explanation... :scrutiny:

From where I'm sitting, we are all supposed to have equal protection under law.

In the OP case: The guy had a concealed weapon without a concealed carry license. He gave permission to search. His own darn fault.
That's why you don't drive a car you can't guarantee won't pass a search.
If it is really a mistake, the judge will set it right. CCW is a FELONY in most states and LEO's don't have discretionary powers over felony charges in most juridictions- it's a standing order or department policy.

It doesn't matter if it is a junky Jennings or a pimped-out Kimber.

Personally I think it is your right to carry whatever you want whenever you want- but until we change the "laws" of this nation to reflect the intent of the founders- good luck standing up for that opinion except in a jail cell. There's an old saying- the tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawn mower. When the "Powers that be" have the guns, the tanks and the will of enough of the people on their side to enforce their bad laws- we don't stand a chance individually.

Change the law, don't ignore it and complain about Jack Booted Thugs when you inevitably get busted.

Ash
April 18, 2008, 08:54 AM
Draconian, eh?

Well, I did have occasion to actually scold my way out of a ticket (though it would have been an unjust ticket). I got pulled over in a small town near where I live. I had been driving the speed limit, was in town, and stopped for the railroad tracks etc. The officer, a guy in his mid 20's, approached and I asked if there was a problem. He opened up with an NYPD Blue attitude (didn't call me buttface or punk, but it seemed he would in any second). He accused me of running a stop sign that I could not have run because I had not driven that road. I'll skip the details, other than to say I had pulled out of the wrong street to have run that stop sign in front of the church. I told him what I had done, where I had pulled out of, and even why. He continued the attitude and evidently my expression was telegraphic my own personal disdain. He stopped and asked me "You gotta problem?"

I decided this would be worth the ticket and so I looked him in the eyes and told him that we could both be civil. He could get my information, inform me of what he believed I did, and I could answer his questions and provide him the information he needed. In no way did he need to be confrontational as long as I was polite to him.

(I had been flying timber lately in a private plane and got to listen to the tower and pilot talking, and that government-to-citizen contact was very polite and courteous. If air traffic controllers be courteous to pilots, and vice-versa, then all government folks can be).

Anyway, the officer returned, his attitude visibly changed. Evidently, he did not really want to be an a** and did not realize he was being a jerk. I only got a warning (I did not run said stop sign in any case) and we parted ways. I learned that this officer is probably an earnest guy. Perhaps he will be more Andy Taylor and less confrontational. His job will likely be easier in these situations. I now know that he is a decent guy, not for letting me off, but for changing his attitude. Had he been a real jerk, I would have gotten a ticket out of principle and perhaps would have gotten more.

The guy with the unloaded Jennings should not have been charged. That was not right. The spirit of the law had not been broken, and arresting this guy on a technicality, while legal, was unjust.

Ash

AKCOP
April 18, 2008, 09:00 AM
Confederate, if this LEO is a friend you should sit with him and have an indepth discussion about his work and why he does what he does. It seems you had a short conversation, got a short answer that you did not like or agree with and hence you are a bit upset. I agree their are lots of LEO's out there that should be working elsewhere, just like any other profession. Would I have done the same, I don't know. I do agree with the post about officers not following the spirit of the law and leaning more toward the letter of the law. When I sat on interview boards I always asked for an explanation of the difference and was always amazed at how few understood.

LiquidTension
April 18, 2008, 05:30 PM
I'd have taken the thing and arrested him. I may have even called ATF.

Before you jump down my throat - my agency deals only with people that are forbidden under federal law from possessing weapons and ammo. If I were a normal traffic cop, I'd have informed him of proper storage laws and sent him on his way.

rhweb32
April 18, 2008, 05:37 PM
For me as an LEO it would depend on the gentleman's demeanor, and what he was doing. More than likely though I would have made him lock it in the trunk. However if it was loaded then it would completely change everything.

rhweb32
April 18, 2008, 05:39 PM
As for the searching of the car. It depends on what state you are in. Know the law yourself, and don't trust was some of the stuff that the curbside attornies tell you.

Jenrick
April 18, 2008, 05:53 PM
Far as old guy with a gun:

Trooper Shot in Head Over Seat-Belt Ticket
Driver, 72, Said to Claim Law Violates His Rights
Aug. 4, 2000

By Richard Zitrin

KYLE, Texas (APBnews.com) -- A 72-year-old man who insists he has a constitutional right not to wear a seat belt shot a state trooper in the head with a high-powered rifle after the officer stopped him for driving without one, authorities said today.

The trooper, 28-year-old Randall W. Vetter, is in critical condition in an Austin hospital, state officials said.

Vetter was in his patrol car writing a ticket for Melvin Edison Hale of Kyle about 10:30 a.m. Thursday when Hale walked up and shot the trooper in the head at close range, Department of Public Safety spokesman Mike Cox said.

Hale then apparently used the radio in Vetter's patrol car to report that the trooper had been shot, Cox said.

He attempted to drive away, but was apprehended about 100 yards away following a brief standoff with police.


Trooper Vetter, latter died. I've watched the dash cam footage, I've talked to officers who were on scene, and I've sat at the spot where it happened. Old people can be just as dangerous, even more so since it's not a natural reaction, then younger folks.

-Jenrick

W.E.G.
April 18, 2008, 06:01 PM
Mens Rhea is the condition of when your mouth is running constantly and spewing nonsense and you can't control it.

AKCOP
April 18, 2008, 06:06 PM
It is worse when it is Womens rhea..

Deer Hunter
April 18, 2008, 06:08 PM
In AZ you have to have a CCW permit to even have a pistol in your car?

That's different, I assume, than TX's law. In TX I believe you can have a pistol in your car without a CCW permit. Much like a rifle or shotgun, since it is an extension of your home.

