Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: VIDEO: 2 LEO's Pull Guns on OC driver Durring Traffict Stop

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ass-land (Ashland) OR, , USA
    Posts
    267

    Post imported post

    I don't know if this has been posted here before.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S1rM...e=channel_page

    The driver was wearing your typical baggie "gangsta" Tshirt thus giving OC carry a bad representative and bad name.

    "On the street , 1st impressions go both ways, its the only one that matters, and it may be your last"

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    "I'll blow your [expletive]head off" is a bit beyond gratuitous profanity.

    -ljp

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    SteveInAshand wrote:
    The driver was wearing your typical baggie "gangsta" Tshirt thus giving OC carry a bad representative and bad name.
    I don't see anything wrong with his tshirt.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    495

    Post imported post

    PaulBlart wrote:
    Sheriff wrote:
    I just don't know what's up with all this foul language lately. Why do rookies now feel this is necessary?

    Quite the opposite was taught in the police academy I attended.
    It helps us take control of the situation. It asserts our power and authority. MOTHER @#$%ER
    Even though I'm not a LEO, I work in security in which I had to act in a LEO capacity. Shouting profanities isn't used to assert power and authority. If/when I shout and use profanity it's to send a clear message that a suspect needs to comply with my orders.

    Furthermore, that statement at the end was unnecessary.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    B|art is a fairly new and aggressive troll. Perhaps you could convince the owner/mod to banish him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    danbus wrote:
    Shouting profanities isn't used to assert power and authority. If/when I shout and use profanity it's to send a clear message that a suspect needs to comply with my orders.
    Danbus, I have the utmost respect for you, but I just CAN'T, for the life of me, reconcile these two statements.

    By issuing 'orders' you are in fact 'asserting authority', otherwise you would have no basis upon which to issue such 'orders'. If you don't have the 'authority' to 'order' a suspect, then said suspect does not 'need' to 'comply'.

    Get what I'm saying?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    The cops in that video are despicable. "Tylenol is a narcotic, which is probable cause for me to search your truck."

    If that were true, then why would he be asking? Then threatening the motorist regarding "I would have blown your brains out" and such.

    Sickening, and the "apology letter" is more a CYA letter than anything else. If those officers are anything short from disbadged and removed from payroll, the administrative actions were not enough.

    Consider: a normal person threatening to blow someone's f'ing brains out would constitute assault with a deadly weapon.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    ...Consider: a normal person threatening to blow someone's f'ing brains out would constitute assault with a deadly weapon.
    Absolutely!

    Why are we, (the law abiding citizen) held to higher standards then our public servants? We would be in jail and our right to carryrevoked for such misbehavior.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    This one is not as easy to call as it might seem.

    I agree that the language is over the top and these guys should be looked at for that. I assume Glynn County is in Ga. So I looked at Ga code but could not find a requirement to notify if stopped by a LEO. But it is possible that the LEO in the video is correct and that the guy did not notify them per GA code that he had a side arm.

    So in effect the LEOs were surprised, at night, to discover that the guy in the truck was armed. That might be why they drew on him. If there is a requirement to notify and the guy didn't then they were justified to cover him, until they could clear the situation. Perhaps Mike or the Ga state researcher will chime in on this.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    PaulBlart wrote:
    i'm not a troll.
    Is this Johnny B or LEO 229? come on 'fess up.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ass-land (Ashland) OR, , USA
    Posts
    267

    Post imported post

    This is America and we can dress as clean cut or gangsta as we want, ok, but his shirt is the typical copy of the style popularized by hoodlums in order to carry a sawed off.

    His ultra large Tshirt is what a gangsta wears not a middle class working man or family man.

    In fact his stupidity at not letting the cop;s know he was strapped was a sign he is a bit stupid. Top me it does not matter if its the law or not.

    On a dark lonely road a traffic stop is ultra dangerous for cop's and I would expect them to be already "on edge" and I would want them to know right away that I am a good guy at least that I am no instinctual threat, and one way is to roll down the windows before they walk up, keep my hands on the wheel , have my license and papers already out in the dash and immediately tell them I am OC or CC.

