self preservation
Regular Member
You talking about me?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
stopped x2 handcuffed seached gun and billfold taken threatened with DC/CCW revoked
- Thread starter ps1mhd
- Start date
You talking about me?
hobbles
Regular Member
Just nother thought,
I once got pulled over by a CHP and was told I was going to get a ticket for something, (don't remember for what, that was over 30 years ago) I told the CHP that it wasn't illegal, what ever it was, So I broke out my code book and showed him. He said he did make a mistake and that he was wrong. I explained to him that all I needed to know in the code book was what pertained to me. He has to know the whole book, and I said that it was a BIG book. He smiled and said he wished everyone would realize that. We shook hands and I never was bothered by him for the 20 years I went through his beat.
On another note, one time two cop cars were pulling into a donut shop one morning and I did something wrong so the second car pulled me over right in front of the shop and stated to give me a warning. I was in a bad mood that morning and I'll be darn if my attitude didn't get me a ticket. He didn't want to waste his time and write me a ticket that morning but I TALKED him into it. I NEVER did that again. Yep, attitude means a lot.
l
I once got pulled over by a CHP and was told I was going to get a ticket for something, (don't remember for what, that was over 30 years ago) I told the CHP that it wasn't illegal, what ever it was, So I broke out my code book and showed him. He said he did make a mistake and that he was wrong. I explained to him that all I needed to know in the code book was what pertained to me. He has to know the whole book, and I said that it was a BIG book. He smiled and said he wished everyone would realize that. We shook hands and I never was bothered by him for the 20 years I went through his beat.
On another note, one time two cop cars were pulling into a donut shop one morning and I did something wrong so the second car pulled me over right in front of the shop and stated to give me a warning. I was in a bad mood that morning and I'll be darn if my attitude didn't get me a ticket. He didn't want to waste his time and write me a ticket that morning but I TALKED him into it. I NEVER did that again. Yep, attitude means a lot.
l
Brian D.
Regular Member
Not to paint with too broad a brush I think part of what's happening in northern Ky. is that it's becoming more urbanized and less laid back. That seems to apply to some of the more recent police hires, they are city-bred and haven't spent time where people are more comfortable around guns. Also, during Riverfest the police presence is more concentrated into one area, and unfortunately the quotient of intoxicated/high/disorderly citizenry is above normal levels. That sort of thing seems to bring out the hardnose in even LEO's who are usually thought of as Officer Friendly.
Too, I think some police are reacting very poorly to the sight of armed citizens who also have a camera; they think any such person is baiting them and trying to provoke an encounter.
Make no mistake I'm not offering up any of the above as legit reasons to harass law abiding gun toters, just some observations on my part.
If the officers in these videos were really that ignorant about the law they sure need some training. Meantime their bosses should be punished for allowing them on the streets in such an ill-prepared manner. However I don't believe it was a failure to know the law but rather a failure to follow and enforce it correctly.
Too, I think some police are reacting very poorly to the sight of armed citizens who also have a camera; they think any such person is baiting them and trying to provoke an encounter.
Make no mistake I'm not offering up any of the above as legit reasons to harass law abiding gun toters, just some observations on my part.
If the officers in these videos were really that ignorant about the law they sure need some training. Meantime their bosses should be punished for allowing them on the streets in such an ill-prepared manner. However I don't believe it was a failure to know the law but rather a failure to follow and enforce it correctly.
Re: stopped x2 handcuffed seached gun and billfold taken threatened with DC/CCW
I didn't watch the entire clips but wouldn't it have been easier just to show ID when asked to avoid trouble ? Even though you are not a convicted felon how are they to know this without knowing who you are ? Cooperation is the key to situations like this even when they are wrong . Arguing or being resistant wouldn't help you with a speeding ticket never mind carrying a gun . I have been stopped myself a few times like this and simply produced my ID and license to carry and was let go within minutes
Sent from my Galaxy S///
I didn't watch the entire clips but wouldn't it have been easier just to show ID when asked to avoid trouble ? Even though you are not a convicted felon how are they to know this without knowing who you are ? Cooperation is the key to situations like this even when they are wrong . Arguing or being resistant wouldn't help you with a speeding ticket never mind carrying a gun . I have been stopped myself a few times like this and simply produced my ID and license to carry and was let go within minutes
Sent from my Galaxy S///
self preservation
Regular Member
If you don't enjoy your rights, then yes. I myself love all of my rights and am not willing to give any of them up just to make it "easier". Under that theory wouldn't it have been easier just not to carry at all? You my friend have a lot of reading and learning to do..
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Last edited:
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
It's too bad that your rights aren't very important to you, but hey, that's your choice.
What about your right to open carry? Is it a right until it becomes a "right" because someone is offended/scared at the sight of you and your holstered handgun? What do you do then?
09jisaac
Regular Member
WUT?
Are you serious? Yes, it would have been easier for him to have shown ID. In comparison, it would be easier for a woman not to resist rape. It would be easier for parents not to discipline their kids. That definitely does not make any of those the correct choice.
Take a wild guess what would happen when people don't hold their rights dear, people like you? They lose them. The rights are turned into privileges and then maybe into crimes (DC, New York, Chicago, etc).
I do not know that you do not have a warrant out for your arrest, should I be allowed to detain you until I know for sure? Maybe you have committed a crime, you just have not been caught yet. I will hold you until I found something you did. With your logic exaggerated I should be allowed to stop anyone to make for sure that they are within the law. It does not and should not work that.
