Arizona tells armed drivers how to avoid deadly police stops

[IndyDave1776]

No such thing as rapture day ��

I am going to grin and say it was a cute analogy, doctrine notwithstanding.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Gee, I thought this was "common sense" .....

AND, when the Officer tells you, to do something, DO IT !!!!!

What is common sense about automatically informing?

I'm ok with it, except for where they can disarm a person without a reason to. Illegal seizure for "officer safety" doesn't make it any less illegal.

I can agree, unfortunately I can't think of any state where it is prohibited by law or case law. Generally speaking that is. IN does have some slight protection, can't remember the case name off hand though. The officer searched the car for the firearm for "officer safety" while the driver was out of the vehicle in handcuffs. The IN SC ruled no go, no valid reason for officer safety concerns in that instance.

That is WAY different from Indiana law.

I don't believe this is actual AZ law, just "advice".

I still have problems with the general advice that you should inform the officer that there is a weapon in the car.
Why?
Telling them that only makes the traffic stop longer and more complicated.
It has nothing to do with your speeding or running a light on red, or your tail light being out.
It's like throwing a whole, unneccessary level of complexity into the interaction.
Now we have to deal with the firearms issue instead of the law that you apparently broke.

For example, when I buy something at my local convience store, I do not feel any need to inform them that I am carrying a gun. I just buy my polar pop and I am on my way.
But when police are involved, it becomes everybodies business.
A lot of people carry handguns, it has nothing to do with the police, it's a personal choice.
Get over it.
I think a case can easily be made that it is LESS safe for a driver to inform an officer that there is a weapon in the car.

If there are any police here that can help me to understand, please jump in.
I love you guys, I really do.
It just seems a little hopolophobic to expect people with guns to announce it.

Agreed completely.

I don't and won't inform.

I don't generally inform, but there are times I may. Such as if I have to reach into an area where a pistol might be, or if asked to get out of the car and it will be visible when I do.

I totally agree. They added a requirement that did not need to be there. They are just accommodating legislators who have a "regulatory" personality and feel the need for police to be in control of all information about a situation, whether it helps or not. Philando Castile informed, and not only did it not suffice to keep him alive, the case could very well be made that it substantially contributed to his death.

As I stated above, I don't believe this is AZ law or any sort of requirement. At least in regards to volunteering you are carrying. Now if asked under AZ law you may have to give an honest answer.

 

[ATM]

...Now if asked under AZ law you may have to give an honest answer.

*The right to remain silent chuckles silently to itself at this notion.

 

[Bobby]

Arizona tells armed drivers how to avoid deadly police stops - NBC-2.com WBBH News for Fort Myers, Cape Coral & Naples, Florida

Posted: Jul 22, 2017 2:10 PM EDT
Updated: Jul 22, 2017 2:12 PM EDT

...PHOENIX (AP) - Gun-friendly Arizona is trying to avoid deadly encounters between police and people behind the wheel by teaching armed drivers how they should handle themselves when they are pulled over.

Arizona, which allows residents to carry weapons without permits, recently changed its rule book for the road in a bid to avoid confrontations such as the one that killed Philando Castile. The Minnesota man, who had a gun permit, was fatally shot during a 2016 traffic stop after telling an officer he was armed...



..."The goal was to create a set of standards," Bolding said.
The new edition of the driver's manual, published about a month ago, advises drivers with guns to keep their hands on the steering wheel during traffic stops and tell officers right away that there's a firearm in the car.

It also tells drivers not to reach for anything inside the vehicle without getting permission first. And officers can take possession of guns, for safety reasons, until the stop is completed. The firearms would be returned if no crime has been committed....

Wait, so Castile was shot after telling the officer he was legally armed yet Arizona expects their citizens to do the same thing? What can go wrong?


If I am ever stopped by a law enforcement officer, I don't plan to reveal right off the bat that I have a LTCH. It is not required by Indiana law and I would rather not open up the possibility of the officer disarming me for his "safety." The less my weapon is handled the safer it is for the both of us. Now, if he or she asks about any weapons that I might be carrying, then I will answer the question truthfully. Until then, I really don't see where it is any of their business. For example, what does the fact that I am legally armed have to do with getting a speeding ticket? I should point out that I have never been in a traffic stop so I don't know these things go. Informing the officer of my weapon when the traffic stop has nothing to do with it doesn't make sense in my mind.

 

[ATM]

...Now, if he or she asks about any weapons that I might be carrying, then I will answer the question truthfully. Until then, I really don't see where it is any of their business...

Even then, it's only their business if and when you decide it's their business.

Questions need not be answered.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

*The right to remain silent chuckles silently to itself at this notion.

You would think. But unfortunately I'm going to guess the courts would find against you if charged, unless of course you were carrying illegally. That is one thing that cracks me up about firearm registries and such. Only those who can legally own them can be required to register them, if you are a prohibited person they can't charge you for not doing so.

 

[ATM]

You would think. But unfortunately I'm going to guess the courts would find against you if charged, unless of course you were carrying illegally. That is one thing that cracks me up about firearm registries and such. Only those who can legally own them can be required to register them, if you are a prohibited person they can't charge you for not doing so.

The right to not self-incriminate is derived from the fundamental right to remain silent according to one's individual will.

Man's laws are mostly folly and it is proper to chuckle at nearly all of them.

