Let Me Entertain You...

sawah said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

FallonJeeper said:

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

usmcmustang said:

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'.

Click to expand...

"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

The Big Guy said:

"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

Click to expand...

Well said! Love it!

sawah said:

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!

Click to expand...

I would like to see the cite regarding LEO's can lie... Also There is absolutely a requirement that they know about the law.

Probable cause exists where "the facts and circumstances within their [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the 176*176 belief that" an offense has been or is being committed. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162.

If the LEO has no idea, what is required by law, he is constitutionally deficiant in upholding the law period. The responsibility of "seizing a free person" requires the officer know fact and circumstances about the crime being commited. Seizing a person absent reasonable knowledge of a crime is kidnapping.

The Big Guy said:

"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."

Click to expand...

LOVE it!

A shorter way is "No, but I looked it up to make sure that I was legal."

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

I would like to see the cite regarding LEO's can lie... Also There is absolutely a requirement that they know about the law.

Probable cause exists where "the facts and circumstances within their [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the 176*176 belief that" an offense has been or is being committed. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162.

If the LEO has no idea, what is required by law, he is constitutionally deficiant in upholding the law period. The responsibility of "seizing a free person" requires the officer know fact and circumstances about the crime being commited. Seizing a person absent reasonable knowledge of a crime is kidnapping.

Click to expand...

The truth is there is no law that says they can't. That's how laws work. They are written to restrict or deny, never to allow, just like open carry. We can, because there is no law that says we can't.

There are laws that say we can't lie to law enforcement.