Matt304
April 18, 2008, 06:14 PM
Far as old guy with a gun:

Quote:
Trooper Shot in Head Over Seat-Belt Ticket
Driver, 72, Said to Claim Law Violates His Rights
Aug. 4, 2000

By Richard Zitrin

KYLE, Texas (APBnews.com) -- A 72-year-old man who insists he has a constitutional right not to wear a seat belt shot a state trooper in the head with a high-powered rifle after the officer stopped him for driving without one, authorities said today.

The trooper, 28-year-old Randall W. Vetter, is in critical condition in an Austin hospital, state officials said.

Vetter was in his patrol car writing a ticket for Melvin Edison Hale of Kyle about 10:30 a.m. Thursday when Hale walked up and shot the trooper in the head at close range, Department of Public Safety spokesman Mike Cox said.

Hale then apparently used the radio in Vetter's patrol car to report that the trooper had been shot, Cox said.

He attempted to drive away, but was apprehended about 100 yards away following a brief standoff with police.
Trooper Vetter, latter died. I've watched the dash cam footage, I've talked to officers who were on scene, and I've sat at the spot where it happened. Old people can be just as dangerous, even more so since it's not a natural reaction, then younger folks.

-Jenrick

Of course there will always be the crazies out there. That's a given. However, the situation you describe is completely dissimilar to the discussed situation at hand. Thus, it persuades me no more to feel that what was done by Confederate's friend was the correct thing to do.

I myself feel that what his cop friend did was absolutely wrong, judging from the data given, and the fact that there was no ammo. Unless you consider the possibility of the old man throwing the weapon at you a dangerous outcome, that is.

Robert Hairless
April 18, 2008, 06:17 PM
What about the whole principle of mens rhea?

Mens rea requires a mens in order for there to be a rea, doesn't it? :)

All the law enforcement officers I know behave like decent people. It's distressing to see reports of those who don't.

lonegunman
April 18, 2008, 07:42 PM
The country has 300,000,000 people and one guy in Texas shoots a cop.

Therefore law enforcement must persecute 299,999,999 people to insure it does not happen again.

Basically, this argument justifies gun control and every other draconian policy designed to create the Orwellian hell of democrats and law enforcement officers dreams. It does nothing to address the problem that actually occurs and forces unreasonable rules, restrictions and ill treatment on people who had nothing on earth to do with whatever happened. Instead of addressing the behavior of one single man and his murder of a police officer it is used to mistreat millions of people who knew neither party.

Other than the ill-famed "North Hollywood shootout" the number of times a police officer needs an M-16 in his career is probably close to zero. That was another case of one single event being used as an excuse to change behavior of an nationwide group. It led to the over equiping and arming of thousands of cops. These same cops now have to create drama and disaster so they can shoot people with their new guns to justify having them.

The great Miami shoot-out is another bout of silliness. If you read the report, it is clearly poorly planned, poorly executed and the results ended as expected. They ended poorly for the FBI. But instead of improving training and modifying behavior, the armed up with 40 cals and subguns and ramped up the level of violence they use on criminals or people they percieve as criminals.

The problem is when you realize they perceive EVERYONE as criminals and make no distinction between a criminal and a person.

One single unstable old man did a terrible thing in a state far removed from where I live and that justifies mistreating me?:scrutiny:

Does that mean one criminal misuse of a firearm makes the rest of us criminals?:rolleyes:

If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime he should receive a harsher than normal sentance and yet the proposed solution is to make guns illegal for 300,000,000 people and ignore the acts of a paltry few people.

The absence of reason is a tragedy here. Everyone can be duped on occasion. But somewhere in the law enforcement lexicon, there should be room for acting reasonable and with restraint. Just because 3.1% of America in a criminal does not make the other 96.9% criminals.

USMCDK
April 18, 2008, 08:17 PM
I would have placed the gentlmen under a temporary arrest and assests the situation I.e called in the serial number and found out whose weapon it was and figured out whether or not the old man should be taken in. If things added up to the old mans aliby I would have just as easily let him go and or given him the firearm and told him the proper storage and use of said weapon.

I understand he had it without a CCW permit and that is against the law, but I would have checked further into it anyways to see if the old guy was innocent or not and made my judgement call then and there.

As for the old man letting them search the car it is his fault he got caught and as for him driving a vehicle without knowing what was inside of it... that's his bad as well.

makarovnik
April 18, 2008, 08:46 PM
Cops are public servants and they need to be reminded of that frequently. Their job is to serve and protect, not to harass and neglect. It seems like all they want to do is write citations and generate revenue for their municipality. But put their life in danger to protect an innocent victim? In reality, very few cops (the good ones) are willing to do that.

I'm not really down on cops, I just live in Washington and if you live here you'll know what I'm talking about.

USMCDK
April 18, 2008, 08:57 PM
Washington state or DC it doesn't matter either way, the crime rate is getting worse, and I blame it on foreign immegration, not the immegrants themselves though. I know what you are talking about my friend. More cops are worried about being the big dog on the block, than worrying about blocking the big dog now-a-days. I understand the will to live, but their job is simple, put your life on the line for those that cannot do it themselves, and every LEO signs on knowing that one fact. Have you noticed how it doesn't say that ("Serve and Protect") on most of their cars anymore???

AKCOP
April 18, 2008, 09:49 PM
So much is unknown in this case that it is hard to pass judgement either for or against the officer. So let me tell you a short story. Guns are BIG in Alaska, most eveyone has one, independent spirit is also pretty common. An officer working one night gets a call to meet a person at he station. He meets a woman he knows as the daughter of an older man he has met at the local range during public shoots. The woman has asked to speak with this officer since she knows her dad has spoken highly of him. Seems hr dad got bad news earlir this week, inoperable cancer, he has been given just a short time to live. His daughter had an argument with him earlier in the day, she is afraid, he left the house with a gun and is driving somewhere around town. He has not been drinking but he has made roundabout statements to her which makes her think he will commit suicide rather than face a slow death fron cancer.

