• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Pulled over by PCSO.

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
1. It is my personal belief that it is generally a good idea to inform police of you are carrying. I was OCing and the last thing I wanted was for him to notice my firearm and draw his weapon.

2. I allowed him to disarm because I felt it would make him feel safer. I'm all for that.


Sent from my iPhone.

It was totally expected that you would get thrashed for doing both #1 and #2 above.

Consider the alternatives. The officer sees your firearm and you haven't advised him you're carrying. Next you're ordered out of the vehicle at gunpoint and then in handcuffs. In #2, what do you suppose the officer would have done if you refused to allow him to disarm you. Chances are you would be disarmed anyway, but now at gunpoint and again, handcuffs. If you really piss off the officer, the handcuffs are applied while face down on the pavement.

It's easy for those who are not involved in a situation to "egg someone on" and tell them how "they would have done it".

Sometimes it's a lot easier to just not be an @-hole, get the stop over with, and if you feel the officer was out of line, file a complaint. Nothing good is going to happen if you protest along the highway with the officer that stopped you.
 

Cubex DE

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
111
Location
Spokane, WA
Can you narrow that down a little so the rest of us don't have to hunt through the entire post?

Given that I want you to read the entire post... no.

Consider the alternatives. The officer sees your firearm and you haven't advised him you're carrying. Next you're ordered out of the vehicle at gunpoint and then in handcuffs. In #2, what do you suppose the officer would have done if you refused to allow him to disarm you. Chances are you would be disarmed anyway, but now at gunpoint and again, handcuffs. If you really piss off the officer, the handcuffs are applied while face down on the pavement.

It's easy for those who are not involved in a situation to "egg someone on" and tell them how "they would have done it".

Sometimes it's a lot easier to just not be an @-hole, get the stop over with, and if you feel the officer was out of line, file a complaint. Nothing good is going to happen if you protest along the highway with the officer that stopped you.

In either of those cases, much more will be done to the officer (and the department) as a result of your complaint than if you volunteer up your rights and your safety and file a complaint about that instead.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
It was totally expected that you would get thrashed for doing both #1 and #2 above.

Consider the alternatives. The officer sees your firearm and you haven't advised him you're carrying. Next you're ordered out of the vehicle at gunpoint and then in handcuffs. In #2, what do you suppose the officer would have done if you refused to allow him to disarm you. Chances are you would be disarmed anyway, but now at gunpoint and again, handcuffs. If you really piss off the officer, the handcuffs are applied while face down on the pavement.

It's easy for those who are not involved in a situation to "egg someone on" and tell them how "they would have done it".

Sometimes it's a lot easier to just not be an @-hole, get the stop over with, and if you feel the officer was out of line, file a complaint. Nothing good is going to happen if you protest along the highway with the officer that stopped you.


Oh I see we have to voluntarily give up our rights because if we don't we might be forced to give up our rights? :rolleyes:

You can let fear of what "might" happen dictate your actions, I'd rather take a stand for what is right.
 

Sparky508

Newbie
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
347
Location
Graham, , USA
It was totally expected that you would get thrashed for doing both #1 and #2 above.

Consider the alternatives. The officer sees your firearm and you haven't advised him you're carrying. Next you're ordered out of the vehicle at gunpoint and then in handcuffs.

Well I suspect at this point we have a completely separate issue to deal with, considering that there's no duty to notify in this state.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Sometimes it's a lot easier to just not be an @-hole, get the stop over with, and if you feel the officer was out of line, file a complaint. Nothing good is going to happen if you protest along the highway with the officer that stopped you.

Not just sometimes. All the time. It is always easier to "pay the bully your lunch money" than fight it. And I don't have anything negative to say about someone in that position. Just keep your head down, and prostrate once in a while when commanded to and you'll be allowed to keep on..... It sucks but the truth of it is we are damn near a totalitarian state. I personally am too tired of that sh!t. But I can't blame someone if they don't wanna get their noggin knocked for little gain.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
It was totally expected that you would get thrashed for doing both #1 and #2 above.

Consider the alternatives. The officer sees your firearm and you haven't advised him you're carrying. Next you're ordered out of the vehicle at gunpoint and then in handcuffs. In #2, what do you suppose the officer would have done if you refused to allow him to disarm you. Chances are you would be disarmed anyway, but now at gunpoint and again, handcuffs. If you really piss off the officer, the handcuffs are applied while face down on the pavement.

It's easy for those who are not involved in a situation to "egg someone on" and tell them how "they would have done it".

