CoRoMo
Member
Are there any laws that you advise someone not follow?
I got pulled over today... your gonna want to read this.
- Thread starter ACBMWM3
- Start date
- Status
Are there any laws that you advise someone not follow?
Deanimator
Member
No, the officer is justified in drawing his firearm if he's REASONABLY concerned for his safety.
There is NO blanket right for an officer to use deadly force merely because he feels "concerned". That "concern" must have some REASONABLE basis. Otherwise, any cop could draw on any Muslim and claim that he was "concerned" that he was an Al Qaeda "terrorist" without any reasonable evidence to support that assertion, much less that the person in question had acted in any unlawful way.
Deanimator
Member
Until recently, Ohio CCW law FORBADE you to conceal your firearm in a vehicle. Are you saying I should NOT have obeyed that LAW???
hankdatank1362
Member
For all of you claiming that the LEO acted illegally or violated a Constitutionally protected right, please be so kind as to reference exactly which law (and cite your source) or which amendment was violated.
My guess: No takers.
My guess: No takers.
Mainsail
Member
No, it is not false; you are wrong. FAIL.ravonaf said:
If you are carrying a handgun in a motor vehicle in the state of Washington, you are carrying it concealed. In a holster on your hip, it’s a concealed weapon. Hanging out of your snout, it’s a concealed weapon. It doesn’t matter if you wrap it in flashing Chrismas lights and balance it on your head, it’s concealed. It’s not a technicality, it’s the law. We don’t get to choose which laws we like and disregard the rest. If you do not believe in the American system of government as outlined in the US Constitution, you are living in the wrong country.
We are not Germany. We have the US and Washington Constitution that guides our laws. None of the laws in this situation are unconstitutional. You might believe they are, but the courts have decided otherwise. Washington courts very jealously guard civil rights in this state.
expvideo
Member
We are not in Nazi Germany. If you disapprove of the laws where you live, you have 3 options:
1-Move
2-Lobby to have the laws changed
3-Civil disobedience to have the laws changed*
If you choose to break the law, that is your choice, and you understand the consequences. We will not support you or feel show you much sympathy.
*That doesn't mean pick and choose which laws to follow. That means intentionally breaking a law, intentionally being arrested, and challenging the constitutionality of the law in court.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Really? You just had to Godwin the thread?
EmGeeGeorge
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 806
WA does require a front plate, says so on car registration...
a lot of cops are shot at traffic stops for seemingly minor infractions... some of the ppl posting on here sound like real mouth-breathers. (i.e. "The cop drew his weapon when he saw a gun because he felt threatened. By the same logic, the OP could have drawn his gun when he saw the cops gun. We can't all go drawing everytime we're scared")
I don't even care to pick apart such a blantantly stupid and poorly reasoned statement but it smacks of either a.) anti-logic or b.) someone who isn't mature enough to carry one themselves...
to OP; Grow up, stop acting like a little stooge, and deal with things the right way, don't cry to daddy who golf's with the Police Chiefs gardener, or whatever.
a lot of cops are shot at traffic stops for seemingly minor infractions... some of the ppl posting on here sound like real mouth-breathers. (i.e. "The cop drew his weapon when he saw a gun because he felt threatened. By the same logic, the OP could have drawn his gun when he saw the cops gun. We can't all go drawing everytime we're scared")
I don't even care to pick apart such a blantantly stupid and poorly reasoned statement but it smacks of either a.) anti-logic or b.) someone who isn't mature enough to carry one themselves...
to OP; Grow up, stop acting like a little stooge, and deal with things the right way, don't cry to daddy who golf's with the Police Chiefs gardener, or whatever.