So what do you do, you see him driving a short time later, you pull him over.

Now jump to the situaion that started this thread, what if?
What if the officer lets him go? What good could result from this arrest? Would the police officer be out of line telling anyone outside the legal loop he is functoning in about everything involving the arrest?
What if the officer knew that arresting him would get him in some care and safe for now. What if he knew a judge would order counseling based on a recommendation from the Police and DA and then the charge could be dismissed. Seems to me a whole lot of other stuff could be going on beyond what an outsidermay see or hear.

USMCDK
April 18, 2008, 09:58 PM
;)BING... +10pts;)

Jim K
April 18, 2008, 10:16 PM
I can't say what I would have done, but what part of "I solemnly swear to uphold the law" is so hard to understand? You don't swear to uphold the law only when a black man is a suspect, or only when a middle aged white is a suspect, or only when a Lutheran is a suspect.

You swear to uphold the law all the time, for everyone. Technically, you have NO discretion once you are aware of a law violation.

As to the case in question, I wonder why the search in the first place. On that there is descretion and I question the habit of some cops to search all the time for any reason or no reason.

One of the worst things that can happen to a cop is to have a friend or close relative say something like, "I have a little hash in the car, wanna try it" or "I carry a gun all the time, to hell with the law." That puts the cop in a very bad position. So if you have a cop friend, don't consider him a father confessor and don't put him in a bind where he has to choose between friendship and sworn duty.

Jim

xring44
April 18, 2008, 10:39 PM
I was once a Arkansas state trooper. Like it or not, a officers life rests on gut feelings. The scene as discribed in the original post warranted no such action on the officers part.

As you age, and become more familuar with people in these situtations, you pick up on the little things that either warn you of impending danger or put you at ease. As described, this was a poor arrest. Was it a good arrest legally? Probably.

As someone else asked earlier, what caused the officer to ask to search the vehicle?

State laws vary widely across the nation, whats illegal in NY has no bearing in Arizona. I'll not presume to know the laws in Az.

A little common sense was in order in this case. IMO

USMC2531
April 18, 2008, 10:40 PM
There's good cops, there's bad cops and that can be said for any profession.

If you don't like how the police handled this situation you can probably thank their department's policy and proceedure & lawyers. This combined with the "what if factor" (& there's many of them) take much of the discretion out of the officer's hands. Officer's have families to & cutting someone a break especially on a CCW change puts their livelyhood in jeopardy. Trust me if the "what if factor" comes into play latter on Department heads & Lawyers will be lining up to fry the Officer's asses ! Period !

shadowalker
April 18, 2008, 10:56 PM
I have to say I agree with their actions sure I feel bad for him but he was violating the law, being short / tall, fat, skinny, young or old does not entitle people to break the law. There are plenty of older people that are bad, treating someone as less of a threat because of their age is dangerous.

Perhaps if he had alerted them to the presence of a weapon they would have reacted differently, but it doesn't really matter.

As a citizen he has a responsibility to (a.) know the law and (b.) follow it. Anyone can choose to not do either but they should accept the consequences of that choice.

I do believe in discretionary enforcement of some laws but this isn't a case of a man with a walker jay walking.

dralarms
April 18, 2008, 11:03 PM
I have only read the first page so far but I have to say the cop was wrong. The gun was unloaded and the mag was laying out next to it unloaded as well. Everywhere I've been that's not a concealed weapon.

wuchak
April 18, 2008, 11:19 PM
These officers might need a remedial reading course since they seem to lack even basic reading comprehension skills when it come to the law. The old guy's only possible mistake was not having the gun in a holster or in a case or the glove compartment although it would be easy to claim that the area under the seat is a storage compartment. In AZ you don't need to have a CCW permit to have a handgun or to have one in your car.

According to the RV/Car Carry guide on www.handgunlaw.us

13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions
A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:
1. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13-3112 except a pocket knife
concealed on his person; or
F. Subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a
belt holster which holster is wholly or partially visible, or carried in a scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons which scabbard or case is wholly or partially visible or carried in luggage.

Subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within
a storage compartment, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation.

I think it should be illegal for the police to even ask anyone if they can search their car without also informing the person that they have the legal right to refuse the search and that refusal is not probable cause for a search. Just like a Miranda warning. The police use the "can I search your car" question as a fishing expedition. For those who say that if you have nothing to hide why not let them I say because the Founding Fathers of my Country were smart enough to prohibit unreasonable searches. If they have probable cause to believe I have committed a crime then let them make that case to a Judge and get a warrant. The correct answer the "may I search your car question" is always, "as soon as you show me a warrant I will be happy to let you".

My own run in with one of the "High on Authority" officers came on the way to my Uncle's funeral. The store that was altering my sport coat was late in opening so I was running behind getting to the funeral parlor. This was in a very, very, small town and I came off the highway and the State Police sitting in the speed trap on that road into the village clocked me doing 47 in a 35. I explained where I was going and you could see the other pallbearers on the porch of the funeral home just across the street and 3 doors down from where he pulled me over. I asked him to please let me go to the funeral and he could hold onto my license and I would come back for the ticket when it was over. He insisted on writing me a ticket while everyone looked on. The only reason he was patrolling that area that day is because the officer who normally did was one of the other pallbearers. He didn't want to come over and cause a scene with the young guy but he took the ticket from me and that was the last I ever heard of it. So that day I had to deal with one lousy officer and one great one. The good and the great ones outnumber the lousy ones but the amount they do seems to be shrinking each year. I think if you had to be at least 35 to be a police officer we'd see a lot of these problems change quickly. It's usually the young officers who are still overloaded with testosterone and full of the power of the badge who don't understand that the power belongs to the badge and the role and not to the individual wearing it.

emerson
April 18, 2008, 11:30 PM
There are those of you out there who may take great offense to this video, but I pray that you will not. It does a good job of explaining and recommending the technical rights a citizen possesses during encounters with law enforcement.

