• 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.

Fauquier deputy nags me for not informing him I had a weapon in the vehicle...

L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

bohdi wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
It's fine... run with what you got.... :D

Any Joe Blow at the age of 18 can basically owna gun. Anyone that has not yet broken a criminal law can get a CC permit. And then.. even if you have violated the law... you can still get one.



Then you have a police officer with a gun......

Some requirements before this dangerous guy is set loose on the streets:


  • Education GED, Diploma, Degree
  • 21 years old
  • US Citizen
  • Criminal History Check
  • Background investigation (Visiting all places lived for prior 10-20 years)
  • Credit check
  • Psych Exam (8 Hours)
  • Polygraph Test
  • Physical Skills Qualification
  • Full Physical exam
  • Selection Process
  • Drug testing
  • Six months training
  • Firearms training and qualification annually
  • Additional three months with training officer
  • Supervised daily and citizen complaints addressed
So this cop that could rightfully bedangerous has been checked out throughly unlike some 18 years old who is unknown to anyone.

I hope this answers your question. ;)
Click to expand...
You ought to rephrase that to any 18 year old who isn't in the armed forces or coast gaurd.... similiar requirements, only difference is age. Even then some 17 year olds goto bootcamp early....Though perhaps this course of discussion is best suited for a new thread.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you pointing that out... It was a said generically. Thus the use of basically. Some states may restrict ownership at various ages but for the most part.. anyone around the age of 18 can have one.
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Wynder wrote:
Out of genuine curiosity, if your interpretation were the case, why is the condition armed AND dangerous? Why not just armed?
Click to expand...
You could be armed with a baseball bat but I do not think you are going to be much of a danger trying to swing it in the car.

Once you step out of the car holding you.. you are now both.
Click to expand...
Woot -- I get to use one of my Christmas Gifts:

Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition:

dangerous, adj: 1. (Of a condition, situation, etc.) perilious; hazardous; unsafe <a dangerous intersection>. 2. (Of a person, object, etc.) likely to cause serious bodily harm <a dangerous weapon> <a dangerous criminal>.

No definition for 'likely' in the law dictionary, but looking up Merriam-Webster:

like·ly: 1. having a high probability of occurring or being true :very probable <rain is likely today>

I'm making an attempt to remain neutral in analyzing this, but it would appear to me that dangerous wouldn't mean that the person simply has the ability to do something, but rather it would require a probable situation.

Disclaimer: IANASCJNDIPTPONTV.
Click to expand...
Valid points.... ;)

The keyword here is "likely" and that can be viewed many ways.

What will it take to turn the OP in to a "likely" candidate?

What exactly will the OP need to say or do that can be viewed as more likely to be a danger to the officer?

What say you?! :cool:
 
W

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Valid points.... ;)

The keyword here is "likely" and that can be viewed many ways.

What will it take to turn the OP in to a "likely" candidate?

What exactly will the OP need to say or do that can be viewed as more likely to be a danger to the officer?

What say you?! :cool:
Click to expand...

Trying to put myself into an LEO's position... off the bat I'd say an aggressive or combative disposition. I don't know what police see when they pull up a vehicle by their plate, but if the person has priors or warrants, obviously... Also not sure of VA permit requirements, but here in Delaware, it's 4-5 background checks, public announcement, 10 hours of training, and the AG and a Judge signing off on it before you get one, so I'd probably be a bit more 'relaxed' around them.
 
A

acrimsontide

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
325
Location
, ,
imported post

Below is an example of why LEOs tend to get concerned for their safety on a routine incident. I am not advocating any rude or unprofessional acts by LEOs but simply stating that LEOs do have to be cautious for their own safety. Newspaper reports say that the shooter had no convictions prior to this incident EXCEPT for a DUI several years ago. I would bet this type of incident is transmitted to other LEO agencies and that a recent incident like this one would tend make LEOs just a little more cautious.

On December 14th a LEO here in North Alabama in Huntsville, AL, was shot in the line of duty while working a "routine" traffic accident. According to the news as reported from police spokesmen, two officers responded to a traffic accident and found one of the drivers sitting on a curb under the influence of alcohol. As the officers started to arrest the man, he pulled a weapon and shot one of the officers in the head. The officer died from his wounds a few hours later on Saturday morning. The other officer, with the help of two civilians, disarmed the man and the suspect was arrested and is facing capital murder charges. The officer was 36 yrs old and left behind a wife and 5 children ranging in age from 16 months to 9 years old.

The irony of this situation is that the shooter was held hostage and shot in the leg by his own son earlier this year and was rescued by the Huntsville Police SWAT team!!
 
