• 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.

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

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
What's this? The Oregon Supreme Court applying decisions made by and later refuted by SCOTUS?

stay safe.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
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:

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The manner of dress, and
to-quote-smiley-emoticon.gif
high crime area, aside...nope, no visual indicators that the
to-quote-smiley-emoticon.gif
citizen, may be armed. But, it is readily apparent from the few facts provided by the court that the
to-quote-smiley-emoticon.gif
citizen, was in fact not a threat to the cop.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!:banghead::banghead:
 
Top