Cop search

[Glock17 Man]

Are you gonna tell wifey to slow down also? That should help make the issue moot. You're treating the symptoms and not the root cause of the problem.

Did that today one thing at a time

 

[serpicostraight]

Are you gonna tell wifey to slow down also? That should help make the issue moot. You're treating the symptoms and not the root cause of the problem.

driving too fast, wreckless, dangerous etc is not good. but what does that have to do with taking someones property? using that logic if you have a flat tire you deserve to be proned out.

 

[Hornett]

You guys, gee whiz. If you don't want to have your pistol taken, waved around, pointed at traffic or back at you, stop telling cops you are carrying guns. Geez.

"The cop took my gun, waved it all over Creation and then pointed it at me!"

"Well, how did the cop know you had a gun?"

"I gave him my LTCH with my driver's license like they said to in the Tommy Tactical SuperMallNinja Advanced Class in Texas."

"Ummm, you ain't in Texas and don't be telling cops you have guns. Tell them nothing. Shut yer big bacon-stained yap. Don't tell him where you are going. Don't tell him where you've been. Don't ask him how he is. You shut up, unless it is time to say 'Am I free to leave?'"

"I want him to know that I'm a good guy."

"You don't want the cop to know anything about you. But if you tell the cop you've got a gun, all he knows is you have a gun, he will take it and will wave it all about the Earf."

Shut up. Don't tell cops you carry guns. If you must do anything, then blow kisses at them. In summary, shut up or don't complain about having the guns waved around on the side of the road.

ROFL
I tried to rep you Kirk but I have to 'spread some around' first.

You did forget to mention not carrying coffee.
That seems to set the officers off.

 

[88GT]

Why are we giving kudos to someone who admits its an unlawful act? Particularly when it's a moot point for the individual who's been stopped. LE doesn't like to have its authority questioned.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why are we giving kudos to someone who admits its an unlawful act? Particularly when it's a moot point for the individual who's been stopped. LE doesn't like to have its authority questioned.

Because said person recognizes such and doesn't subscribe to it. Believe it or not deary, not all "JBTs" are out to stomp on your rights, shoot you dog, and indoctrinate your children. Apparently I have informed a few. Some officers look to the law in what they "can" do... others look to it to tell them what they "can't." If of all the LE in the world, you have issue with this particular officer, then you will always perpetuate the "us vs them" mentality.

 

[Bond 281]

Why are we giving kudos to someone who admits its an unlawful act? Particularly when it's a moot point for the individual who's been stopped. LE doesn't like to have its authority questioned.

Is it unlawful if you submit to being disarmed? I know there are other instances where the LE can ask you for I.D. or to do something, but you don't have to. If you then give it to him you can't cry that he violated your rights, because you gave them up willingly. Does the same apply for disarming people, or is it always considered unlawful if he can't articulate the reason, regardless of whether or not you consent to it?

 

[Rookie]

I believe it's unlawful if you do not consent.

 

[Palarran]

Do you mean it is unlawful to refuse consent to being disarmed, or unlawful for the LEO to disarm the individual if they refuse consent?

 

[Rookie]

Unlawful for police to deprive me of any constitutional right. There are circumstances where they can lawfully, but officer safety is a card that is played way too often. Instead of them being forced to articulate their reasoning, they can hide behind "officer safety".

 

[ATM]

You'll have my consent when you pry it from my cold dead

...place where consent comes from.

No, that's not it.

When unlawful acts are outlawed only outlaws will

...have


...



dang.


Just say no.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm thinking if I'm stopped for some traffic infraction, I will offer my license and registration when asked. I will be polite and civil, but I will not be making my LTCH visible, nor will I volunteer the fact that I'm armed until such time as it appears I'm about to be patted down for something (unlikely on a simple traffic stop, barring other circumstances I'm not likely to present)

If, despite this, I'm still asked to exit the car and the officer asks for or moves to take my pistol, my comment will likely be along the lines of, "Officer, I will not resist, but I do not consent to being disarmed." Will it do any good? No, probably not, but I'm getting it said along with a refusal to consent to being searched. Again, I will not be offering physical resistance, but I will be voicing my objection.

