First Traffic Stop With a Gun on my Hip!

ManInBlack said:

Thanks for your well-reasoned, valuable contribution to the discussion. Run along now; the adults are talking about serious business here.

Click to expand...

You have one very loose definition of adult if you include yourself. Go back to trolling the Idaho forums.

Deserteagle8338 said:

You have one very loose definition of adult if you include yourself. Go back to trolling the Idaho forums.

Click to expand...

Guess what, numbnuts? Even in Colorado, ordinary citizens aren't required to identify themselves to police. A Colorado resident need only identify if he is already suspected (based on preexisting circumstances) of a crime (16-3-103).

16-3-103. Stopping of suspect. (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

Click to expand...

You'd know this if you had been a poster for longer than 5 months, but some of us actually deal in rights enumerated in the Constitution and the statutes on the books. If you want to fantasize about some non-existent police state where law enforcement can demand ID at will in the name of "catching criminals," feel free to do so elsewhere.

Deserteagle8338 said:

I for one fully support and am glad that cops demand ID from people. Its how we actually find and catch criminals. Get over it.

Click to expand...

I would ask him which other rights he wanted to surrender, but I think I already know the response.

Last I checked, this is a free country, and we don't have to carry papers, unless required for driving, or things REQUIRING it. SO, M-T had to show L&R, but in CO, not his permit. FACT!!

ManInBlack said:

Guess what, numbnuts? Even in Colorado, ordinary citizens aren't required to identify themselves to police. A Colorado resident need only identify if he is already suspected (based on preexisting circumstances) of a crime (16-3-103).




You'd know this if you had been a poster for longer than 5 months, but some of us actually deal in rights enumerated in the Constitution and the statutes on the books. If you want to fantasize about some non-existent police state where law enforcement can demand ID at will in the name of "catching criminals," feel free to do so elsewhere.

Click to expand...

What the hell are you even trying to argue? Guess what numbnuts, he was pulled over for a crime and he had to produce a driver license, legally. Oh no God forbid!


Please show me where he was not required to produce an ID after being stopped by the cop for a violation. I'd love to see that. Otherwise, you have no point, you are just agreeing with me in that the cop had every right to demand his ID.

I said I support the police demanding his ID, which they legally did. Then here comes numbnuts a-hole from Idaho trolling on my post, and then the numbnuts proves that what I support is legal in Colorado law..

But, DesertEagle, he's still inarguably right that water is wet. So, therefore you're a poopy head!

mahkagari said:

But, DesertEagle, he's still inarguably right that water is wet. So, therefore you're a poopy head!

Click to expand...

I was gonna say something back to this but I wont stoop to your level and the other troll's level.

Im done talking to you two.

Thanks for sharing this encounter with us. I think you set a pretty good example for all of us to follow.

Respect and courtesy breeds the same.

Deserteagle8338 said:

I was gonna say something back to this but I wont stoop to your level and the other troll's level.

Click to expand...

Dammit, doggone sarcasm font won't embed....*mouseclick* *mouseclick* *mouseclick*

ManInBlack said:

Go take your naked statism elsewhere, jackboot.

Click to expand...

Howdy MIB!
While your remark wasn't made to me, I'd appreciate treating everybody with civility. The above was unnecessary and insulting.
Please post respectfully. You don't need to agree with anybody else's opinion, but don't need to be rude or insulting either.

I thank you for your cooperation.

M-Taliesin

MilProGuy said:

Thanks for sharing this encounter with us. I think you set a pretty good example for all of us to follow.

Respect and courtesy breeds the same.

Click to expand...

Howdy MilProGuy!
Thank you! Thank you very much for stating what ought to be obvious. Respect and courtesy does indeed return in kind.
I very much appreciate that you pointed that out.

The flap currently underway is unnecessary and unproductive. I'd ask that everybody abandon name-calling, flaming and hurling insults back and forth across the board. We don't need to agree with what others say or how they express themselves; but to demean another poster or belittle them is not at all helpful.

I'm going to ask everybody to maintain some degree of decorum on this board. Respect others, as they have the same right to their opinion as anybody else. If a member cannot post respectfully (as in... within the rules of the forum) just don't post at all.

Fact is that anyone stopped by a police officer here in Colorado is REQUIRED to produce I.D., Insurance and Registration. That's the bottom line, end of story! It ain't optional, it is the law. CRS 42-2-115, et al.

That I voluntarily advised the officer that I was carrying was a courtesy on my part. Nothing nefarious about it.

Now please, gentlemen... let us enjoy our forum without disrespect or discourtesy to any other member.

Thank you in advance,
M-Taliesin

Deserteagle8338 said:

I was gonna say something back to this but...

Click to expand...

Howdy Pard!
Whoa.... hold up there pardner! I think you missed that he was being (or trying to be) humorous there. He wasn't taking a shot at you, but using levity to try helping simmer things down a bit. I understood it and that he was jesting with you (as opposed to a shot against you!) Unfortunately, that doesn't always translate well into a medium such as type on a forum.

Meanwhile, the thread has been hijacked and has changed from what happened on a traffic stop and opinions to how the whole thing went down to one of complying with lawful request to produce required documentation at a traffic stop versus how the government is imposing jackbooted control over our freedoms by asking to see a license and registration for pete's sake.

I sent you a PM with some ideas we might try here in Colorado. I'd be interested in what you think?

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

I'm at a loss as to how you could not see that one of your headlights were not functioning. Even in a well lit area your the light from your headlights should be visible on the road surface in front of you.

Divulging the fact that you are armed when not apparently legally required to do so is a personal choice, no problem there.

But, to state that respect and courtesy arise when you divulge the aforementioned information, when not legally required to do so, is to also imply that by not divulging you are not being respectful or courteous. This is where you and I depart on this matter. Respect and courtesy come by means of demeanor and word, the type of information imparted does not qualify a respectful or courteous encounter.

Reminds me of when I got a speeding ticket (only one I've ever gotten -- completely missed the sign -- my fault). As I was sitting with the officer in his Colorado State Police car, he asked me about what my license plate meant, which is a rather esoteric caliber. I replied "It's the handgun caliber I shoot in competition." As which point his eyes got really wide, he leaned a bit away from me and asked "Are you armed now?" I thought: "What a stupid question! Here you are writing me a ticket that's going to cost me over $100, I'm sitting beside you, two feet away and NOW you're suddenly worried about me being a threat?". I answered truthfully "No" since I was on my way to work, which prohibits firearms anywhere on their property in order to maximize the body count of a mass shooting.

I do wish I had been armed, just for his learning experience.

O2

Deserteagle8338 said:

What the hell are you even trying to argue? Guess what numbnuts, he was pulled over for a crime and he had to produce a driver license, legally. Oh no God forbid!


Please show me where he was not required to produce an ID after being stopped by the cop for a violation. I'd love to see that. Otherwise, you have no point, you are just agreeing with me in that the cop had every right to demand his ID.

I said I support the police demanding his ID, which they legally did. Then here comes numbnuts a-hole from Idaho trolling on my post, and then the numbnuts proves that what I support is legal in Colorado law..

Click to expand...

Just to clarify: he was pulled over for a "violation," not a crime. There is a huge difference.

Gunslinger said:

Just to clarify: he was pulled over for a "violation," not a crime. There is a huge difference.

Click to expand...

The difference, if such exists, is a red herring when it comes to producing a driver's license in this case. He was operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway. He has to produce his license and registration if requested.

O2

Gunslinger said:

Just to clarify: he was pulled over for a "violation," not a crime. There is a huge difference.

Click to expand...

He changed it from 'crime' (first statement) to 'violation' (second statement).

Though, wouldn't that be termed a infraction? I don't know, we call them infractions here in Missouri. Incidentally, you can be arrested for a infraction in Missouri.

Any sheriff, blah blah blah....may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, or has violated any ordinance over which such officer has jurisdiction.
RSMo 544.216

Click to expand...

Kinda sucks, but you 'could' be arrested for not mowing your lawn. Wasn't there some dude who got arrested for not replacing the siding on his own home?

OC for ME said:

He changed it from 'crime' (first statement) to 'violation' (second statement).

Though, wouldn't that be termed a infraction? I don't know, we call them infractions here in Missouri. Incidentally, you can be arrested for a infraction in Missouri.

Kinda sucks, but you 'could' be arrested for not mowing your lawn. Wasn't there some dude who got arrested for not replacing the siding on his own home?

Click to expand...

Sounds like exactly the kind of world some of the posters in this thread would prefer to live in: citizens going to jail for made-up "crimes" that are only illegal because 50%+1 of a-holes in a room raised their hands to make it so. When the state's brave paladins of justice enforce these made-up "crimes," we the citizens must be oh-so-deferential to them, doing everything we can to make them comfortable, including willingly disarming ourselves. Because, you know, they have such a hard and difficult job that we mere peasants couldn't begin to understand, and all that...

If, in fact, your headlight was out the cop--unfortunately--per the vehicle code has PC to stop you; as part of that process, since you are driving the vehicle, you have to present your DL, reg, and proof of insurance.

I think both of you--you and the cop--handled the whole situation very well. There are some cops I have seen on you tube and read about who I wouldn't lift a finger to help out if I were passing by OCing and saw them in a dicey situation. The cop who pulled you over might be one of the exceptions.

OC for ME said:

I'm at a loss as to how you could not see that one of your headlights were not functioning. Even in a well lit area your the light from your headlights should be visible on the road surface in front of you.

Click to expand...

Yeah! So, M-T, you're the poopy head!