Johnson County at it again....

[g00n24]

Ok...So I hope this post doesn't get lost in the discussions going on...

After the officer asks about having any other (non-illegal) weapons in the car, as a LTCH holder do you have to then (after he asks) inform him you are carrying? or can you simply state "I am not required to inform you of any legally possessed weapons in this state?"

If you do have to inform him you possess a legally possessed weapon...do you have to give up that weapon if the officer requests it? or can you simply hand him a valid LTCH and be done with it, because a valid LTCH does not give PC to search?

 

[PaulJF]

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! Now how do we change it? Voting got us here to begin with. Complaining gets us no where. Maybe this thread and threads just like it ARE the way to change it? Maybe we can change it from within by intelligent conversation with those that are actually in the field doing the job? I'm telling you people, common sense and reason WILL spread like a disease if utilized properly.

I knew you and many others already knew what i was saying is true. I thought a more non confrontational wording might make some of the leo's on here take note. Of course they are being trained to conduct their duties in a way we find distasteful. The violations they are made to enforce, the deceptive practices, etc...
They are on the inside, they can make the difference. We just have to reach one leo and one politician at a time.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Please provide an example where such a thing has occurred in this country in recent times.

LOL, I'll have to admit, in RECENT times I have no examples. Perhaps due to the way we ALL have become polarized to one side or the other there has been little or no common sense in recent times. I will say that it has worked in the distant or not so distant past and CAN work again. History repeats itself, why not now, here, with us instigating it rationally? Let's spread the seed and hope it becomes viral? Every day and every post is an opportunity. I'll tell you what, I'm the LAST person that anyone would ever expect to here this from, I'm cynical, opinionated, stubborn and a downright miserable SOB and I can't even believe I'm saying these things....but here we have it, perhaps divine intervention? lmao

 

[Keyser Soze]

Maybe there is just something fundamentally wrong with the way law enforcement is conducted. I'm sure there are many good leo's out there, but maybe the system itself is to blame.

Bingo. Repped.

Imo criminals are being farmed for currency. When they stop yielding they are not replanted and actually stay in jail. If you have X amount of fish in a pond and catch X amount the pond will be empty. We always put the fish back.

As a leo you can arrest 3134123 people. Your not going to make any more money. Your not getting a toaster oven. Your helping harvest the crop. Its frustration to see wife beaters, hard drug dealers, child molesters, ect walking after more than one conviction.

I have a Cuban friend who is always telling me how safe cuba is. There criminals stay in jail and jail sucks really really bad. He tells me there are no repeat offenders. Not because they changed their ways in jail, bc they are scared to death to go back.

Maybe we need a balance? Lessen the frequency of incarceration maybe limit it to only crimes against persons. But make jail a really really bad place.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Ok...So I hope this post doesn't get lost in the discussions going on...

After the officer asks about having any other (non-illegal) weapons in the car, as a LTCH holder do you have to then (after he asks) inform him you are carrying? or can you simply state "I am not required to inform you of any legally possessed weapons in this state?"

If you do have to inform him you possess a legally possessed weapon...do you have to give up that weapon if the officer requests it? or can you simply hand him a valid LTCH and be done with it, because a valid LTCH does not give PC to search?

I personally do not see how you can seize the weapon unless you could articulate you felt your safety was at risk.

Imo if the person was agitated, confrontation, ect I could see seizing the weapon for officer safety until the stop was complete. Just your normal every day stop, I do no believe you have the right.

Here is a good one to disarm until the stop is complete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoI4G1fWmEQ

 

[youngda9]

LOL, I'll have to admit, in RECENT times I have no examples.

AHHHH HA !

I will say that it has worked in the distant or not so distant past and CAN work again. History repeats itself, why not now, here, with us instigating it rationally? Let's spread the seed and hope it becomes viral? Every day and every post is an opportunity.

Agreed 100%

I'm cynical, opinionated, stubborn and a downright miserable SOB and I can't even believe I'm saying these things

I hear the first step is admitting you have a problem

lmao

Me too !!

 

[INGunGuy]

I personally do not see how you can seize the weapon unless you could articulate you felt your safety was at risk.

Imo if the person was agitated, confrontation, ect I could see seizing the weapon for officer safety until the stop was complete. Just your normal every day stop, I do no believe you have the right.

Here is a good one to disarm until the stop is complete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoI4G1fWmEQ

I have seen this video before, and my only question is how come the officer didn't open fire the monument he saw the gun. The guy was obviously insane, legal gun owner up to that point, or not, he was still insane. I pray for that officer and his family.

INGunGuy

 

[Keyser Soze]

I have seen this video before, and my only question is how come the officer didn't open fire the monument he saw the gun. The guy was obviously insane, legal gun owner up to that point, or not, he was still insane. I pray for that officer and his family.

INGunGuy

Its easy to go to a range and shoot a paper target. Its a difficult decision to terminate life.

I would not have fired the moment I saw the gun. I would be screaming like a girl, don't touch the gun step away. The second he touched it I would having a finger seizure hoping for one to hit.

