Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Let Me Entertain You...

  1. #1
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393

    Let Me Entertain You...

    Let Me Entertain You…


    Okay, so TigerLily (TL) is on her motorcycle this past weekend and she is open carrying her Springfield XD .45. She is traversing the expanses of the great city of North Las Vegas, NV, near the city police station on Lake Mead Blvd. Well, an NLV police cruiser with two officers aboard lights her up and pulls her over for a suspected helmet violation, NRS 486.231.2 (Nevada is a helmet mandatory state – one of 20 or so in the country). TL has “something” on her head but the officers don’t believe it is a helmet or that there’s a “helmet” under whatever she has on her head. So… one of the officers sets forth to perform all the protocol required of a traffic stop… you know… driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. And… since TL has a visible firearm holstered on her hip, the officer also asks for her “Blue Card.” So, without further ado, here are some quotes from the conversation that took place between the officer and TL (Oh, yeah, she had her recorder going):

    Officer: “Do you have a permit for your license…. uh… for your firearm? You have a blue card? You have it registered and everything?

    TL: I’d like to plead the 5th on that sir.



    Officer: Okay, you can’t plead the 5th on that one. I have to know that it’s registered or not. You have the right to legally have a firearm in public, and that’s perfectly fine. But it has to be registered in the State of Nevada. So is that your firearm or can I presume that it’s stolen?



    TL: I’m pleading the 5th.



    Officer: Okay, very good.



    Okay, at this point the “interrogation” about the weapon registration ceases without any further engagement. Please note that the officer is under the apparent impression that it is the “State of Nevada” that requires firearm registration. Keep that in mind, because it will come up later in my narrative here based upon one other thing the officer says... also contrary to "the law."


    So… let’s continue…

    TL:
    (Engaging the officer in a conversation about citizens’ rights vs. police authority.) One of the things is keeping an oath to the Constitution, sir.


    Officer: I don’t make the law. I swore to serve the law.
    (This is an important statement by the officer at this point, because he’s already espoused his ignorance of the firearm registration “law.” He’ll continue with his ignorance of “the law” in at least one more statement… let’s listen)…


    Officer: The law also does say you have to wear some kind of eye protection while you’re riding. Do you have clear glasses or sun glasses?



    TL: …Well, first of all, I’ve got a (wind)screen there … on my motorcycle…



    Officer: I’m gonna let you read it. This is from the Nevada Revised Statutes.
    (The officer showed TL a “cheat sheet” NRS bullet point list showing that protective eye gear is required by a motorcycle driver and passenger, NRS 486.231.2).


    TL: I’m very familiar with the Nevada Revised Statute.



    Officer
    : (Showing TL his list) It says here, “headgear, helmet, eye protection.”


    TL was eventually cited for not wearing a helmet in violation of NRS 486.231.2 and was given a verbal warning under the same statute for not wearing protective eye gear (glasses, goggles, or face shield) once she put a pair of sunglasses on. However, it is apparent that the officer was ignorant of the law found at NRS 486.231.3, which specifically states that when a “
    motorcycle … is equipped with a transparent windscreen (which TL’s was)…, the driver and passenger are not required to wear glasses, goggles or face shields.”


    So, here we have a police officer that in response to a citizen’s contention that it he is duty bound to uphold the oath he took to the Constitution, states that he “swore to serve the law,” even though he is pretty much ignorant of at least two aspects of “the law” that came up during this traffic stop. How many more "laws" he is ignorant with respect to or has misinterpreted we can only surmise.


    And who is this fine officer who “swore to serve the law?” Well it is none other than Officer S. Salkoff, #1686. If any of you happen to encounter him, please give a great big shout out from TL.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Sounds like she handled herself extremely well.

    It is sad that many cops think they swore an oath to the law, not the Constitution. However, it is not surprising.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  3. #3
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    Sounds like she handled herself extremely well.