T

TEX1N

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Northern VA, Virginia, USA
imported post

vrwmiller wrote:
So, I was returning home from Winchester on Christmas Eve. I was preparing to exit 17 onto I-66 eastbound and was followed by a sherrif's deputy through the exit onto I-66 and pulled over.
Click to expand...
What did he pull you over for? I'm just curious as to his mindset when he saw the holster.

My brother got a similar lecture from a VA Trooper while in Fauquier County. He was pulled over for a minor infraction and when the Trooper ran my brother's info he noticed he had a CHP. When the Trooper returned my brother's license, he stated that it's a good idea to notify the officer that you have a CHP! He didn't even ask if my brother was armed! Thankfully the Trooper stated his opinion and didn't start an argument, but still...notifying of a CHP regardless of whether you are carrying or not?!?

...and officer here is my CHP but I'm not carrying right now, and here is my hunting license but I'm not hunting right now, and here is my pilot's license but I'm not flying right now, and here is my season pass to Six Flags but I'm not at Six Flags right now...:banghead::banghead::banghead:


I have two questions for LEO229 and any other officers out there:
1. If an officer is so concerned with knowing if the driver is armed, then why don't they ASK the driver at the start of the stop, "Do you have any weapons in the car?"
2. For their own safety, shouldn't officer assume that EVERYONE they encounter is armed and act accordingly???
 
E

eyesopened

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
731
Location
NOVA, Virginia, USA
imported post

TEX1N wrote:
2. For their own safety, shouldn't officer assume that EVERYONE they encounter is armed and act accordingly???
Click to expand...

Isn't that why LEOs wear body armor and carryguns? Don't they assume that everyone can be dangerous? So why admonish us to notify LEOs if we may be carrying a firearm, when we're assumed to be armed and dangerous? Us notifying a LEO shouldn't make a difference on how they treat the situation. Should they treat us differently, I should hope not I mean shouldn't they treat everyone fairly?
 
C

Citizen

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

eyesopened wrote:
TEX1N wrote:
2. For their own safety, shouldn't officer assume that EVERYONE they encounter is armed and act accordingly???
Click to expand...

Isn't that why LEOs wear body armor and carryguns? Don't they assume that everyone can be dangerous? 1) So why admonish us to notify LEOs if we may be carrying a firearm, when we're assumed to be armed and dangerous? Us notifying a LEO shouldn't make a difference on how they treat the situation. Should they treat us differently, I should hope not I mean shouldn't they treat everyone fairly?
Click to expand...

1) I'm guessing that there is something else going on in addition to any sloppy thinking on the 4th Amendment. There's probably a number of things, but here is one I've speculated on with regard to police whobecome annoyed:

They have been caught off guard.Nowthey're annoyed.Sorta like some people who get annoyed at you because they werestartled when you walked up behind them or into a room and they didn't know anyone was in the house.Perhaps the LEO let his guard down, got complacent, etc., and now the CHP holderreminds him that he hasn't beenstayingalert, a wrongness thatcould get him killed.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

What's funny is a person who is not carrying concealed pusuant to a permit has no duty to answer an LEO's question at all about whether or not he has a gun in the vehicle; and the CHP holder is not required to acknowledge presence of guns not concealed on or about his person.
 
C

Citizen

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

TEX1N wrote:
...and officer here is my CHP but I'm not carrying right now, and here is my hunting license but I'm not hunting right now, and here is my pilot's license but I'm not flying right now, and here is my season pass to Six Flags but I'm not at Six Flags right now...:banghead::banghead::banghead:
Click to expand...
:)
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

acrimsontide wrote:
Below is an example of why LEOs tend to get concerned for their safety on a routine incident. I am not advocating any rude or unprofessional acts by LEOs but simply stating that LEOs do have to be cautious for their own safety. Newspaper reports say that the shooter had no convictions prior to this incident EXCEPT for a DUI several years ago. I would bet this type of incident is transmitted to other LEO agencies and that a recent incident like this one would tend make LEOs just a little more cautious.

On December 14th a LEO here in North Alabama in Huntsville, AL, was shot in the line of duty while working a "routine" traffic accident. According to the news as reported from police spokesmen, two officers responded to a traffic accident and found one of the drivers sitting on a curb under the influence of alcohol. As the officers started to arrest the man, he pulled a weapon and shot one of the officers in the head. The officer died from his wounds a few hours later on Saturday morning. The other officer, with the help of two civilians, disarmed the man and the suspect was arrested and is facing capital murder charges. The officer was 36 yrs old and left behind a wife and 5 children ranging in age from 16 months to 9 years old.

The irony of this situation is that the shooter was held hostage and shot in the leg by his own son earlier this year and was rescued by the Huntsville Police SWAT team!!
Click to expand...
It appears that he did not do anything that would cause him to be viewed as dangerous but in fact.... he was.