That being said, I disagree, at times, with the demeanor of the actors in the video, as well as the subject matter. Here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA


You don't ever have to incriminate yourself, or voluntarily consent to a search. It's in the Bill of Rights. That being said, be polite, but stand your ground, and never, ever, ever get physical.


As an aside, from experience and knowledge of speaking with others... dealing with situations is always a case by case basis. It depends on what someone is accused of, and it depends on the demeanor of the law enforcement officer. The thing is you don't seem to know which way it will go until the path has been traveled.

Teuthis
April 19, 2008, 12:25 AM
If the police want the cooperation of the public, they must be part of the public, and not elitists who over-reach their authority. It seems that in relation to firearms they can denigrate our civil rights with impunity. When someone loses their humanity, the badge does not make up that difference.

Jenrick
April 19, 2008, 12:31 AM
Wow I mention that an old man shoots and kills and officer, and that officers need to be mindful or their officer safety around the eldery as well. Suddenly I'm calling for gun control?

I'm amazed at the words that were put in my mouth. Did I said I'd arrest the guy? In Texas it's a non-issue, the OP's situation is not a crime in Texas. Did I say I advocate gun control, disarming the populace, etc?

Yeah know considering how many people on the interweb like to talk about how they WILL defend their life or property with deadly force, how anyone who isn't ALWAYS in condition orange is a victim waiting to happen, etc. it amazes me how LEO's doing the same are called JBT's etc.

-Jenrick

hotpig
April 19, 2008, 12:49 AM
It is a no win situation for the cops. If you let the old guy go but bust a banger for the same thing you are discriminating. The cop could ultimately loose his badge for that.

If he lets the old guy go and anything related to the old guy and the gun in the following days, weeks, and months would come back to the cops failure to do his duty.

It is a calculated risk. Let the guy go and hope that nothing ever comes of it. Probably this is the best odd. Worse case scenario cop losses everything and ends up working as a stock boy at Wal Mart.

Funderb
April 19, 2008, 12:54 AM
So watch your six around this "public servant"

Yeah, make ABSOLUTELY sure you don't drop the soap around this guy.
Looks like he'll take any opportunity for his betterment.

BBroadside
April 19, 2008, 01:30 AM
"So if you have a cop friend, don't consider him a father confessor and don't put him in a bind where he has to choose between friendship and sworn duty. "

That is a very wise piece of advice. Just because a cop can look the other way doesn't mean it's okay for you to expect him to do so. No reason to make your friend choose between friendship and duty. (I've never been a cop, but when I was contemplating it, this sort of scenario was one of the things I worried about. Not as much as I worried about getting stabbed or something, though.)

sgt127
April 19, 2008, 03:33 AM
"During the course of the stop, they, for whatever reason, asked the guy if he'd mind if they searched the car."

Theres an awful lot of important stuff that could fit into that "for whatever reason" part.

They ran a criminal history on him and he came back:

With numerous arrests for drug charges,

He's a registered Sex Offender.

Numerous arrests for UCW or prohibited weapons.

Convicted felon.

Multiple DWI's

Arrests for Aggravated assault

Arrests for robberies.

Who knows? I have stopped lots of people with guns, and they weren't arrested, and, to the best of my knowledge, they never did anything stupid with the gun. I've also stopped lots of people with guns, and arrested them and, I'm quite sure I prevented an armed robbery, a driveby, a suicide or somebody else getting shot.

Contrary to some peoples belief, we really don't get free toaster oven or anything if we make alot of crappy arrests and we rarely high five each other for arresting people that just screwed up. We usually reserve that for catching burglars, armed robbers, auto thieves, murderers and serious quantities of hard drugs.

BikerRN
April 19, 2008, 04:42 AM
One of the worst things that can happen to a cop is to have a friend or close relative say something like, "I have a little hash in the car, wanna try it" or "I carry a gun all the time, to hell with the law." That puts the cop in a very bad position. So if you have a cop friend, don't consider him a father confessor and don't put him in a bind where he has to choose between friendship and sworn duty.


Oh so very true. When you become an LEO you will find that you stay away from a lot of people you used to associate with because of the predicament they can or will place you in.

BikerRN

alexa071
April 19, 2008, 05:53 AM
There are an awful lot of posters here who seem very angry with law enforcement in general. For the most part Law Enforcement is on your side... I would love to see more law abiding citizens carrying firearms to protect themselves and their families. Why do so many of you automatically jump on LEO's as being the bad guy out to keep you down? The fact is, however, that there was likely a lot written between the lines in this story that could have made all the difference in the world.

All Law Enforcement I know and work with have the opinion that concealed weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing. Remember, if this elderly gentleman wanted to carry a CCW he could have just gotten a permit. Is it okay for someone to drive a car without a license? He/she can likely be just as safe without a license as with one but laws specify that they must be licensed. It that situation would it be okay for the LEO to issue a citation for driving without a license or are elderly people exempted from that as well?

Yes, on the surface it seems that this story is just an angry cop taking out his aggression out on an innocent elderly man... but seriously, we don't know if this story is real or what motivations and other aggravating factors are involved here... there is no way to judge unless you are in the LEO's shoes at that given time and place.

qwert65
April 19, 2008, 09:52 AM
I've had three or four run ins with police. Once I was pulled over in KS in a residential area with a beat up car w/NJ tags. I was at a stop light cop was behind me, light turns green I start to go his lights come on I pull over and suprisingly he pulls in behind me. Now I was a student from NJ attending KSU so my parents have to send me my insurance card which I had forogtten in my Dorm room. Not wanting him to come up and ask for insurance I put my hands out the door and got out.