    It is sad that many cops think they swore an oath to the law, not the Constitution. However, it is not surprising.
    And equally as surprising is this particular officer's absolute IGNORANCE of "the law." Ya kinda wonder if his "sworn oath" is actually to "the law" or to his misguided interpretation of "the law."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    And equally as surprising is this particular officer's absolute IGNORANCE of "the law." Ya kinda wonder if his "sworn oath" is actually to "the law" or to his misguided interpretation of "the law."
    She did a great job as always. Did she also get her usual video?

  5. #5
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    She did a great job as always. Did she also get her usual video?
    Yes, she has video and I'm sure will be YouTubing it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    Love from the east coast, TL!

  7. #7
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    And this is what this fine officer is paid annually to have NO idea what "the law" is (you know, the law he is sworn to enforce)... more than $150,000.00 !! http://transparentnevada.com/salarie...me&j=any&y=any

  8. #8
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    And equally as surprising is this particular officer's absolute IGNORANCE of "the law." Ya kinda wonder if his "sworn oath" is actually to "the law" or to his misguided interpretation of "the law."
    Not "his interpretation", but what he has been told the law is and his duties toward that end. As many localities only hire those with an IQ sufficient to follow orders, but not smart enough to question them.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  9. #9
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    North Las Vegas??? No dangerous weapon charge? What's up with that?

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  10. #10
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    North Las Vegas??? No dangerous weapon charge? What's up with that?

    TBG
    Don't know... but one rides ON a motorcycle and NOT in a motorcycle. NLV Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 specifically refers to possession of a dangerous or deadly weapon IN a vehicle.By that simple "truth" it would seem that open carrying while one is on a motorcycle doesn't fall within the city's prohibitive ordinance.

    Or, maybe these fine officers who have taken oaths to "the law" have been told to discontinue their illegal enforcement of that particular law... who's to say? I think it's all a crap shoot when dealing with these overpaid and under achieving clowns.

  11. #11
    Regular Member jdholmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada
    Posts
    488
    Holy crap, that is a lot of money for a cop salary!

    I tell you what, they sure don't make that up home in Canada. Starting pay on the RCMP is like 50,000 and a good paid one may make 80,000 after years of employment. Our cost of living was higher up there too. Crazy!

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    <snip> tl: I’d like to plead the 5th on that sir.

    officer: Okay, you can’t plead the 5th on that one.
    <snip>
    doh!!
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    And this is what this fine officer is paid annually to have NO idea what "the law" is (you know, the law he is sworn to enforce)... more than $150,000.00 !! http://transparentnevada.com/salarie...me&j=any&y=any

    What is "Other pay" $11,382.90? Graft?

    No wonder the city is broke.

    TBG
    Last edited by The Big Guy; 05-11-2012 at 05:58 PM.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by jdholmes View Post
    Holy crap, that is a lot of money for a cop salary!

    I tell you what, they sure don't make that up home in Canada. Starting pay on the RCMP is like 50,000 and a good paid one may make 80,000 after years of employment. Our cost of living was higher up there too. Crazy!
    Not sure where in Canada you are from (I'm from BC originally, and now Edmonton) but it's not "WAS higher up there too"... it still IS higher......my rate of pay may be higher than the average of same job in the U.S but I have way less to play with after paying for food/rent/etc.. Sigh...

    sorry for the threadjacking.

  15. #15
    28kfps
    Guest
    Great story, nice job of reporting. I am amazed he did not try to ramp up the fact she was OCing. I am hoping this is a sign NLV may be easing on the carry issue. Like usmcmustang says it is a crap shoot.

  16. #16
    Regular Member jdholmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Larson View Post
    Not sure where in Canada you are from (I'm from BC originally, and now Edmonton) but it's not "WAS higher up there too"... it still IS higher......my rate of pay may be higher than the average of same job in the U.S but I have way less to play with after paying for food/rent/etc.. Sigh...

    sorry for the threadjacking.
    Yeah, western Canada is even higher than eastern Canada when it comes to living expense. I am from NB. It is much cheaper living here.
    Last edited by jdholmes; 05-12-2012 at 02:00 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    united states
    Posts
    627
    WOW that is nothing short of incredible... The ignorance AND the pay.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    It's a fairly common ploy of LEOs to remain 'vague' on the law, such that they can use their 'discretion' in arresting, detaining or harassing someone. And it's defensible. "I'm not familiar with the complete text of that law, Judge, nobody can know all the laws, I just use my discretion and let the courts sort it out" - is a common comment.