Sorry to hear the cop we killed while doing his job.
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

TEX1N wrote:
....


I have two questions for LEO229 and any other officers out there:
1. If an officer is so concerned with knowing if the driver is armed, then why don't they ASK the driver at the start of the stop, "Do you have any weapons in the car?"
2. For their own safety, shouldn't officer assume that EVERYONE they encounter is armed and act accordingly???
Click to expand...

1. Valid point.... I don't

2. Good observation.. I always do!
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Excuse me? Did you just say that the deputy could NOT search the vehicle for the weapon? :shock:

You better check your facts....

Police may frisk a vehicle’s passenger compartment including unlocked containers if reasonable suspicion exists an occupant is armed and dangerous, Michigan v. Long (1983).

Once the deputyobserved the holster in the vehiclehe can rightfully suspect there is a weapon in thecarto go in it. He can then order everyone out and do a protective sweep.
Click to expand...

Michigan v. Long set out a two pronged requirement in order to search the passenger compartment for weapons:

1. Articulated suspicion. (As in Terry)

2. Reasonably articulated facts that the suspect is dangerous. (and could gain immediate access to weapons)

A police officer may believe that any suspect that is armed is dangerous, (I know that I would) but such a presumption would fail the second prong required by the Supreme Court.


While both prongs were met in Michigan v. Long, the second prong does not exist in this incident.
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
Michigan v. Long set out a two pronged requirement in order to search the passenger compartment for weapons:

1. Articulated suspicion. (As in Terry)

2. Reasonably articulated facts that the suspect is dangerous. (and could gain immediate access to weapons)

A police officer may believe that any suspect that is armed is dangerous, (I know that I would) but such a presumption would fail the second prong required by the Supreme Court.


While both prongs were met in Michigan v. Long, the second prong does not exist in this incident.
Click to expand...
I know the OP and he is a good guy... at least while we met... ;) The Deputy can form his own conclusion during their contact. It is not going to take much for me to find someone as dangerous.

If your are giving me any kind of trouble I am calling for backup. I am calling for backup because I find that you are likely to be a danger to me while I am givingout the summons.

Therefore... you could be armed and dangerous. :cool:
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Michigan v. Long set out a two pronged requirement in order to search the passenger compartment for weapons:

1. Articulated suspicion. (As in Terry)

2. Reasonably articulated facts that the suspect is dangerous. (and could gain immediate access to weapons)

A police officer may believe that any suspect that is armed is dangerous, (I know that I would) but such a presumption would fail the second prong required by the Supreme Court.


While both prongs were met in Michigan v. Long, the second prong does not exist in this incident.
Click to expand...
I know the OP and he is a good guy... at least while we met... ;) The Deputy can form his own conclusion during their contact. It is not going to take much for me to find someone as dangerous.

If your are giving me any kind of trouble I am calling for backup. I am calling for backup because I find that you are likely to be a danger to me while I am givingout the summons.

Therefore... you could be armed and dangerous. :cool:
Click to expand...

LEO 229,

I always suspected that all encounters were with armed and dangerous persons. I might have been paranoid, but that didn't mean there wasn't somebody out to harm or kill me or my team.

I have read enough of your posts to believe that you too have a healthy paranoia that will keep you alive.

The difference is that you must have Terry criteria + an articulated reason for believing that the suspect is dangerous in order to legally search a vehicle under Michigan v. Long.
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
LEO 229,

I always suspected that all encounters were with armed and dangerous persons. I might have been paranoid, but that didn't mean there wasn't somebody out to harm or kill me or my team.

I have read enough of your posts to believe that you too have a healthy paranoia that will keep you alive.

The difference is that you must have Terry criteria + an articulated reason for believing that the suspect is dangerous in order to legally search a vehicle under Michigan v. Long.
Click to expand...
I am not so paranoid that I approach with my gun drawn.

I am aware of what could happen and balance things accordingly.

It is always up to the officer to determine if the person is likely to be a danger to them based on the totality of the circumstances. There will be no one size fits all for this.
 
B

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
bohdi wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
It's fine... run with what you got.... :D

Any Joe Blow at the age of 18 can basically owna gun. Anyone that has not yet broken a criminal law can get a CC permit. And then.. even if you have violated the law... you can still get one.



Then you have a police officer with a gun......

Some requirements before this dangerous guy is set loose on the streets:


  • Education GED, Diploma, Degree
  • 21 years old
  • US Citizen
  • Criminal History Check
  • Background investigation (Visiting all places lived for prior 10-20 years)
  • Credit check
  • Psych Exam (8 Hours)
  • Polygraph Test
  • Physical Skills Qualification
  • Full Physical exam
  • Selection Process
  • Drug testing
  • Six months training
  • Firearms training and qualification annually
  • Additional three months with training officer
  • Supervised daily and citizen complaints addressed
So this cop that could rightfully bedangerous has been checked out throughly unlike some 18 years old who is unknown to anyone.