Sometimes it's a lot easier to just not be an @-hole, get the stop over with, and if you feel the officer was out of line, file a complaint. Nothing good is going to happen if you protest along the highway with the officer that stopped you.

I take it you've had a run in with the Redmond Police then.

If you let those bastards know that you're armed it will become a production. They took my guns apart and unloaded every round from the revolver the first time and the magazine of my glock the second time. The first time they unloaded my revolver and dumped the ammo in my glove box and made me lock the glove box before I could get the gun back. The second time I was ordered out of the car, they threatened to kill me, I was disarmed, then after I was disarmed I was handcuffed for trying to lock up my car at 2am, when I got the (bogus) ticket it was on top of my glock parts and loose ammo on a dark seat. The top slide was off and the ammo was loose.

Although I have learned to not answer any more questions than I am legally obligated to.

I will now never volunteer the the fact I am armed nor will I answer the question of are you armed.
The best dodge I ever gave was in Kirkland.

Do you have any guns?
Yes (with the implied sound of not here but at home)
What caliber?
Which one?
Okay.. (that was the end of that line of questioning)

I had two on me at the time too. So I chuckled to myself about it.

I will never even give that much info again.
 

Strike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
53
Location
Washington
I suppose I should have given the officer the chance to notice my firearm and taken the risk of him becoming hostile.

Some of you are arguing that I shouldn't have "let" him disarm me. How you suppose I prevent that? Should I have grabbed his arm? Maybe pushed him out the car? My window was already down at this point so maybe I should have rolled it up? Reached down and made some strange movements as he was approaching my vehicle?

I'd like to know so I can handle it better next time.





Sent from my iPhone.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I suppose I should have given the officer the chance to notice my firearm and taken the risk of him becoming hostile.

Some of you are arguing that I shouldn't have "let" him disarm me. How you suppose I prevent that? Should I have grabbed his arm? Maybe pushed him out the car? My window was already down at this point so maybe I should have rolled it up? Reached down and made some strange movements as he was approaching my vehicle?

I'd like to know so I can handle it better next time.



Sent from my iPhone.

If the officer becomes hostile, he does what? Disarms you? That is about the most he can do. Why voluntarily get disarmed and then encourage/enable the officers behavior when he encounters future gun carriers?

I don't recommend physical resistance, unless warranted for your safety. I just don't recommend making the gun an issue. Let them make it an issue, remain calm, give them no reason to fear from your actions.

I have had several encounters with cops were the gun wasn't an issue. Of course most cops around here know who I am by now........:p
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Strike said:
He reached through the window and disarmed me.
He placed my firearm inside his jacket.
So he probably pointed the gun at you, and maybe even your valuable bits,
then tucked this loaded gun unholstered (I'm assuming) into his jacket... which probably wouldn't prevent it from falling out the bottom, or getting the trigger caught on something inside & shooting who knows where.
Very very BAD unsafe practices.
The department training officer (& this guy's supervisors) should be aware that he needs more training.

I agree with not rolling the window down more than necessary, & with keeping your mouth shut. (In general when on the receiving end of unfriendly attention by LEO, & specifically about being armed. If your state requires it by law, you have to make your own decision.)

He placed my firearm on the hood of my vehicle and said I could retrieve it once he pulled away.
Scratched the paint, didn't it?
Include that in your letter of complaint, along with estimates for repair.

Citizen said:
I've seen too many of these posts where citizens are subjected to fishing expeditions, had their rights or dignity or both crapped on, and then think things went well.
But the officer was so nice...
And he didn't throw me on the ground & handcuff me, so I got off light.
I got my gun & ammo back once they left (after running the serial number).
I'm sure it was all done for officer safety.
[/sarcasm]

he could have just told you so without the entrapment question about knowing why he stopped you
The only time I've gotten this question (probably 8 years ago) I answered "you're supposed to tell me".