Bobarino
member
wow! i am incredibly surprised at the amount of self righteous, judgmental hypocrites here on THR. what a jerk thing to say that the OP deserves to have his rights violated because he drives a BMW or even that he didn't have a front plate. i'm sure NONE of you have ever knowingly driven around with a headlight out, tail light out, tires below legal tread depth or maybe with your tabs a couple days past due, right? get off your high horses. you all come off with a far worse attitude than the OP's with your jealous petty remarks. this isn't about the car or even the plate. yes, he should have a plate on it but there IS a way around it in WA as outlined in RCW 46.16.240. i have had the same thing happen as i used to drive a car that didn't have any provisions for mounting a front plate.
also, in WA, in the case of State V. Casad, the state supreme court ruled that merely carrying a firearm in public in a non-threatening manner does not justify being detained by an officer. unfortunately this case has yet to be published so it may be thrown out in court if one tried to cite it as case law but it may stand also.
to those who don't think his rights were violated, what the hell are you thinking? cuffed, detained, and if he didn't speak up, had his car searched without PC or a warrant for doing absolutely NOTHING illegal. cited for the plate, sure. cuffed and put in the cop car? not a chance. that is a violation of both his 2nd Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.
a person's car, a minor traffic infraction, or even a person's attitude are no grounds for the treatment the OP got. having a gun drawn on him? sounds like reckless endangerment to me. imagine if the OP or any one of us had done the same? we'd be prosecuted and lose.
to the OP, i hope you pursue the matter and file a complaint with the department. there is no excuse for what the cop did. at the very most, you should have been cited for the plate. what department was this anyway?
if you want some more advice, head over to opencarry.org and post in the Washington area. hopefully they'll be more civil to you than the vitriolic people here have been. i guess the High Road, ain't so much any more....
Bobby
also, in WA, in the case of State V. Casad, the state supreme court ruled that merely carrying a firearm in public in a non-threatening manner does not justify being detained by an officer. unfortunately this case has yet to be published so it may be thrown out in court if one tried to cite it as case law but it may stand also.
to those who don't think his rights were violated, what the hell are you thinking? cuffed, detained, and if he didn't speak up, had his car searched without PC or a warrant for doing absolutely NOTHING illegal. cited for the plate, sure. cuffed and put in the cop car? not a chance. that is a violation of both his 2nd Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.
a person's car, a minor traffic infraction, or even a person's attitude are no grounds for the treatment the OP got. having a gun drawn on him? sounds like reckless endangerment to me. imagine if the OP or any one of us had done the same? we'd be prosecuted and lose.
to the OP, i hope you pursue the matter and file a complaint with the department. there is no excuse for what the cop did. at the very most, you should have been cited for the plate. what department was this anyway?
if you want some more advice, head over to opencarry.org and post in the Washington area. hopefully they'll be more civil to you than the vitriolic people here have been. i guess the High Road, ain't so much any more....
Bobby
expvideo
Member
Laws broken: Brandishing, Assualt with a deadly weapon, unlawfully detaining the OP.
Constitutional Amendment violated: 4th amendment, unlawful search and seizure.
Those are the laws that are broken, IF the officer simply saw the gun and proceded to point a gun and detain the OP. However, based on the attitude of the OP and the intentional ambiguity of the cercumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the officer didn't simple do this because he saw a gun, but because the OP motioned toward the gun while he was reaching toward his wallet. Because of that, the officer's actions would have been completely justified, because he had reason to suspect that his life was in danger, and if that is the case, the OP is lucky to be alive.
So that is where we are debating. Did the officer simply see a gun on the OPs hip and draw, or did the officer draw because the OP reached toward his gun? We don't know, because the OP hasn't been very forthcoming with the information. That would lead me to believe that the officer was probably justified in drawing.
Let me be clear, I don't have a problem with the officer securing the weapon and the OP for safety reasons. I have a problem with the officer pointing a gun at the OP, if the OP wasn't doing anything but being in possession of a pistol.
Groundcontrol to Major Tom
Ok, this is getting ridiculous. We aren’t talking about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or the march on Selma. The OP precipitated the whole event by refusing to obey a traffic law requiring that he has tags on the front and back of his vehicle. I that really so much a violation of his civil rights?