Even if he would have shot first I'm not sure it would have turned out differently. It probably was not the first second or third time the suspect had been shot at. The officer was dealing with a person who had superior training and a superior weapon.

 

[INGunGuy]

Its easy to go to a range and shoot a paper target. Its a difficult decision to terminate life.

I would not have fired the moment I saw the gun. I would be screaming like a girl, don't touch the gun step away. The second he touched it I would having a finger seizure hoping for one to hit.

Even if he would have shot first I'm not sure it would have turned out differently. It probably was not the first second or third time the suspect had been shot at. The officer was dealing with a person who had superior training and a superior weapon.

I am not talking about firing the moment the gun came into view, but when the guy who obviously was insane picked up the gun, there would have been 11+1 155 gr HST hollow points heading his way.

And yes you are completely correct that shooting at the range at paper targets is MUCH MUCH different than being in a real life or death situation. I assume LEO goes thru FOF training as part of their yearly qualifications. Heck I have even taken a couple of FOF training classes and I can tell you this, you are correct, even in a non-life and death scenario, it is much different than when we go to shoot at paper, tin cans, 2 liter bottles, etc.

Not sure if the person had superior training, but you are correct about superior fire power, again, that is just physics, a rifle will always be superior to a pistol, relatively speaking.

Now, I am NEVER going to Armchair quarterback a LEO on how he/she does their job, and I would expect the same from them about my job. BUT, when the LEO first pulled the suspect over, the suspect IMMEDIATELY opened his door, that is an indication right there, that there was a problem. I know I heard the officer tell the suspect to come back to where he was, why would he do that? I would think it would be safer for the officer if the person would have stayed in their truck. Then the guy gets out and starts dancing around like an insane person. Knowing this, the officer was giving the suspect commands that were not followed. Why was a taser not deployed? When the suspect went back to the truck and started rifling around, why did the officer not react accordingly? So, finally the officer sees the gun, and starts commanding the suspect to step away, and again did not follow commands. Then the suspect picked up the gun, and the ensuing gun battle erupted. No, I have never been in a life or death situation other than in the Navy. No, I have never had to pull out or even think that a firearm would be needed in a situation in civilian life. That is why I train train train and train some more. I blow thru tens of thousands of rifle and pistol ammo each year because I train all the damn time. Plus I just love to shoot. BUT hopefully if that time ever comes, I can make sure that I can put rounds down range on target to eliminate any threat made toward me.

This situation was the worst kind, where a LEO lost their life. Hopefully the POS was caught and executed by firing squad after spending a few anally painful years in the pen.

INGunGuy

 

[Keyser Soze]

. Why was a taser not deployed? That is why I train train train and train some more. I blow thru tens of thousands of rifle and pistol ammo each year because I train all the damn time. Plus I just love to shoot. BUT hopefully if that time ever comes, I can make sure that I can put rounds down range on target to eliminate any threat made toward me.

INGunGuy

Guy was a combat vet. No amount of training, rounds down range, ect can compensate for being in a live fire situation. Tazer was not around in 1998. He ordered him back to his vehicle to separate him from any possible weapons, which there was a long gun in this case. Maybe he assumed the guy was mentally handicapped and was to hesitant to go hands on. Personally when he turned his back the officer had ever tactical advantage. That would have been a good time to put the hurt on.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Now, I am NEVER going to Armchair quarterback a LEO on how he/she does their job, and I would expect the same from them about my job. BUT, when the LEO first pulled the suspect over, the suspect IMMEDIATELY opened his door, that is an indication right there, that there was a problem.

Actually it's not. If I'm remembering correctly, this incident took place in Georgia. I, myself, am from Alabama, and growing up, I remember it was considered a courtesy to meet the officer half way (at the bumper of their vehicle) after being pulled over. This was very common among older people.
Even today, in Indiana, from time to time, I'm come in contact of people from a certain generation that still do this, and have no malice.
It's one of those tricky situations where you have to make the snap judgement of whether to "draw down" on the guy, or take the chance that they mean you no harm.

Oh, after situations where people step out of the car on me. I joke with them and tell 'em that I appreciate the gesture, but FDR ain't president anymore and people aren't always as nice as that particular person is.

 

[Armed Citizen]

Really is pretty standard to ask for consent to search for no reason.

In this situation, you as a LEO, and as me as a civilian, you ask to search my vehicle, basic traffic stop, I tell you "NO". What's you next statement to me? Would you say, OK thought I would ask? Or just checking? I never really understood the point of this question, if I had anything illegal on my person or in my vehicle, why would I grant permission to a search?

Or since I refused, detain me longer, call in the drug sniffing dogs, call in for back-up, or just issue my citation and send me on my way.

 

[ATM]

After the officer asks about having any other (non-illegal) weapons in the car, as a LTCH holder do you have to then (after he asks) inform him you are carrying? or can you simply state "I am not required to inform you of any legally possessed weapons in this state?"

You don't even have to make that statement. The right to remain silent is often the best right to exercise.

I'm not saying it's easy to say nothing. For some, it would take enormous effort and every ounce of their energy to maintain the kind of discipline required to just... not... answer.