The officer came up and immediatly demanded ID when I gave him my DL he asked what I was doing in KS I said student, he asked for student ID which luckily I had. He said ok no prob. you can go. I asked him If I did nything wrong he said nope have a good one.

Now he never asked for my registration or what not and since he was behind me at the light I think he just pulled me over because I was from NJ off the highway and wanted to know my business there. I do not have a problem with this and belive the officer showed good judgment. The only thing I worried about was if I didn't have my ID or was just passing through and got lost. Asuming that he would have checked the hotels/kept a lookout if he saw me the next day etc. and not arrested me impounded my car. I think it's good that police do that to me it's good crime prevention as long as the exchange is like 5mins it lets the bad guys know they're around.

Just thought we needed a story of good police judgment :)

GRIZ22
April 19, 2008, 11:11 AM
It's hard to make a judgement on this situation with the information given but it seems most feel the cop shouldn't have arrested the old guy because it was an unloaded Jennings.

Can someone say where a cop ignoring the law should end? If....

He only had enough drugs in his car to make a few hundred bucks?

He really didn't hurt the little girl only tried to molest her?

I'm not defending the cop's actions because not enough information is given but saying he should have ignored the law is something that gives gun people a bad reputation.

AKCOP
April 19, 2008, 11:47 AM
As an LEO it is obvious that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. What a luxury to sit back and second guess the LEO without all the facts and details. It is no wonder that some of the better officers after a very short time decide it just isn't worth it and quit.

USMC2531
April 19, 2008, 01:53 PM
BINGO !

As an LEO it is obvious that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. What a luxury to sit back and second guess the LEO without all the facts and details. It is no wonder that some of the better officers after a very short time decide it just isn't worth it and quit.

MCgunner
April 19, 2008, 02:37 PM
Cops get carried away. I think this one surely did. What peeves me is that they'll arrest you knowing FULL WELL you're not guilty of whatever the charges are figurin' they'll let the courts sort it out. Well, after several grand in legal fees, you're exonerated, but you are still out 3K. :rolleyes: It's BS to put an obvious good citizen, an old man fer Christ's sake, through all this crap IMHO over an unloaded Jennings in the car. :rolleyes: Of course, I only know the one side of it, just postulating on the facts given as a scenario.

I couldn't be a cop. I'd have to kick my own ass twice a day for doing stuff like that. :rolleyes:

qwert65, that happened to me, once, in New Albany, Indiana. No probable cause, no reason to pull me over than for Texas tags and they hassled me, searched my car without asking permission. I was there selling BIBLES, not running drugs. The NAACP thinks they have a lock on "profiling"? :rolleyes: I was unarmed other than a hunting knife I had stuck away. Like I say, I couldn't be a cop.


All Law Enforcement I know and work with have the opinion that concealed weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing.

I know one that doesn't. He's a 24 year old Barney Fife. He got fired. I'd like to think I had something to do with that, but I'm not sure. It's a small town and I know most of the older cops in this town, some of 'em friends. It's the kids, new hires, I have a problem with here. It's just like life, you have all opinions, all political affiliations in law enforcement just as in life. And, some let that badge and gun go to their heads and try to enforce their political opinions. I'd let you talk to my lawyer about it, but you couldn't afford the 15 minutes on the phone he's charge for the explanation. :rolleyes: Wow, whadda racket.

Deanimator
April 19, 2008, 08:49 PM
I expect no breaks from the cops. Conversely, if they do something wrong, they can expect none from me.

That having been said, I'll bet your friend would feel it somehow unjust if a citizen filed a complaint and sued him for violating his rights and or the law.

Deanimator
April 19, 2008, 08:54 PM
t's hard to make a judgement on this situation with the information given but it seems most feel the cop shouldn't have arrested the old guy because it was an unloaded Jennings.

Can someone say where a cop ignoring the law should end? If....

He only had enough drugs in his car to make a few hundred bucks?

He really didn't hurt the little girl only tried to molest her?

I'm not defending the cop's actions because not enough information is given but saying he should have ignored the law is something that gives gun people a bad reputation.
That's all well and good. As long as he treats EVERYBODY the same.

The question is, does he extend "professional courtesy" to other cops that he wouldn't to someone else? If he does, then he deserves to be hammered mercilessly.

Erik
April 19, 2008, 09:09 PM
It sounds like you might have been subject to the "run out of town" political request; something seen less and less in this day and age of documentation and scrutiny. That's a positive development. What was the time frame?

Regardless, anyone who lives in an area where non PC arrests are common place may want to call some lawyers; private practice, Justic Department, or both.

Sans Authoritas
April 19, 2008, 09:30 PM
Strange. This man harmed no one, yet because it's "THE LAW," some people are demanding that it be enforced to the letter. As for "the spirit of the law . . ." what is that? I don't want police officers operating under the direction of aethers and humours. Hammurabi was supposed to have taken care of that little issue by actually writing laws down. For a reason. If we're going to live under the rule of law, let's not play games. Let's enforce everything as it is written. Every time. Maybe then people will start to realize how stupid they're being. And how foolishly patient they are with those who enforce said stupid laws because they "took an oath to uphold the law."

A wise man said, "It's not about doing the thing right. It's about doing the right thing." If you think you have to uphold an asinine and unjust law because you said you would, it's time to find a new job. I wouldn't carry out immoral orders that Mussolini gave me because I had foolishly taken an oath to carry out Mussolini's orders. To take an oath that involves doing that which is evil? To cause an entirely innocent man to suffer? Atrocious. That is one oath I would have no problem breaking. In a heartbeat. What's your excuse, peace officers?