As to the other, what would you have the Officer do wait till the OP had his hand on the gun and was drawing then try to play catch up?
In the final analysis I can’t see this any other way than the OP brought this on himself by his intemperate actions I don’t see that the Officer did any wrong here.
Ok, this is getting ridiculous. We aren’t talking about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or the march on Selma. The OP precipitated the whole event by refusing to obey a traffic law requiring that he has tags on the front and back of his vehicle. I that really so much a violation of his civil rights?
As to the other, what would you have the Officer do wait till the OP had his hand on the gun and was drawing then try to play catch up?
In the final analysis I can’t see this any other way than the OP brought this on himself by his intemperate actions I don’t see that the Officer did any wrong here.
expvideo
Member
There is no law that says I have to hand in my guns. Don't use fictitious laws to justify breaking real laws.
trickyrick
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 31
and this one time, at band camp, i stuck a flute in my .....
Floppy_D
Member In Memoriam
I thought you played tuba!trickyrick said:
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Depends. Is open carry legal or not in your state? If it's legal, then I'd say you were clearly violated, and would be well-justified in filing a complaint. If not, you weren't. Simple as that.
doodle bug
Member
pulled over
I think you guys are getting way off the original subject??? This dude broke a law ok he;s already admited to that Now he;s looking for sympathy from you. and his father to bail him out when he;s in deep???? He should think his self lucky he lives in the USA? try driving around europe with a gun on your hip and no front plate.
I think you guys are getting way off the original subject??? This dude broke a law ok he;s already admited to that Now he;s looking for sympathy from you. and his father to bail him out when he;s in deep???? He should think his self lucky he lives in the USA? try driving around europe with a gun on your hip and no front plate.
hankdatank1362
Member
4th Amendment: Not violated. Re: SCOTUS Carroll v. United States,267 U.S. 132, Motor Vehicle Exemptions to the 4th Amendment
Brandishing? Assault? Not so much. LEOs, in stark contrast to ordainary citizens, have the ability to draw their weapons (not just firearms) in what's known as show of force. If a citizen did the same, it would be called brandishing. I'm sure the officer's departmental policy allows for him/her to draw on someone that, already having committed a misdemeanor (admitted by the OP) and is found to be carrying a concealed weapon, while issuing him lawful commands to step out of the car, show me your hands, etc.
Unlawful detainment? The OP violated the law. That enables the LEO to detain him for a reasonable amount of time (Generally accepted as up to 90 minutes, although it's not set in stone). The LEO may also search the car, without consent, in areas that may conceal a weapon that are within "lunging distance."
All in all, it just sounds to me like the OP had a sudden case of "the dumbs", and that, coupled with a jumpy cop (which they have every right to be), won't make for a fun evening.
Brandishing? Assault? Not so much. LEOs, in stark contrast to ordainary citizens, have the ability to draw their weapons (not just firearms) in what's known as show of force. If a citizen did the same, it would be called brandishing. I'm sure the officer's departmental policy allows for him/her to draw on someone that, already having committed a misdemeanor (admitted by the OP) and is found to be carrying a concealed weapon, while issuing him lawful commands to step out of the car, show me your hands, etc.
Unlawful detainment? The OP violated the law. That enables the LEO to detain him for a reasonable amount of time (Generally accepted as up to 90 minutes, although it's not set in stone). The LEO may also search the car, without consent, in areas that may conceal a weapon that are within "lunging distance."
All in all, it just sounds to me like the OP had a sudden case of "the dumbs", and that, coupled with a jumpy cop (which they have every right to be), won't make for a fun evening.
chuckusaret
member
I have been stopped several times on the open road plus one time at a DUI check point, put my hands on wheel at 11 and 1, then did as LE requested and presented my DL & also my CCL. On each ocassion the LE stated he/she did not need the CCL, but thanks. They ran my DL and I was on my way.
- Status