    So don't be surprised if a LEO is or feigns ignorance of the details of a law. IMO, we should have 'traffic wardens' and not LEOs who patrol the highways, and these wardens can only deal with traffic offenses.

    BUT, consider why we don't. IMO, it's because of the illegal substances laws, and IMO, the majority of LEOs stop people to try and find illegal stuff (guns, money, substances, illegal aliens being trafficked) and not just for traffic offenses. If we reduced or made logical these other laws like some European countries have, we wouldn't need half the LEOs we have.
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  19. #19
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    It's a fairly common ploy of LEOs to remain 'vague' on the law, such that they can use their 'discretion' in arresting, detaining or harassing someone. And it's defensible. "I'm not familiar with the complete text of that law, Judge, nobody can know all the laws, I just use my discretion and let the courts sort it out" - is a common comment.

    So don't be surprised if a LEO is or feigns ignorance of the details of a law. IMO, we should have 'traffic wardens' and not LEOs who patrol the highways, and these wardens can only deal with traffic offenses.

    BUT, consider why we don't. IMO, it's because of the illegal substances laws, and IMO, the majority of LEOs stop people to try and find illegal stuff (guns, money, substances, illegal aliens being trafficked) and not just for traffic offenses. If we reduced or made logical these other laws like some European countries have, we wouldn't need half the LEOs we have.
    I don't expect LEOs to know the details, minutia, or specifics of each and every law their attempting to enforce. If they did, then we wouldn't need the judiciary... the LEO could serve the enforcement and judicial function right there on the side of the road.

    But... an LEO does need to have some basic knowledge/understanding of the law. In the scenario I reported on, the LEO wasn't at all "knowledgeable" or "understanding" of two "simple" laws. No. 1 - he made the bold statement that the state of Nevada requires firearm registration. That's blatantly false. The state of Nevada requires nothing of the kind and if an LEO in the state of Nevada is quoting that as the law and attempting to enforce that as the law... well, he's a moron. No. 2 - he made the statement that wearing eye protection while riding a motorcycle in Nevada is a requirement of the law. Well, it is and it isn't. He said he had been riding for many years and he knew what the motorcycle laws were. Not so! If one has a windscreen on their motorcycle, protective eye wear is NOT required... and that IS the law in Nevada.

    I agree that we have many "illogical" laws... too many laws in general... and we need to have legislators (let's call 'em non-legislators) who realize that fact and who will set about to repeal a whole hell of a lot of 'em. But... will that happen... NO.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    I don't expect LEOs to know the details, minutia, or specifics of each and every law their attempting to enforce. If they did, then we wouldn't need the judiciary... the LEO could serve the enforcement and judicial function right there on the side of the road.

    But... an LEO does need to have some basic knowledge/understanding of the law. In the scenario I reported on, the LEO wasn't at all "knowledgeable" or "understanding" of two "simple" laws.
    I understand your frustration, but (and I'm not trying to be argumentative), it's not up to what you expect of a LEO that determines what he -says- he knows. They can lie, they can give you their version of the law (they might be recent transfers from another state where the laws are different and really be conflating).

    I'm just relating to you how LEOs use this ploy of being 'unfamiliar' and of telling you a legal opinion when they do not, in fact, have it right. There is no legal requirement that they know the law about ANYTHING. Their job is to arrest people and let the courts sort it out. If they make a mistake it is instantly forgiven by their superiors and the judges, other than blatant abuse and police policy violations (which are usually covered up, and internal discipline applied).