    I dont care whether I do or do not have to tell them if I am armed, I do anyways.

    In fact I have been un-lawfully armed in the far past both on my person CC and Car CC and I have only 1 time out of about 5 had my gun impounded and that was by 1 of a 2 officer partner team, the 2nd officer was against taking my pistol , the impouding officer was a woman who just did not like me period so I felt it was a personal thing over a law thing.

    So 4 out of 5 times down in San Diego CA in the very late 80's and 90's during the crack shooting wars in east San Diego in the bad neighborhoods I lived in I was stopped as many times and always let go with my loaded guns in tact.

    What I noticed was 1) I am white,( fact of life it helps), 2) I am very articulate, 3) I am clean cut , 4) I drive clean vehicles, and some ancillary things are that I am pro cop and was a Paramedic who kept a scanner and jumped in the fray to help cops when ever I could that does not mean they knew me because they would rotate in and out of the eastern division often, in any even they are smart men & women with ultra quick instincts for knowing a god guy vs a bad guy.

    The point is it pays to look like a good guy and not like M&M or some other hip hop slacker wit an attitude.

    Sure its his right to wear a dam pink diaper in public if he wants to, but we are members of a movement and like the Marine Core you are part of the greater whole, when you join forces in unison as an OC man you are a lead representative of a minority activist & rights group representing the majority you must know that people judge you immediately why what you wear and how to comport yourself.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    SteveInAshand wrote:
    His ultra large Tshirt is what a gangsta wears not a middle class working man or family man.
    ..
    In fact his stupidity at not letting the cop;s know he wasÂ* strapped was a sign he is a bitÂ* stupid.Â* Top me it does not matter if its the law or not.
    ..
    The point is it pays to look like a good guy and not like M&M orÂ* some otherÂ* hip hop slacker.
    I wear tshirts, I am a middle class family man. The cops should not harass people for legal actions regardless of dress. I understand making a good impression, but this guy was just driving his truck, we can't all always be at the height of what you think is fashionable.

    This particular guy already has a history of being harassed for OCing. I believe he was arrested earlier for not producing id ( http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/1...-of-crime.html )

    At least one of those officers have a history of harassing OCers in that area.

    The guy in the video's brother (I believe) posted this thread on this site:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum18/11678.html
    and it involved the same officer, different incident.

    You can follow the threads like:

    http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/...ighlight=glynn

    http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/for...2291016833/p/1

    for more information.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    SteveInAshand wrote:
    In fact his stupidity at not letting the cop;s know he was strapped was a sign he is a bit stupid. Top me it does not matter if its the law or not.
    So what you're saying is that you should be forced to do things NOT required by law? And that you should be threatened with death if you don't?

    I'll bet the law didn't require the guy to wash the cop's personally owned vehicle either. Should he be held at gunpoint if he won't do THAT?
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    From April tillOctober all I ever wear is "T" shirts, sleeved and sleevless,and blue jeans or denim shorts, that is my work attire 7 days a week.. First impressions are very important to me, and they work both ways..

    I would definitely have told the officer that I was armed, but after that, there won't be any brow beatin going on from either side of the Badge. If anyone confronts me looking for a Horses ass, I've got one "0 to 100" in seconds flat!!

  15. #15
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Carnivore wrote:
    From April tillOctober all I ever wear is "T" shirts, sleeved and sleevless,and blue jeans or denim shorts, that is my work attire 7 days a week.. First impressions are very important to me, and they work both ways..

    I would definitely have told the officer that I was armed, but after that, there won't be any brow beatin going on from either side of the Badge. If anyone confronts me looking for a Horses ass, I've got one "0 to 100" in seconds flat!!
    In Ohio, we HAVE to notify, so it's not an issue.

    But don't have any illusions that notifying when you don't have to won't cause you every bit as much trouble. There's a long story on the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) website about a guy from North Carolina who was falsely arrested by Fairfax, VA copsfor a variety of IMAGINARY offenses because he notified when he didn't need to.