"If I don't like the laws, work to change them?" Such a response would be laughable if it weren't so morally twisted. The fact that a law is on the books does not excuse your action of enforcing such laws. The response is also bitterly laughable on a practical level. Many good men and women are shot, lynched, persecuted, tortured and gassed by the forces of the lawmakers themselves before many injustices are ever turned around. You might as well invite me to take a blast from the water cannon for drinking from the "whites only" fountain, or offer me a hickory shampoo for refusing to step to the back of the bus.

But oh, I am working to change the laws. Or at least their enforcement. You can't stop an immoral war by refusing to pay your taxes, because it's entirely ineffective. But as a friend says, "The easiest way to stop a war is to convince the person at the front line not to pull the trigger."

Executive Order 9066 may have been enforced by those who swore to uphold orders. Nonetheless, those who did enforce it were still nothing less than bestial thugs. And we saw how important "following orders" is for some people. In New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, it seems that nobody had any qualms about going door to door confiscating firearms from people. I didn't see our brave boys in camo and ninja black suddenly stop and pipe up with, "Why, that's an unlawful order! I will not obey it!" Oh, no. They acted just like power-endowed human nature dictates. Like good little predatory wolves, they did exactly what the Alpha wolf told them to do. Without question.

How slowly we learn that the tough words of "I would never do " are so often forgotten as soon as there is a rifle in the speaker's sweaty hands, orders in his ears, and a chain of command breathing down his neck.

[I]Stubborn pride seems to be the problem we encounter when it comes to certain people enforcing certain "laws" that protect no one. Laws that not only prohibit actions that hurt no one else, but laws that prohibit actions that are not even against God's law. I have zero respect for anyone who could do such a thing. I find it astonishing that they could even respect themselves.

It is utterly nauseating to hear someone say, "Guns don't kill people," then see him solemnly nod and applaud in a Pavlovian manner when he hears about a police officer who arrested someone for the "crime" of peacably carrying a firearm or other inanimate object. Because it was a "law." It's time to grow up. It's time to get out of the infantile "it's wrong because it's against the rules" mindset.

-Sans Authoritas

Ed Lacy
April 20, 2008, 01:56 AM
Here is a man who understands the real problem.........

icebones
April 20, 2008, 02:10 AM
now, i am very good friends with a policeman, and my girlfriend's dad is an ex-cop.

believe you-me, i have no problem with the police, most of the cops out there are good guys, they are just average people like you or me, and they simply try to protect and help people,

given, there are a few cops out there who are on a CONSTANT EGO TRIP, and treat an 86 year old woman like a crack-dealing thug.

a cop who stops and arrests a guy because he is doing 105mph and there is empty beer bottles in the seat, a bag of crack cocaine in his pants pocket=good cop

a cop who stops a guy on his way home from work, going 65 in a 55mph zone, giving him a ticket, causing to miss dinner, causing his wife to worry about him, and costing him several hundred dollars in court fees=not so good...

i wish the police would focus on getting the real criminals off the street, and not pulling over motorists becasue they are going 10 miles over the speed limit.---it pains me to say this, but meth has become a problem in my area, and the cops are focusing more on pulling people over for kentucky's seat belts laws and speeding tickets than taking down the meth houses...

a guy a few posts prior said something like he wishes all cops are like andy griffith. yes that wound be nice, but times have changed, and the streets are much more dangerous today. its true, cops have a very dangerous job, but they dont need to treat every single person like a cold hard criminal. instead of intimidating and threatening every person they stop, how about treating people with respect and honor?

yet another case of a few guys giving the entire group a bad image...

also Sans Authorias---i couldnt have said it better than myself...

ArchAngelCD
April 20, 2008, 03:12 AM
My question is, is it really illegal to have a handgun in your car if it's not loaded, there is no ammo in the car and the gun can't be loaded because there was no magazine for the gun? I don't think in that scenario you can call the gun a concealed weapon. (but as usual, I could be wrong)

USMCDK
April 20, 2008, 06:16 AM
In the State of NH it is illegal to have a firearm in the cab of the car, with or without ammo, without having a "Pistol/Revolver License" (that is our CCW permit). The proper way is to have it in the trunk, magazine out of mag well, in the carrying case, and ammo in the cab (if any) which is obviously away from the weapon. Also to add to that, in this state, it is also to have your mag loaded with bullets and in the cab without the permit.

Ergosphere
April 20, 2008, 06:31 AM
For the most part Law Enforcement is on your side... I would love to see more law abiding citizens carrying firearms to protect themselves and their families.

Obviously, you're not in California...

AKCOP
April 20, 2008, 10:12 AM
I always got a good laugh when making arrests it would be something like this, "hey why are you busting me for DWI when you should be out arresting real bad guys like drug dealers". Then you arrest a drug dealer and it goes,
"hey why aren't you out busting drunk drivers, they kill people, we just sell drugs to peope who don't hurt anyone" Then you write a ticket to someone for running a stop sign and it goes "hey why don't you go write some speeding tickets I was just run off the road by some guy doing 100mph" They you write a ticket to someone speeding and he goes "hey why are you wasting time writing me a ticket, you should be out there busting guys for robbing liquor stores" It is just a big circle, no matter what you do you should be out doing something else. Sure seems like as a society we are willing to crab and moan about every little thing that doesn't go exactly like WE think it should go.
How about a thread for when we feel like we or someone else got crappy service from doctors, lawyers, teachers, butchers, bakers, electricians, plumbers, sales clerks, paper boys, preachers, construction workers, pilots, and girlscouts selling cookies, just to name a few.

Sans Authoritas
April 20, 2008, 10:15 AM
AK cop, reckless speeders, reckless drunks, and stop sign runners put people at immediate risk. There is nothing wrong with preventing them from killing someone. It is also nothing like what we're talking about here.