Actually, I doubt I could do it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In this situation, you as a LEO, and as me as a civilian, you ask to search my vehicle, basic traffic stop, I tell you "NO". What's you next statement to me? Would you say, OK thought I would ask? Or just checking? I never really understood the point of this question, if I had anything illegal on my person or in my vehicle, why would I grant permission to a search?

My next statement, would be "ok, be safe."
For you, being what I'm assuming a law-abiding citizen, I can understand why this would be confusing to you. However, there are plenty pf people who knowingly have illegal things in their vehicles, that allow a consent search. I often ask that question myself, as to why they allow us to search.

Or since I refused, detain me longer, call in the drug sniffing dogs, call in for back-up, or just issue my citation and send me on my way.

I cannot detain you any long than what it takes for a normal traffic stop. Asking for consent, must conclude after the business of the traffic stop concluded. If you re-read the OP's narrative, the officer did exactly that... he addressed the traffic stop, and then asked for consent.

If I were to ask for consent, and you say no, contact terminates. If I detained you longer to have a K9 come to scene or call for back up, I would be exceeding the scope (and violating your rights). One cannot use threat of a citation of coerce, that decision is to be made before consent is asked for.

 

[Keyser Soze]

My next statement, would be "ok, be safe."
For you, being what I'm assuming a law-abiding citizen, I can understand why this would be confusing to you. However, there are plenty pf people who knowingly have illegal things in their vehicles, that allow a consent search. I often ask that question myself, as to why they allow us to search.



I cannot detain you any long than what it takes for a normal traffic stop. Asking for consent, must conclude after the business of the traffic stop concluded. If you re-read the OP's narrative, the officer did exactly that... he addressed the traffic stop, and then asked for consent.

If I were to ask for consent, and you say no, contact terminates. If I detained you longer to have a K9 come to scene or call for back up, I would be exceeding the scope (and violating your rights). One cannot use threat of a citation of coerce, that decision is to be made before consent is asked for.

As far as Pirtle goes a person is considered to be in custody when in handcuffs. You can ask for consent to search without reading the pirtle warning before the traffic stop is concluded. Then if denied you can use a K-9, case law gives you around 20 minutes. When asking at the end of the stop and you get denied thats it...totally over.

If pirtle warning applies to a traffic stop then so does search incident to arrest.

 

[Hotdoger]

If I were to ask for consent, and you say no, contact terminates. If I detained you longer to have a K9 come to scene or call for back up, I would be exceeding the scope (and violating your rights). One cannot use threat of a citation of coerce, that decision is to be made before consent is asked for.

There is no reason to ask except fishing . Many citizens see this as police harassment. Especially for all the people that have had their belonings thrown on the side of the road and the officer drove off after finding nothing, it directly effects their and others thoughs on any interactions with an LEO. It has created an adversarial relationship even among the lawabiding.
As I have grown older I now see LEOs as just government agents who are not really here to help me and my familly.

 

[Lucas156]

Lots of good points in this thread.

My question to any LEOs as far as fishing expeditions-Are you required to ask for consent to search every couple stops or so? Would you get in trouble by your superiors if you never asked or tried to search unless you had PC?

 

[Kutnupe14]

There is no reason to ask except fishing . Many citizens see this as police harassment. Especially for all the people that have had their belonings thrown on the side of the road and the officer drove off after finding nothing, it directly effects their and others thoughs on any interactions with an LEO. It has created an adversarial relationship even among the lawabiding.
As I have grown older I now see LEOs as just government agents who are not really here to help me and my familly.

For the ump-teenth time, you have the option to say "no." If PC existed, trust, that I wouldn't be asking for permission.
I'm sorry that in as you grow older, you only see LE as agents of the govt. But lets be fair, the majority of the time people come into contact with law enforcement, it isnt for a good reason. That in itself helps create the image, as when LE shows up, typically some is in trouble.
I would suggest that anybody interested in the day to day workings of law enforcement (other than testaments here or from the media) take a ride-a-long. It's not all speed traps, consent searches, and let's see who I can **** off....

I'm game if anybody else is.

 

[indyjoe]

Again you do not need probably cause, reasonable suspicion....YOU NEED NOTHING TO ASK FOR CONSENT TO SEARCH.

For me, watching Cops is a guilty pleasure. While many times, I'm sure the Police have PC to search ANYWAY. I am floored by how often the people on there are fine with consenting to search. Perhaps they believe that them saying "Sure, go ahead" will make the officer decided not to and they won't find the illegally carried pistol, crack, Mary Jane, or whatever else they have in the car. It continues to amaze me.

 

[PaulJF]

You live in central Indiana sign a waiver and do a 12 hour ride along.

Oh for Heavens sake, I don't have to spend a day in the House or Senate to know what I expect them to do. I don't have to sit in court to know how I want a judge to interpret law. I also don't have to visit a car factory to know the quality I expect in a new car.
We know what your job is and we know how we want you to police our communities. Stop acting like we are to dumb too understand, you sound much too much like an elected official.