Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Cops must have good reason to ask if people have guns on them

  1. #1
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476

    Cops must have good reason to ask if people have guns on them

    The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police aren't justified in asking people they stop, if they have a weapon -- if officers are only asking out of general concern for their own safety.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...reason_to.html

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    What's this? The Oregon Supreme Court applying decisions made by and later refuted by SCOTUS?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    The SCOTUS decision would ALLOW states to allow their cops to ask. Oregon's High Court is saying that they are a state that doesn't allow it, even though they are allowed to allow it by SCOTUS. Good for Oregon.
    Last edited by MAC702; 07-10-2015 at 06:00 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Hmmm. I'll have to think on this for a while.

    On the one hand, if one is going to legitimize compulsory government and police, then its going to be a little hard to justify restricting those police from asking certain voluntary questions.

    On another hand (hey! Vishnu has more than two!), why not restrict police from asking certain questions? We've plenty of reports of police using commanding or authoritative tone of voice during a supposedly consensual encounter. Why not restrict those police who deliberately use difficult-to-prove tactics?

    On a third hand, why not err on the side of liberty, and close the door to some police who don't use judgement, but just a "standard, one-size-fits-all" tactic knowing that some one will waive their right to silence (or don't even know they can apply it) to get a "freebie" arrest?

    Hmmm. I'll have to think on this for a while. In the meantime, I'll approve anytime compulsory government limits itself.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,507
    I'd like to see a shift away from:

    o Officer safety being made a prime concern. Make it important but not a driving force.
    o Looking to arrest at all costs. Make protecting and serving and helping the LAC a primary concern
    o Getting the BG, even for misdemeanors. One cop goes after someone knowing that his only recourse is using his duty weapon because he has no backup. Pick the guy up later.
    o Over-utilization of SWAT raids, going to the wrong address and having no penalty - oopsie, we shot a bunch of people and dogs, wrong address.
    o Militarization of PDs. Go to 5-shot revolvers. Use the radio, patience, backup to get the real BGs.
    o Tacit approval of all forms of 'lying to the public' as a routine. You can still 'trap' the foolish BG now and then but make truth be important. Know the law, follow the law.
    Last edited by Maverick9; 07-11-2015 at 11:43 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    There will be no peace until they are again constable neighbors and peace officers sworn to the law, and not paramilitaries.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Officer safety is a valid concern. The problem is that officer paranoia is not. The best thing we can do to promote officer safety is to give them training in situational awareness. I think every cop ought to be required to take the NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home course. When cops take away a gun without a valid reason to believe that the person is a present threat, well, in Virginia, that's grand larceny (but only if the gun and whatever magazine and ammo is in it is worth more than five bucks) and robbery. They can and should be sued for that kind of tortious activity.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Officer safety is a valid concern. The problem is that officer paranoia is not. The best thing we can do to promote officer safety is to give them training in situational awareness. I think every cop ought to be required to take the NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home course. When cops take away a gun without a valid reason to believe that the person is a present threat, well, in Virginia, that's grand larceny (but only if the gun and whatever magazine and ammo is in it is worth more than five bucks) and robbery. They can and should be sued for that kind of tortious activity.
    You've touched on something I was reminded of when reading an appellate decision yesterday.

    A fella's car was searched, methamphetamines were found.

    The appellate court referred to the search as unlawful and the continued seizure beyond the initial traffic stop as unlawful. It occurred to me that if a mere citizen seized someone without legal authority it would be a crime. Not merely unlawful.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You've touched on something I was reminded of when reading an appellate decision yesterday.

    A fella's car was searched, methamphetamines were found.

    The appellate court referred to the search as unlawful and the continued seizure beyond the initial traffic stop as unlawful. It occurred to me that if a mere citizen seized someone without legal authority it would be a crime. Not merely unlawful.
    In all fairness the police had no reason to expect the court to care that the victims 4th amendment rights were violated.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    The manner of dress, and high crime area, aside...nope, no visual indicators that the citizen, may be armed. But, it is readily apparent from the few facts provided by the court that the citizen, was in fact not a threat to the cop.
    "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

  11. #11
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    snipped...
    The appellate court referred to the search as unlawful and the continued seizure beyond the initial traffic stop as unlawful. It occurred to me that if a mere citizen seized someone without legal authority it would be a crime. Not merely unlawful.
    It would seem that there is one form of due process/prosecution/persecution for those employed as agents of the STATE and another for the 'mere' Citizens!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

Posting Permissions

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