Show me a time when those newsboys, plumbers, butchers, barbers, construction workers and pilots have government approbation to stop you on the street, question you, cuff you, fine/arrest you, and help put you in prison for possibly 15 years for violating a malum prohibitum law, and I might start giving your position some credence.

Until then? Not a prayer.

-Sans Authoritas

hankdatank1362
April 20, 2008, 10:48 AM
While it does suck, and it's a crappy position to be in....

If that police officer had let that guy go, and then arrested a gangbanger the next week (who happened to be black) for the same offense, the NAACP would have his job, his house, and his head on a spit.

If the old man was truly innocent (I.e. first time offense) then the courts should have leniency on him. It sucks that he has to go through that, and I feel badly for him, yet he was violating the law. Mala en se? No. It's a stupid law.

But as a LEO, you don't get to pick and choose what laws you decide to enfoce based on your opinion of their worth. You're also not the judge and jury of someone. Your job is to make arrests and gather information that could lead to prosecution.

Let me repeat: A cop's job is not to decide guilt or innocence! Anyone who breaks the law must be on a level playing field... that includes other LEOs (I know that's not how it works, but it is how it should be.)

Guess what? I think this law is stupid, as are most gun laws, but I would not go around breaking any of said laws with impunity as a result of my beliefs.

LEOs are not allowed to enforce the law with any sort of real discretion, because once you make an exception for someone, you have to make one for everyone.

"It was only a nickel bag of pot"... well who's to say that's any better than 1/2 gram of cocaine... you can't let the pot guy go because you believe it to be harmless and arrest the cocaine guy because you view cocaine to be an evil drug. Your opinion does not matter. Both are illegal.

I hope I'm making some sense. The issue is clear in my mind, but I'm having a hard time expressing my thoughts. Lack of sleep, and coffee.

cassandrasdaddy
April 20, 2008, 11:09 AM
sometimes depends on who the cop is partnered with.both of em have to be reasonable or the one who isn't can jam up the other. i have been cut huge slack in my mispent youth

cassandrasdaddy
April 20, 2008, 11:13 AM
"The easiest way to stop a war is to convince the person at the front line not to pull the trigger."


it is easier to posture on the net than to take action

Steve N
April 20, 2008, 11:35 AM
Quote "yes and no. LEO's do have the right to visually inspect the contents of your car when they walk by. by flashing the light and scanning without ever getting in the car. also if you decline and they give you the reasonable cause and you still decline they also have the write to call in a warrent with said reasonable cause and if granted then you are screwed, cause they have the right. and boy let me tell you, some cops at that point will find anything that they can and when they do GOOD-BYE!!! Quote

So let them get a warrant! Now you have more people who have to get their stories straight when you go to court, and you get to waste more time for more people. I personally don't carry because I drive a company car, its against their rules, and most of my customers have "no firearms" signs posted. When I do drive that car to go shooting, I make sure I clean up all my ammo, and put the guns back in the safe immediately. I don't use drugs, so they won't find those.

A relative is an LEO. His goal every day is to ask 10 people to consent to a search during a traffic stop, and to get 5 of those people to agree. He stopped one guy for speeding and asked to search. This LEO had no probable cause to search, but decided to ask anyway. The guy said yes. The LEO found a cigarette pack between the seats with a vial of heroin in it. All the stoner had to say was no, and he would have walked away. Instead he got busted.

ALWAYS SAY "NO" TO A REQUEST TO SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE, HOUSE OR OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY. If the LEO has probable cause, he'll search anyways, with or without your consent. If he doesn't, he'll either back off, or you have at least some leg to stand on in court, if the LEO finds "something". Giving consent gives away your rights. No one on THR would voluntarily give up your gun rights, why give up your 4th A rights?

cassandrasdaddy
April 20, 2008, 12:41 PM
because i don't care if he searches, and i have the same right to say yes as you have to say no. and i neither seek nor require anyones endorsment or permission to make that decision in my life.
i do chuckle at all the heroes of the revolution figting so valiently here on their keyboards for personal frreedom, so long as the person thinks and acts in accordance with their vision/delusions

rickomatic
April 20, 2008, 01:20 PM
If the old man felt that there was nothing to hide in the car then hell why shouldn't he let them do the perverbial job???


USMCDK.....I'll be over in a few to search your house. I'm sure you have nothing to hide.

Freedom means freedom. A LEO's job is NOT to determine whether or not I am doing something illegal. It IS to serve and protect. Part of that protection is that of my God given rights. It is NOT to walk on them out of convenience or individual preference.

Sans Authoritas
April 20, 2008, 01:22 PM
Cassandrasdaddy, remember "Publius?" What a clown that guy was. He never accomplished anything with all his "posturing." Nor did Hearst, when he said, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." Lenin and Hitler didn't accomplish anything while they were in prison, either. Except converting a few people to their ideas.

Writing. Giving exposure to one's ideas. Pshaw. Absolute nonsense. I should be writing congressmen. Because they're sensible men, as everyone knows, and really care about doing the wise and just thing, not just what the majority thinks.

Sorry, Cassandrasdaddy, but I don't agree that positive changes, or "the revolution," as you call it, should be achieved by means of violence and bloodshed. I think positive changes should be made by convincing people. That means putting one's ideas out there in every facet of one's life: by living, speaking and writing as one believes.

I am sorry if you disagree with my viewpoint on how change should happen, but I really don't understand what else you could mean by deriding my posting these ideas in a public forum, and saying that such actions are "posturing," and that instead of promoting ideas, I should "take action."

Your attempts at emotional violence are ineffective and unconvincing. Perhaps using reason to counter the points I have made in themselves would be a little more convincing.