    I'm for obeying the law. If I don't, the cop will make my life miserable. If the cop doesn't, I guarantee you I'll return the favor.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    In fact his stupidity at not letting the cop;s know he was strapped was a sign he is a bit stupid. Top me it does not matter if its the law or not.
    Interesting, I've heard this before. I've had municipal police here tell me I was stupid for OCing, despite being quite legal. When I asserted the legality, it didn't matter to the cops if it was the law or not...it was stupid in their minds. Fortunately, none have threatened to blow my brains out because I OC.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Dom wrote:
    ...SNIP
    I've had municipal police here tell me I was stupid for OCing, despite being quite legal. When I asserted the legality, it didn't matter to the cops if it was the law or not...it was stupid in their minds. SNIP...
    Did you ask them why they do it if it is so stupid? I would love to hear their answer.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    Dom wrote:
    In fact his stupidity at not letting the cop;s know he was strapped was a sign he is a bit stupid. Top me it does not matter if its the law or not.
    Interesting, I've heard this before. I've had municipal police here tell me I was stupid for OCing, despite being quite legal. When I asserted the legality, it didn't matter to the cops if it was the law or not...it was stupid in their minds. Fortunately, none have threatened to blow my brains out because I OC.


    My first question to them would be, "If Open-Carry is so stupid, why do all Law Enforcement Officers Open-Carry with their duty holsters? Why aren't all the LEO's concealing?"



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ass-land (Ashland) OR, , USA
    Posts
    267

    Post imported post

    No that is not what I am saying, I dont notify LEO's out of fear.

    I am here in full OC in an 80% liberal 10% normal town when I don't even need to OC as I am a CC holder.

    I am as bold as you please.

    I don't feel coerced or trained in any way to tell a LEO if I am CC or unnoticed OC.

    What I do is I look at it through the eyes of a cop who is walking up on me a total stranger in the dark on a lonely road and so I am gonna help this guy and help myself at the same time.

    The only "law" I care about is the moral law written on my heart , every other law made by man must be reviewed by my inner supreme court.