    So, just be aware that there really is no requirement, it's frustrating and there is no 'justice' out there, so be careful!
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  21. #21
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    I understand your frustration, but (and I'm not trying to be argumentative), it's not up to what you expect of a LEO that determines what he -says- he knows. They can lie, they can give you their version of the law (they might be recent transfers from another state where the laws are different and really be conflating).

    I'm just relating to you how LEOs use this ploy of being 'unfamiliar' and of telling you a legal opinion when they do not, in fact, have it right. There is no legal requirement that they know the law about ANYTHING. Their job is to arrest people and let the courts sort it out. If they make a mistake it is instantly forgiven by their superiors and the judges, other than blatant abuse and police policy violations (which are usually covered up, and internal discipline applied).

    So, just be aware that there really is no requirement, it's frustrating and there is no 'justice' out there, so be careful!
    Frustrated?... not at all. I am and have been for some time fully aware of all that you've pointed out. But... that certainly shouldn't "limit" one's attempts to expose each and every one of these AssClowns... no matter their moronic behavior doesn't rise to the level of "blatant abuse (or) policy violations." The more such behavior is "condoned" the more it is "accepted." You seem to want it "accepted" because that's they way it is. "Things" need to change when it comes to law enforcement within our country... attitudes and behaviors require modification... in my opinion.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Remember that a cop is NOT an attorney. He or she does NOT know the law, nor are their opinions of the law binding in any way.

    Most cops work on the "Rude Rule" -- if it looks wrong to them, they will take action, and they are usually correct TO A POINT. It's the details that make the difference (such as the windshield exemption in the NRS).

    Both TL and the cop handled this properly. She DID know the law, and stood by it, he did NOT know the law, but recognized that and didn't push the issue in the face of her confidence in something that he wasn't fully familiar with. That's why she got the verbal on the eye protection.

    Now the only question is whether or not whatever she had on her head qualifies as a helmet (DOT certification). Personally, I never ride (even from driveway into the garage) without a brain bucket. I figure that if you have anything to protect, you WILL, and it's not the government's authority to decide.

    If you want some real fun, camp out near the NLV cop shop with a good camera, and shoot pics of all of the police cars that go by with drivers who haven't got their seat belts on, or who are texting on their MDTs. Or both.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    I agree, I don't expect LEO's to know all the laws. But... if they are going to arrest/detain me, they better get on the phone, radio, or look up the statute first. Also, they get down right angry if you know the law better than they do, and try to explain it to them. It's as if, "How Dare You!"

    Go armed with knowledge.
    Last edited by FallonJeeper; 05-13-2012 at 02:32 PM.
    Hoka hey

  24. #24
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    I agree, I don't expect LEO's to know all the laws. But... if they are going to arrest/detain me, they better get on the phone, radio, or look up the statute first. Also, they get down right angry if you know the law better than they do, and try to explain it to them. It's as if, "How Dare You!"

    Go armed with knowledge.
    It is my experience that when "conversing" with an LEO at the side of the road and either exercising a right or "correcting" an officer as to his "knowledge" of the law, the standard response from the LEO is "oh, so you're a lawyer?" And that's "when the fight starts." Really, most LEOs find it personally and professionally "uncomfortable" when challenged about most anything. It's almost as though they very much expect the normal citizenry to be very uninformed and ignorant about most everything. It may have been that way in the not so distant past, but things they be a changin'.

  25. #25
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    It is my experience that when "conversing" with an LEO at the side of the road and either exercising a right or "correcting" an officer as to his "knowledge" of the law, the standard response from the LEO is "oh, so you're a lawyer?" And that's "when the fight starts." Really, most LEOs find it personally and professionally "uncomfortable" when challenged about most anything. It's almost as though they very much expect the normal citizenry to be very uninformed and ignorant about most everything. It may have been that way in the not so distant past, but things they be a changin'.
    "Oh, so you're a lawyer?" "No sir, unlike police officers, citizens are charged with knowing the law, in that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So therefore I make every effort to know the laws surrounding my activities."

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •