The cop took my gun...

Blk97F150 · May 11, 2012

Tanner said:
If your doing 20+ mph over the limit and a cop (after pulling you over) sees a gun in the seat. I think key word THINK that the cop acted within reason by wanting the gun out of reach. If I was the cop all the info I would have to go off of is this guy is way over the speed limit and has a gun in is passenger seat. Who is he about to go shoot.

Do you limit that to just a gun on the seat.... or does that apply to a gun anywhere on his person??

What about a gun the officer can't see, but 'presumes' the driver might have (based on him seeing the person has a CHP)?? Out of sight, out of mind... or does out of sight fall "within reason by wanting the gun out of reach"??

Tanner · May 11, 2012

I would limit it to just that he had the gun on the seat. If it had been on his hip I probably wouldent have even noticed it and even if I did If the weapon is protected by OC legal OC outside the car is the same as inside.

ManInBlack · May 11, 2012

Tanner said:
I would limit it to just that he had the gun on the seat. If it had been on his hip I probably wouldent have even noticed it and even if I did If the weapon is protected by OC legal OC outside the car is the same as inside.

Same as on the seat.

Think harder, try harder.

Tanner · May 11, 2012

explain how a gun on the seat is the same as a gun on the hip. This is purely opinion now no legal jargon need be applied.

Blk97F150 · May 11, 2012

Tanner said:
I would limit it to just that he had the gun on the seat. If it had been on his hip I probably wouldent have even noticed it and even if I did If the weapon is protected by OC legal OC outside the car is the same as inside.

I don't think I'm following you correctly. Are you saying that you would view a gun on the seat as more of a threat to an officer then the same gun in a holster on the hip? And because you saw it on the seat... you would take it 'for officer safety'.... but if you saw it on the hip, you wouldn't?? HUH?

Tanner · May 11, 2012

yea it would be a very sublte movement to pick the weapon up. if it is secured to the hip or in a glove box the movement would be much more obvious. Is this not sound logic? and i dont think I said I would take the weapon but rather make it harder to reach.

ManInBlack · May 11, 2012

Tanner said:
yea it would be a very sublte movement to pick the weapon up. if it is secured to the hip or in a glove box the movement would be much more obvious. Is this not sound logic? and i dont think I said I would take the weapon but rather make it harder to reach.

lolllll trolllllll

Tanner · May 11, 2012

MIB what does trolll mean? Clearly it is some kind of insult used by the same intellectually impared mind that came up with "lolll"

twoskinsonemanns · May 11, 2012

I think it's funny that you keep letting Tanner troll you guys.

Anyway there is a definite deference between being detained and arrested. If your simply detained the LEO does not have the right to search you or your vehicle without your permission.

I think I have been quite hard on this guy for trying to do anything he could not to get a ticket when he was caught going 20 over. Many people would do the same. Perhaps only a very few would choose to maybe make the scary cop angry by cleaving to their rights. I've never been in that specific position before...

Tanner · May 11, 2012

wow twoskin welcome to the debate. I think its funny how you say im trolling (whatever that means) them when I was the one to originally argue the difference between being arrested or detained. So while I would have originally agreed with you in the eye of the law they seem to be defined as one in the same. the example some one gave is if you simply being detained try to leave and see what happens. ( Im paraphrasing that) so who is doing the "trolling" me or them.......or you

mk4 · May 11, 2012

@Tanner...

There's a forum rule to cite to authority when possible. Normally Wikipedia would fail the "authority" test, but it'll do for now. I'm not saying you're a troll, but you asked what it meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Tanner · May 11, 2012

HA! Thats funny. Wikipedia would be sufficent in this case. Thanks for the info. and now that i know what it means im completely uninsulted and unimpressed. But I think I was dead on in comparing the "LOL" "troll" thing. I think I have stayed close to the topic in that it all pertained to the original post in some way or another. Besides its called a conversation. Subjects change from the original topic. Other than the last few post I have been relating to the topic. so yea. what does any one els think about what this cop did.

mk4 · May 11, 2012

Tanner said:
so yea. what does any one els think about what this cop did.

there are 6 pages of conversation on this specific topic. Have a read.

I, for one, don't think the LEO should have touched/taken the firearm without real RAS, but there will be no proving that. I already stated that I thought the firearm on the seat was a bad idea since it could become a projectile in a sudden stop or accident. As for the OP going 55+ in a 35... not smart.

Tanner · May 11, 2012

I have been through the thread. Just opening it back up for other people who may not have already posted something

peter nap · May 11, 2012

mk4 said:
@Tanner...

There's a forum rule to cite to authority when possible. Normally Wikipedia would fail the "authority" test, but it'll do for now. I'm not saying you're a troll, but you asked what it meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I was on the fence MK...but

mk4 · May 11, 2012

Tanner said:
I have been through the thread. Just opening it back up for other people who may not have already posted something

Don't think there's much to add. Think it's pretty much

Tanner · May 11, 2012

agreed. why beat a dead horse when you can shoot a dieing one. like in true grit.

KBCraig · May 11, 2012

skidmark said:
Strange how folks start off thinking there is a difference between being arrested and being detained. In either case one is not free to go until/unless the LEO says one may now leave. SCOTUS says that's all they need to consider you arrested.

The operative word in the 4th is seized, and that's what the courts use as well.

Sheriff · May 11, 2012

Tanner said:
To Sheriff. Here is what I know to be true. Speeding at 20+ mph in Virginia is a major traffic violation and worth a 6 point penalty on your license. This is the same as a DUI and can key word "can" result in similar corrective acction such as impounding your car.....

I know of no Virginia law that allows cops to impound a car for a 20+ speeding infraction.

Motofixxer · May 12, 2012

Sheriff said:
I know of no Virginia law that allows cops to impound a car for a 20+ speeding infraction.

The absence of a law statute or penal code never stopped many officers from some of their actions. I can personally attest to situations where there was no law, written department policy against, and radio conversation stating they had no reason\authority and they still committed their illegal actions. Bottom line is they will continue to do as they please until they are held accountable for their actions.

The cop took my gun...

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member