  20. #20
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    1. I turned the volume up quite loudly. I actually heard the guy who was pulled over mention that he had a permit for his firearm in the firs video.
    2. The officer's language was a bit unprofessional, but drawing on the guy who was pulled over may have been a justifiable decision. I can't judge that to be certain. Only the LEO's on scene can justify the decision to draw. Maybe they saw something we couldn't see in the video like nervous behavior or "telegraphing" on the part of the guy who was pulled over.
    3. They asked if he had any guns, knives, hand-grenades (wtf?) or types of narcotics. He said no. Then the LEO went bonkers over som OTC tylenol. (This is not a narcotic and is not PC for search, unless it clearly did not look like a OTC Tylenol, which we can't see from the video. Again, giving the LEO the benefit of the doubt, the suspect (at this point he's a suspect I guess?) could have been lying about the Tylenol.
    4. The LEO then changes his story and says that "any type of pill or medicine" is what he meant when he said "narcotic" so in the officers warped mind, the suspect is now lying to him... This is where I'm starting to have my doubts about the officer. However, he still hasn't searched the vehicle yet. He's only doing a plain-sight search, which doesn't require PC or a warrant.
    5. The other LEO asks why the guy didn't notify them that he had a pistol. The guy who was pulled over says he wasn't aware he had to. The LEO then gives him a line about the safety of the driver and the LEO's, but never actually says he was required to notify...Then the first LEO (the loudmouth) starts chiming in about how he would have been dead. (This is the same jacktard that was sayng "get outta tha car or I'll blow your F'in head off" earier.) The guy again says that he wasn't aware that he had to notify and the second LEO says "It's common sense." Again, he never claims it's the law.
    6. When asked for permission to search the truck (three or four different times) the guy who was pulled over refuses to allow the search. Good man!
    7. Then he gives him a line that he's under suspicion for possible narcotics in plain sight in the front of his truck and therefore has PC to search the vehicle. The "blue pill" the "suspect" (and he is one now) is claiming is a Tylenol. I'm imagining this would hold up in court if the pill doesn't look like a normal Tylenol. There's only one problem though: Blue Over the Counter Tylenol does exist and it's not a controlled substance. http://www.tylenol.com/print.jhtml?i...&print=yes
    8. Again, he insists it's Tylenol and refuses to allow the LEO's to search. Good call. I think their PC is weak, myself. The fact that they're asking for permission again leads me to believe that they know they don't have PC and they're trying to scare him into complying.
    9. The 2nd LEO says that the first LEO was just going to issue a citation and the guy could sign and be done, then says that seeing the gun changed all of that. Now the truth comes out. The guy pulled over again says he wasn't aware he had to inform. The first LEO (the loudmouth) again says it's for safety. He never states it's he law. He then goes on to say that if he had seen it, he'd have shot first and asked questions later. He says "I'm goin' home. I could give a S**t less about you." Wow, I can't believe he just said that on tape.
    10. Then they go ahead and search without consent anyways, saying that it must be a narcotic on the bench because it's blue and not a normal Tylenol, so it must be Tylenol III (which is a prescription drug because of codeine content) and state that if it's not in its bottle it is a felony... blah blah blah jail, threats, etc. They give him some line that if they search and find anything else he's in big trouble. (Of course if he gave them permission and told them about anything illegal he'd be in just as much trouble. Their case would just be easier to prosecute because they wouldn't have to have PC for a consentual search...) Tricky Dirty Nasty LEO tactics, as far as I'm concerned.
    11. The LEO tries to accuse him of grinding up Tylenol and selling it as Cocaine, to which the suspect replies "Why would I do that?" Then the LEO gives him a ration of crap about his bad attitude. (I haven't heard anything but passive compliance and honest questions from the suspect so far. He hasn't sworn, hasn't raised his voice, hasn't resisted detainment, and hasn't been rude. All he has done is refused to allow a search of his vehile.)
    12. They ask him if he has any guns, knives, hand grenades, or atom bombs. (Seriously, what is wrong with these guys?)
    13. Video 6 has a bit of radio chatter and during this one of the LEO's is talking to the suspect at length, but it's all inaudible. I wish I could hear what he's saying.
    14. It comes out that the suspect does have a license to carry the pistol in that state, but the LEO says he has a "smart mouth." I still haven't heard anything from the suspect that seems smart-assed to me. This "attitude evaluation" by the LEO (the one with the foul mouth and the repeated unprofessional threats) is the one who has a smart mouth, in my opinion. He has not conducted himself professionally at all. The second LEO has been far more professional in his mannerisms and speaking so far.
    15. The loudmouth LEO is dealing with a complaint to dispatch from an obnoxious family member who showed up on scene. (bad idea) Even the suspect told her to get lost, and with some authority. But the LEO says the suspect "'s been bitchin' the whole time" which isn't true at all. The suspect complained once that the handcuffs were too tight. The handcuffs were loosened and I haven't heard a complaint since.
    16. The suspect says he has no complaint when asked. Only his family relations complained. Again, he seems docile, cooperative, and compliant to me. (He's just exercising his right to refuse search.)
    17. The police officer sees that the result of the chemical test on the Tylenol is negative. He says "it's not coming up." and then says that Tylenol 500 is Codeine based. He says "what's it say on it?" and the other says "extra strength" Then one LEO suggests calling a pharmacy...
    18. So this is what it's all about. Extra-strength Tylenol 500 http://www.tylenol.com/print.jhtml?i...amp;print=yesj and all it is, is a 500 mg chunk of Acetaminophen with some fillers. A plastic baggie and a Tylenol 500 is hardly the felony they were trying to scare him with.
    19. Again, negative test on narcotics. Now the LEO's are going back and forth asking what the other saw, as if re-affirming that it was PC for narcotics.
    20. The LEO's put the pistol under his passenger seat, uncuff him, have him sign the citation, and then proceed to lecture him again about informing officers that he's carrying a gun. They say by not informing officers it's the quickest way to get himself shot, etc.
    21. The other, more professional LEO says that all the prior suspect (he's not a suspect anymore) had to do was put his CPL next to his license and say "here you go officer, I got that right here on my belt" and hand the LEO the CPL and DL at the same time.
    22. Then the LEO's give him a ration of crap about how he's carrying a gun but he doesn't know what model it is. They question him about shooting it, his experience with firearms, and his reasons for carrying. I'll admit that the prior suspect doesn't seem to know much about his firearm and does seem to have little experience with it. He doesn't seem too eloquent or intelligent when he answers the questions.
    23. When the prior suspect says he carries for protection, the LEO's give him a lecture that only they are carrying for protection, and that the prior suspect's smart mouth is going to put him in a situation where he's going to want to use the pistol. The LEOsagain assert that he's not carrying for protection, that only they are, as LEOs.
    Man, one of those LEO's was fairly reasonable but the other one was a major butthead througout the entire encounter. The civilian made several mistakes, and talking with the LEO's after he signed the citation was a terrible idea. I wouldn't stand there and try to justify my choice to carryto an LEO who has a stick up his butt about my method of carry, nor would I answer questions about my skill with a firearm ormyreasons for carrying a firearm. (I'd keep my mouthshut the entire time.)