-Sans Authoritas

buck00
April 20, 2008, 01:25 PM
I have a friend who told me the story once of how he and his partner pulled over an elderly man. During the course of the stop, they, for whatever reason, asked the guy if he'd mind if they searched the car.

Before we even get into it, why did they ask to search the car in the first place? :scrutiny: I think that is the first issue.

I think searching a car should be prompted by probable cause, not something done on a whim or because the cop is bored.

k_dawg
April 20, 2008, 01:32 PM
Moral of the story: cops are not your friends, and never grant permission to search your vehicle.

rickomatic
April 20, 2008, 02:50 PM
How about a thread for when we feel like we or someone else got crappy service from doctors, lawyers, teachers, butchers, bakers, electricians, plumbers, sales clerks, paper boys, preachers, construction workers, pilots, and girlscouts selling cookies, just to name a few.

When a doctor, lawyer, teacher, butcher, baker, electrician,plumber, sales clerk, paper boy, preacher, construction worker, pilot or a girlscout uses their "authority" to play fast and loose with MY Constitutional rights, I'll start a thread concerning that.

CountGlockula
April 20, 2008, 03:01 PM
It's called "NO COMPROMISE".

Flyboy
April 20, 2008, 03:18 PM
Why do so many of you automatically jump on LEO's as being the bad guy out to keep you down?
Because the few who are thugs don't wear signs, so we can't tell them apart. Safer to be polite, be courteous, but don't trust them.

Isn't that pretty much how they approach us? Be polite, be friendly, but accept the fact that this stop might be "the guy?" Same idea, really. But we don't have the government backing us up.

Sans Authoritas
April 20, 2008, 04:34 PM
alexa071 wrote:
Is it okay for someone to drive a car without a license?

Yes.

Should it have been OK for someone to ride a horse without a license in 1900? Yes. Were there lots of horse-related fatalities? Yes. Would licenses have prevented many of them? No.

Having a license doesn't make you a responsible driver. Driving responsibly does.

I'm sorry that you think that we adults should all carry permission slips that say we are deemed worthy to effectively defend and transport ourselves.

I'm even sorrier that you would enforce such restrictions on our rights.

-Sans Authoritas

USMC2531
April 20, 2008, 08:29 PM
a guy a few posts prior said something like he wishes all cops are like andy griffith. yes that wound be nice, but times have changed, and the streets are much more dangerous today. its true, cops have a very dangerous job, but they dont need to treat every single person like a cold hard criminal. instead of intimidating and threatening every person they stop, how about treating people with respect and honor?

I do understand what your saying, but a LEO has to be "right" everytime and a criminal only has to be "right" once. A LEO doesn't have the luxury to say "oh this guy looks like a nice guy & this guy doesn't and so on and so on" .

I guess all I'm saying is LEO's have to be cautious of everyone, everytime, or they're putting themselves in danger. I do understand however, how this might make someone feel like they are being "disrespected'



[

Aguila Blanca
April 20, 2008, 09:18 PM
Well that's garbage. Police have wide discretionary powers on things like this and it was an old man who didn't even know the gun was there or who it belonged to. Anyway, I just began thinking of this again and it got my blood boiling. I much prefer living in a country with an Andy of Mayberry approach rather than that of Darth Vader's storm troopers. The fact that this happened in Arizona makes it even worse. It wasn't New York or Chicago.
Where did you get the idea that cops have "wide discretionary powers"? That's not correct. They are called Law Enforcement Officers for a reason. Their job is to "enforce" the law. Enforcement does not include making judgments as to how serious the offense is or whether or not to take into account mitigating circumstances. That's why we have judges and juries and a court system.

Police officers exercising "discretion" is a cancer in the body of the populace. Your officer friend did exactly the right thing ... once he found the gun.

The question is, why did he feel it necessary (or desireable) to search the car? I'm a fairly careful driver and I've been stopped only a few times in fifty-plus years of driving, but not once has a police officer asked to search my car. Your friend's "discretionary powers" started and ended with the decision to ask if he could search. Once he searched and found a weapon, to ignore it would have been dereliction of duty. If you want to take him to task for something, take him to task for searching the car. But ... since cops usually don't search every car at a traffic stop -- there may have been some clues that this car needed to be searched.

Aguila Blanca
April 20, 2008, 09:42 PM
a cop who stops a guy on his way home from work, going 65 in a 55mph zone, giving him a ticket, causing to miss dinner, causing his wife to worry about him, and costing him several hundred dollars in court fees=not so good...
Why is this not so good?

The speed limit is posted at 55 MPH. That's the law. Once you decide that cops should overlook people who break the law by speeding, you get into uncharted territory. First, if the cop isn't supposed to enforce the legally-established speed limit, who decides at what speed he SHOULD start writing tickets? His shift supervisor? Or does each cop decide on his/her own -- meaning today I can drive a section of road at 65, tomorrow I can drive it at 75, but on Friday I'd better hold it to under 60. That's a good thing?

Besides, that attitude usurps the authority of whatever agency in a state or town sets the speed limit. It's somebody's JOB to decide how fast is safe on a particular road. Once that has been decided, by the person or agency whose JOB it is to make that decision, why is it a "good thing" for police officers to decide they know better so they won't enforce the posted limit?

I'm sorry ... that whole approach strikes me as a recipe for anarchy.

I'm sorry that you think that we adults should all carry permission slips that say we are deemed worthy to effectively defend and transport ourselves.

I'm even sorrier that you would enforce such restrictions on our rights.
Enlighten me, please. My copy of the U.S. Constitution must be defective.

Kindly point me in the direction of the clause guaranteeing us a right to operate motor vehicles.

Justin
April 20, 2008, 09:58 PM
These threads never have a good outcome.

If you enjoyed reading about "How Hardnosed Should Cops Be?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!