Why? There is simply no way to "win" on the side of the road. The LEO is in control there and is the final authority while you're standing there. Later on, when I file a complaint and can use such precedent as Washington v. Indiana, perhaps the IN Supreme Court will rule similarly on my case and it, too, will set precedent. Or maybe, just maybe, my refusal to consent will remind the officer that his first responsibility is to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Indiana, and that to disarm someone without consent flies in the face of that responsibility. I can't fight LEOs... I'm one guy and my real name isn't Clark Kent... but I just might be able to reason with another human being with civility and uphold not only the law but more importantly, individual rights. Kutnupe is one of those LEOs who does not need that reminder.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JetGirl]

what if your passengers are armed, should they be disarmed as well? Well, you certainly can't detain them (they can open the door and walk away)

Somehow, I'm thinkin' if you get pulled over for ANY reason...and your passenger opens the door to exit and walk away... they're not gonna get too far.

 

[schafe]

If you must do anything, then blow kisses at them.

So Kirk....Are we speaking from experience here?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Blow kisses=teaching device. It's silly so they will remember it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Thanks everyone I think I'll call tomorrow and infom the police department of the officers actions and of the Indiana case law WASHINGTON, vs. STATE OF INDIANA No. 49A02-0907-CR-649 and hope that it doesn't happen again. I told my wife not to show her LTCH unless they ask, but they always ask. It either shows up when they run the plate or it's the ingo sticker.

I am not a fan of stickers on vehicles that tell everyone you may or may not have firearms in your vehicle.

 

[88GT]

Because said person recognizes such and doesn't subscribe to it. Believe it or not deary, not all "JBTs" are out to stomp on your rights, shoot you dog, and indoctrinate your children. Apparently I have informed a few. Some officers look to the law in what they "can" do... others look to it to tell them what they "can't." If of all the LE in the world, you have issue with this particular officer, then you will always perpetuate the "us vs them" mentality.

Says the man who never has to decide between the risks of complying with the unlawful order to disarm or the risks of not complying. And you wonder why such a mentality exists.

I'm extremely glad you know the law and abide by it. But I'm not gonna start handing out cookies because you're doing your job correctly. You're expected to do your job correctly. It shouldn't be something we have to discuss as a good thing because there shouldn't be enough LEO who do otherwise to put your actions in such sharp contrast.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Says the man who never has to decide between the risks of complying with the unlawful order to disarm or the risks of not complying. And you wonder why such a mentality exists.

I'm extremely glad you know the law and abide by it. But I'm not gonna start handing out cookies because you're doing your job correctly. You're expected to do your job correctly. It shouldn't be something we have to discuss as a good thing because there shouldn't be enough LEO who do otherwise to put your actions in such sharp contrast.

Gotta differ with you here, 88GT. You're correct that there SHOULDN'T be enough LEOs who do otherwise... But the fact is that there are enough (by which I mean that there is at least one)....and in my mind, that's reason enough to praise the ones who do it right at the same time I criticize those who do not.

If all someone does is criticize, people grow to expect that and paint a mental picture of someone who is never satisfied. Alternatively, if that person also praises when someone does the right thing, how much more does that praise mean?

Food for thought.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

It either shows up when they run the plate or it's the ingo sticker.[/SIZE]

IT DOES NOT SHOW UP WHEN WE RUN YOUR PLATE!

 

[Rookie]

IT DOES NOT SHOW UP WHEN WE RUN YOUR PLATE!

Does so. Says so right here on the internet.

 

[FFM173]

Showing up when they run your plate is "hit and miss". I had a LEO friend of mine run my name and plate and it did not show up. This was back when I had my four year LTCH. But others with my same name did show up when he ran them, and thier plates. He state that he believes that the state started merging them to your plates is when you applied for the Lifetime LTCH.