 

[jamil]

I wonder if the millions of people killed by marxism chuckled at the folly of man's laws just before they were shot?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The right to not self-incriminate is derived from the fundamental right to remain silent according to one's individual will.

Man's laws are mostly folly and it is proper to chuckle at nearly all of them.

I agree with your first sentence completely. Second sentence not so much. While it may be proper to chuckle at nearly all of them, the consequences of not following them may be nothing to chuckle at.

 

[JettaKnight]

Good as place as any for this.

Nashville's Police Department Makes Diversifying A Priority : NPR

Bring in some youth, let THEM be the cops doing mock traffic stops... and watch them shoot everyone.

 

[ATM]

I wonder if the millions of people killed by marxism chuckled at the folly of man's laws just before they were shot?

I agree with your first sentence completely. Second sentence not so much. While it may be proper to chuckle at nearly all of them, the consequences of not following them may be nothing to chuckle at.

Chuckle or cry, follow or be crushed, folly is folly.

 

[Bobby]

Even then, it's only their business if and when you decide it's their business.

Questions need not be answered.

So what do you do if you are carrying a weapon and a police officer asks if you are armed? I completely agree with your statement but how do you do it without getting in trouble legally? "None of your business" probably won't go over so well in response to the weapons question. I was also under the impression that while I don't have a duty to inform, lying to an officer because you want to stand on your rights could get you in legal trouble down the road if found out.

 

[Rookie]

Why are you required to answer any questions?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So what do you do if you are carrying a weapon and a police officer asks if you are armed? I completely agree with your statement but how do you do it without getting in trouble legally? "None of your business" probably won't go over so well in response to the weapons question. I was also under the impression that while I don't have a duty to inform, lying to an officer because you want to stand on your rights could get you in legal trouble down the road if found out.

While "none of your business" may not go over so well, it's still a valid legal response. So is "I have nothing illegal". Or even saying nothing, just smile and blow kisses.

Depends, lying to an officer in the course of an official criminal investigation is against the law. Traffic violations are civil in matter. There is some disagreement whether answering no when asked would be illegal. Here is the IC that covers it.

IC 35-44.1-2-3
False reporting; false informing
(d) A person who:
(1) gives a false report of the commission of a crime or gives
false information in the official investigation of the commission
of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;

Why are you required to answer any questions?

Because of the govt ignoring the Constitution.

 

[ATM]

So what do you do if you are carrying a weapon and a police officer asks if you are armed? I completely agree with your statement but how do you do it without getting in trouble legally? "None of your business" probably won't go over so well in response to the weapons question. I was also under the impression that while I don't have a duty to inform, lying to an officer because you want to stand on your rights could get you in legal trouble down the road if found out.

Asked if I had any weapons or drugs in my vehicle, I have replied that it was not pertinent to the traffic stop.

When the question was reposed, I told the officer I was not going to answer his question.

He took it quite well, completed his business, checked my info and released me to continue on my way with a warning to replace a bulb on my vehicle.

There is nothing impolite in declining to answer a question, nor does it approach lying to leave the questioner less than satisfied.

If standing on my rights lands me in legal trouble, why would we even refer to them as rights?

 

[Trigger Time]

That puts you in violation of the state statute in Ohio. And other duty to inform states, I suspect.

I never said I drive to Ohio

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So what do you do if you are carrying a weapon and a police officer asks if you are armed? I completely agree with your statement but how do you do it without getting in trouble legally?

You don't have to say anything.

►Relax, it's only an infraction/ordinance violation
►Don't be a jerk
►Don't do the digging squirrel but present your DL and registration
►Don't say anything, don't play 20 questions or other cop games, if you must something say "am I free to go?"
►Relax and remember Pinner.

 

[Bobby]

You don't have to say anything.

►Relax, it's only an infraction/ordinance violation
►Don't be a jerk
►Don't do the digging squirrel but present your DL and registration
►Don't say anything, don't play 20 questions or other cop games, if you must something say "am I free to go?"
►Relax and remember Pinner.

Thanks! ATM also answered my question as to how "it" could be handled. I'm probably overthinking things WAY too much. However, who knew you could get killed standing next to a police car in your pajamas? In the back of my mind as I was typing my question, I was wondering if my refusal to answer if I was armed could ever be turned around on me as a "interfering with a police officer in the carrying out of his duties" bit. I'm not going to quote the exact part of the Indiana Code here but I did look it up this morning.

 

[JettaKnight]

►Relax and remember Pinner.

What does that mean? Seriously. I saw that word for the first time when I bought a six'er of Pinner from Oskar Blues (I think).

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I was wondering if my refusal to answer if I was armed could ever be turned around on me as a "interfering with a police officer in the carrying out of his duties" bit. I'm not going to quote the exact part of the Indiana Code here but I did look it up this morning.

Is this the section of code you are referring to?

IC 35-44.1-3-1
Resisting law enforcement
Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law
enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the
officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's
duties;

If so notice it states "forcibly", simply refusing to answer is not force. Heck iirc going limp and making them bodily carry/drag you to their car when your arrested doesn't equal using force to resist. So in a word, no.

What does that mean? Seriously. I saw that word for the first time when I bought a six'er of Pinner from Oskar Blues (I think).

Basically the police can not stop/detain you just for carrying a firearm.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05091701RR.pdf