MSG Laigaie said:
for some estrogenic reason that I will never understand, she accelerated into the turn.
If she really knows how to drive, that has nothing to do with hormones.
Trying to brake in a turn is bad physics. You're taking a finite amout of traction & spreading it over 2 functions - cornering & braking - making it more likely that one or the other, maybe both, will be done poorly.
On a motorcycle that can be really painful.
By accelerating, even slightly, into the turn you're using all the traction for cornering & you have better steering control too.
That being said, it's better to slow down slightly before the turn, so you can come out the other end at something resembling the posted speed limit, esp. if you suspect there might be a revenue agent around. :rolleyes:

amlevin said:
Sometimes it's a lot easier to just not be an @-hole, get the stop over with, and if you feel the officer was out of line, file a complaint.
Why is it that citizens standing up for their rights against infringing gov't agents are the ones being called names, instead of those gov't agents who are breaking the law (& potentially their oath)?

twoskinsonemanns said:
Not just sometimes. All the time. It is always easier to "pay the bully your lunch money" than fight it.
Then the bully thinks that he can get away with it, & will do the same thing again & again, to you & to other people. Complaining to the teacher doesn't work 'cause it's not an immediate enough punishment for the bad behaviour, & because the teacher can't watch all the bullies all the time. (Of course, if the bully goes so far as to get physical, then there are more serious punishments, which might make an impression & alter the behaviour.)

prostrate once in a while when commanded to and you'll be allowed to keep on
And when it becomes mandatory upon seeing any gov't agent, what then?
Stop the problem while it's still possible. Don't let it get any worse.


MSG Laigaie said:
Citizenship is a verb.
MLK said:
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
I suppose I should have given the officer the chance to notice my firearm and taken the risk of him becoming hostile.

Some of you are arguing that I shouldn't have "let" him disarm me. How you suppose I prevent that? Should I have grabbed his arm? Maybe pushed him out the car? My window was already down at this point so maybe I should have rolled it up? Reached down and made some strange movements as he was approaching my vehicle?

I'd like to know so I can handle it better next time.





Sent from my iPhone.

First of all you know now not to mention the gun. If the officer notices and says he wants to disarm you, you immediately state that you do not consent to any seizures. That will give you the recourse later if he chooses to ignore your rights.

If an officer ever says anything like "can I look around" or "are there any weapons in the vehicle" you should say "I don't consent to any searches or seizures."

As SVG said don't physically resist unless your life depends on it.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,241
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
If she really knows how to drive, that has nothing to do with hormones.
:rolleyes:

Yes, my Sweet Baboo knows how to drive. If my choice of words offended you, say so.

Definition of SNARKY
1: crotchety, snappish
2: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics>
— snark·i·ly adverb
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Interesting, I have never been disarmed or had a problem when pulled over if I advised them I was armed or not. :eek: But then I rarely get pulled over.:lol:

Strike take with a grain of salt as you have responses from those who have a bone to pick with any government representative, those who no longer have a drivers license and unable to step into your shoes and those who feel they can do what ever they want with out consequences or taking responsibility for their own actions.
Some playing the role of activist and wanting everyone in protest regardless of what the individual wants.

If you plan on resisting in a non violent manner make sure you understand the law as you maybe the one paying for the process and may come out poorer or possibly a winner minus the wounds along the way, it is your choice.
 

Strike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
53
Location
Washington
Some of us simply do not feel the need or desire to disclose to every government official what our legal activities and possessions are that we choose to engage in or carry; especially when it is completely, 100% irrelevant to the context of our interaction with that government official.

A fine example presented by Strike himself was, "I suppose I should have given the officer the chance to notice my firearm and taken the risk of him becoming hostile." So let me ask this - what makes the police officer different than the convenience store clerk? Why give the convenience store clerk the chance to notice the firearm and become hostile? Why not inform the convenience store clerk of your firearm and CPL upon entrance? Doesn't the clerk just want to go home safe at night to their family? Wouldn't the clerk feel more at ease knowing ahead of time that if they see your firearm it is carried with no intention to harm them? What if the clerk sees your gun and calls the police, causing a hostile reaction? What if the clerk sees your gun and feels the need to produce their own gun in self-defense? Why the difference between a traffic stop and entering a convenience store?

I'd argue that there have been far less illegal detentions and over zealous uses of force in comparison between convenience store clerks and police officers.

An officer is much more capable of making your day and life a lot worse than a convenience store clerk.

I see it as a case of picking your battles. If the officer was courteous an respectful towards me, I see it as a good experience.


Sent from my iPhone.
 
Last edited:

Strike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
53
Location
Washington
At no time did the officer flag anyone but himself. If he's willing to take that risk, that's on him.


Sent from my iPhone.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Interesting, I have never been disarmed or had a problem when pulled over if I advised them I was armed or not. :eek: But then I rarely get pulled over.:lol:

Strike take with a grain of salt as you have responses from those who have a bone to pick with any government representative, those who no longer have a drivers license and unable to step into your shoes and those who feel they can do what ever they want with out consequences or taking responsibility for their own actions.
Some playing the role of activist and wanting everyone in protest regardless of what the individual wants.

If you plan on resisting in a non violent manner make sure you understand the law as you maybe the one paying for the process and may come out poorer or possibly a winner minus the wounds along the way, it is your choice.

And it's always easy to tell someone what they should do when it it's not your @ss on the skillet.

Like all the bystanders at a developing bar fight egging on one of the participants.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Some of us simply do not feel the need or desire to disclose to every government official what our legal activities and possessions are that we choose to engage in or carry; especially when it is completely, 100% irrelevant to the context of our interaction with that government official.

A fine example presented by Strike himself was, "I suppose I should have given the officer the chance to notice my firearm and taken the risk of him becoming hostile." So let me ask this - what makes the police officer different than the convenience store clerk? Why give the convenience store clerk the chance to notice the firearm and become hostile? Why not inform the convenience store clerk of your firearm and CPL upon entrance? Doesn't the clerk just want to go home safe at night to their family? Wouldn't the clerk feel more at ease knowing ahead of time that if they see your firearm it is carried with no intention to harm them? What if the clerk sees your gun and calls the police, causing a hostile reaction? What if the clerk sees your gun and feels the need to produce their own gun in self-defense? Why the difference between a traffic stop and entering a convenience store?

Navy that is fine for you and some others as well, if that is not what he wants to do then fine offer information but still their choice to do what they feel is right for them.

As for a Police Officer in comparison to a Store Clerk is apples and oranges and not worth a discussion.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Terry Stop Doctrine Doesn't Limit Car-borne Gun Temporary Seizure For Officer Safety

during a valid Terry stop, the United States Supreme Court forbids police to even conduct a light pat down or seize weapons unless the subsequent to RAS for the stop, the "an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is [both] armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others." 392 U.S. at 24. Stated another way, only "o long as the officer is [both] entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed **and dangerous** . . .may [he] conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (emphasis added).



There was a later development in the case law. Pennsylvania vs Mimms:

The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed, and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of "reasonable caution" would likely have conducted the "pat down."


As Schlepnier points out, in Terry, the court basically held that two prongs needed to be met: 1. armed, and 2. presently dangerous. Actually there is a third prong to Terry: nothing in the early stages of the encounter serves to dispel the officer's concerns, implying that he has to evaluate the circumstances for things that would signal an innocent, and not just start frisking a potentially armed detainee. But, the main point is that Terry does require both armed and dangerous.

The underlying police encounter in Terry was stop of people on foot. In Mimms, an opinion about a car stop, the sneaky court changed the standard without expressly saying they were changing it. In Terry, the standard is armed + dangerous. In Mimms, the court changed the standard to armed = dangerous. And, they let the cops frisk a bulge that might be a gun. This would certainly mean they approve temporarily seizing an object that is known to be a gun, as in one declared by the driver or already visible.

You can read Mimms here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/106/case.html The relevant part, quoted above, is in the next to last paragraph before the footnotes.

You can get a quick rundown of federal cases at a reference thread where I compiled a bunch of stuff here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here!!&
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Given that I want you to read the entire post... no..

Do you really think that some of us here are so unfamiliar with the right against self-incrimination that we need to read your entire post? Really? Or, that your post is sooo original, sooo ground-breaking, and you deserving of credit for these incredible breakthroughs, that all of us need to learn all your wonderous thoughts? Really?

OK. I'm gonna take the time to read that entire post. There had better be something applicable in there. If not, you're getting shredded. I'll be back in a few minutes.
 
Last edited:

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
1. It is my personal belief that it is generally a good idea to inform police of you are carrying. I was OCing and the last thing I wanted was for him to notice my firearm and draw his weapon.

2. I allowed him to disarm because I felt it would make him feel safer. I'm all for that.


Sent from my iPhone.

Wrong! Logically he should assume you are one of the "good guys" and that therefore you are armed! You are swallowing the propaganda, that as Americans we need a piece of paper to exercise our right to keep and bear arms. You also share the assumption that having a gun means you are probably one of the "bad guys". Being a good citizen means you are armed! You need a fundamental shift in your thinking. It's clear that unless you are engaged in felonious activity you have a right to carry (With one of the unconstitutional permits) and he doesn't need to know I'm armed. I'm no more dangerous being armed than he is!

Not showing a LEO my permit does not mean I don't respect him, as I and others have said, my possession of a permit has nothing to do with the stop!
 
Top