Government, at its very nature, is detrimental to rights. Without support for rights, they will get eroded away. They get eroded away enough as it is, because the average citizen is much like you. Don't be indifferent to rights. Always hold them dear, it is your choice when to exercise them (often).
F350
Regular Member
It is pretty plain the handcuffing was in retaliation for the refusal of consent.
If you're not doing anything wrong or illegal, then you are not doing anything wrong or illegal and should not have to play their little games. Unless the LEO has a RAS you do not need to show ID just as a random person walking down the street does not need to show ID, I don't see it as any different just because I have a firearm visible. Unless you're operating a motor vehicle, there's no law that says you have to have ID on you. I would refuse just to prove my point and to help educate any LEO's that are not aware of my rights.
No MPs were seaching bags not one word from any of the MPs.
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
I'd like to suggest you think things through some. By practicing one right, by your reasoning, I should relinquish all other rights. By carrying a weapon, I should forfeit my right to privacy, to be secure in my papers and possessions. To be free to travel. Keep in mind I'm engaged in a lawful activity. Without taking your reasoning to any extreme, your way would approve of a citizen roundup, where citizens are corralled and run through a chute to check for warrants. How else would the police know that everyone is warrant free? They need to know, right?
You may be of the school the believes "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Rights were put in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty. Use them.
Were the Founding Fathers criminals trying to protect themselves when they inserted the 4th and 5th amendments into the Bill of Rights? After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself, right? And handing over your ID unwarranted is the first step used to build a case against yourself. "Oh, here take my wallet, my papers, my money, anything, my 15 year old daughter, too. I want you to respect me as supportive of all you do". Please let me live. Please. Take anything you want.
There are distinct differences between providing an ID to engage in a financial or business transaction, and submitting to demand by a government official under threat. And by submitting, you've just opened a Pandora's box
In most jurisdictions, an ICR [Incident Complaint Report] is generated for every encounter the law has with a citizen, and that ICR creates a history, which in turn can be used in the future to justify anything from an unlawful search of my car to kicking in my door while I sleep.......to include anything............armed, aggressive and unaccountable people are capable of. I prefer to limit the unwarranted generation of ICR's involving me, thank you. The cop might get promotions and justify his usage of oxygen by generating them, but there is no benefit to me, I gay-ron-tee. An ICR will never paint you as a model citizen.In future interactions, the dispatcher's voice inflections will have far more bearing on a cop's acknowledgement of a prior history than your fawning adoration and submission today.
And to keep it real base, I resent the hell out of an obviously aggressive adversary seizing my wallet which contains information on who I have sex with, my banking information and my medical information. If my rights to privacy and to engage in a legal activity are violated, I have little faith the other information won't be used against me in some fashion either.
You admittedly don't open carry. Your stops, in all likelihood, were traffic related, where one is required to produce a driver's license. This is quite different than a cop snatching you in a non driving situation to build a criminal case against you, and demanding your assistance.
Last edited:
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Why would allowing your personal papers to be held hostage lead to a shorter encounter? When your identification is in someone else's hands you're not really free to say "Nope. See ya" are you?
Cooperation and telling an officer investigating you because he unreasonably suspects criminal activity will almost inevitably lead to more questions aimed at finding criminal activity.
It's not YOUR or MY responsibility to prove our innocence. Officer Friendly is welcome to conduct his investigation to determine if I'm a felon. I'll just sit over there and not say a word until he's done.
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
I agree with you 110%. I sadly suspect this activity isn't happening because police don't know the law....I believe much of it comes from them gambling that you don't have the five figures it will take to challenge what they are doing. Even if you win, they're not out anything. I truly believe it's a declaration of dominance.
flb_78
Regular Member
Just fer giggles, I started poking around their ordinances and found this...
§ 92.27 RULES AND REGULATIONS. section G
§ 92.27 RULES AND REGULATIONS. section G
MKEgal
Regular Member
Not that I disagree with you, but even if someone were actually 'baiting' officers to behave badly, they don't have to take the bait... just like men don't have to hire the prostitute who turns out to be an undercover cop.Brian D. said:
If the cops are afraid they're being set up, they should either not bother the person (at worst, watch from a distance) or be on their very best behaviour, following all laws.
Not another one... :banghead:sjcea said:
In its other posts, this person has already admitted it does not OC, thinks OC is trying to get attention by showing off, been an apologist for NYPD (after shooting 10 people).
There is an entire thread discussing the many reasons giving ID to cops whenever they choose to demand it is a Bad Idea [TM].
What s/he said.aa1911 said:
Do cops stop everyone with a child to be sure they're not a convicted sex offender who's been told by a judge to stay away from kids? Of course not. Or how about checking to see if the child was reported kidnapped? Absurd, right?
And there's a SCOTUS decision [Delaware v. Prouse] saying that it's illegal to stop a car just to check for a valid driver's license.
Also a variety of court decisions saying that carrying a firearm (holstered, as is normal & safe) is not RAS or PC of any crime.
Have a browse at this blog post.
"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
WI v. Kiekhefer [1997]
"Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse [1979]
"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley
The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles [2000]
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King [1993]
Last edited:
MKEgal
Regular Member
Obviously he was (too) well 'supervised'.
That's what led to this thread.
flb_78
Regular Member
jimd_21
Regular Member
US vs Deberry states that the mere presence of a firearm were legal to possess cannot be RAS for criminal activity