I hope this answers your question. ;)
Click to expand...
You ought to rephrase that to any 18 year old who isn't in the armed forces or coast gaurd.... similiar requirements, only difference is age. Even then some 17 year olds goto bootcamp early....Though perhaps this course of discussion is best suited for a new thread.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you pointing that out... It was a said generically. Thus the use of basically. Some states may restrict ownership at various ages but for the most part.. anyone around the age of 18 can have one.
Click to expand...
When an individual sees someone with a badge (federal/state/local) it should give the public the ability to provide a level of trust to that person. It tells you that the person has some training and background checks as you've pointed out.What they do with that training is another thing (are they dangerous). Unfortuneately for the badges, they don't have the same luxury as the non-badges with regard to whether or not they are dangerous. It's hard to tell who's had training and background checks that are similiar (military/coasties) because unless they are in uniform or have the other easily identifiable traits of being in the military (haircuts for one).

Training or not, backgrounds/poli's or not, 18 vs. 21 vs. 50, these things don't prevent people from doing stupid things. Sure it reduces the margin for error in that reguard, but there are no garuntees - that's been proven. It's because of this that you don't get to where you wanted to go with your information above, I don't think you can.
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Then you have a police officer with a gun...... Some requirements before this dangerous guy is set loose on the streets:
Click to expand...
I take this as a clumsily stated Universal statement of qualifications for police so that I may falsify that statement with one counter-example; the late Tyler Peterson of Crandon, Wisconsin. May he rot with his ilk.

It's like debating a claidheamh da lamh broadsword with a scalpel. The broadswordsman doesn't even realize that he has been cut to death.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
 
C

Citizen

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

Doug Huffman wrote:
SNIPPED Then you have a police officer with a gun...... Some requirements before this dangerous guy is set loose on the streets:
Click to expand...
SNIP I take this as a clumsily stated Universal statement of qualifications for police so that I may falsify that statement with one counter-example; the late Tyler Peterson of Crandon, Wisconsin. May he rot with his ilk.
Click to expand...

You must study your opponent, Grasshopper. :)

He's actually not doing bad for the point he is trying to get accepted, which relies on relative dangerousness vs. absolute.
 
V

vrwmiller

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

eyesopened wrote:
vrwmiller wrote:
The deputy also didn't want to listen to my explanation that I was more responsible than to be stupid like that. He continued to spit fire with his outrageous hypothetical scenarios.
Click to expand...
Can you give us some examples of the hypo scenarios?TV and the Movies have been thin on plot lines forthe last few yearsand I need to flex my imagination a bit...
Click to expand...
heh. Since the empty holster was in the glove box, the example he used was if my firearm had appeared when the glove box was opened, he would have been forced to draw his own.

He had also said that had he been able to see the firearm to begin with, he may have also reacted in a like manner.

However, if my firearm were in the glove box, I certainly would have said something prior to having it opened so as to not surprise him. It's almost as if he did not have any sort of concept of people taking personal responsbility for their actions. I can give the deputy some leeway on this since he deals with a lot of people that don't take personal responsibility for their actions.
 
V

vrwmiller

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
What attitude did the deputy have? The OP stated the Deputy went on to "explain"... and "spit out"things to think about. Maybe the OP can expound on this but I did not see anything about the Deputy having an "attitude".

The Deputywanted to impress upon the OP howimportantit was to inform law enforcement that he was armed. Maybe his examples were a little far fetched.. but he is driving a point home for the OP's benefit.

I did not read anything to say he was irate, out of control, demeaning, disrespectful, and belligerent. They talked about it and when the Deputy returned nothing more was said in regards to the OP being armed. I do not recall the OP even being disarmed!
Click to expand...
At first, I did not feel the deputy had an attitude. However, after explaining to the deputy that I did, indeed, have a firearm in the vehicle (which I voluntarily admitted). He had given me an example of what he would have done had a firearm been in the glove box when it was opened. It was at this point that I began to explain that I do not store the firearm and registration in the same location for this reason. From this point on, he interrupted me whenever I spoke. That is when I told him that I understand his point of view, but that I am not requried by VA law to inform. He went to his squad car and returned a couple minutes later with my license, registration, and CHP and I was on my way.

At the point that the deputy began interrupting my explanations, that is when I knew that my words were falling on deaf ears. Do I feel that he had an attitude and was disrespectful? Somewhat, but he did not become irate, out of control, demeaning, or belligerant. I do not believe the deputy was completely out of line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top