    This very negative encounteronly makes me even more certain that the best course of action when dealing with a LEO that you haven't personally requested on-scene is to activate the DVR, maintain complete silence except to refuse a search, and to calmly comply with any detention/arrest attempts. Let the attorney sort it out later, if an arrest (false or legitimate) is made.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    I think if the officers had any justification to draw on the suspect then they had justifiable probable cause to do a search. Drawing on someone is intent to use lethal force, so they better have a damn good reason.

    Obviously they were straining hard for PC via plain view search. The cop saw the pill and it was quite a while before he decided it was PC...they were looking for a reason to arrest him, not just doing a due diligence investigation.

    My question is, was the cop correct in that possession of a Tylenol 3 (if prescribed to the suspect) outside of its bottle is a felony? Seems a bit harsh to me for a misplaced pill. One more reason to never consent to a search I guess, maybe I dropped one when coming home from the dentist.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Dom wrote:
    I think if the officers had any justification to draw on the suspect then they had justifiable probable cause to do a search. Drawing on someone is intent to use lethal force, so they better have a damn good reason.

    Obviously they were straining hard for PC via plain view search. The cop saw the pill and it was quite a while before he decided it was PC...they were looking for a reason to arrest him, not just doing a due diligence investigation.

    My question is, was the cop correct in that possession of a Tylenol 3 (if prescribed to the suspect) outside of its bottle is a felony? Seems a bit harsh to me for a misplaced pill. One more reason to never consent to a search I guess, maybe I dropped one when coming home from the dentist.
    Good points. It depends on the state, but Tylenol 3 does contain a narcotic and in some states they do have to be handled a certain way or it violates the law.

    I would be very interested in seeing what was cropped out of the video. The bottom half of that video is missing. That is why the bottom half is just a solid color matte. I have seen a lot of these police car videos and they are all full screen. Usually there is time date and other similar info superimposed in the bottom, but the full image is there. Clearly the LEO is interested in something on the back of the truck, inside the cropped area. From the audio it would seem that the truck does not have licence plate lights and that might be why he was stopped.

    During the encounter the guy does tell them he has a permit for his firearm, but only after the LEOs see the gun, and only after he turns and reaches for something out of sight in the seat of the truck. If as the LEO says there is a duty to inform then the guy blew it. But no matter what the guy says or does otherwise, reaching down in the direction of the weapon, during a police stop, at night, is a bad idea.

    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    Dom wrote:
    ...it didn't matter to the cops if it was the law or not...it was stupid in their minds.
    Paid to enforce the law, not their personal opinions. Don't care what they think is stupid. Tell it to the magistrate.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Nelson_Muntz wrote:
    Dom wrote:
    ...it didn't matter to the cops if it was the law or not...it was stupid in their minds.
    Paid to enforce the law, not their personal opinions. Don't care what they think is stupid. Tell it to the magistrate.
    If I don't get to make up my own speed limit, they don't get to make up their own CCW laws.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  25. #25
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    [SNIP] Good points. It depends on the state, but Tylenol 3 does contain a narcotic and in some states they do have to be handled a certain way or it violates the law.

    [SNIP] From the audio it would seem that the truck does not have licence plate lights and that might be why he was stopped.

    During the encounter the guy does tell them he has a permit for his firearm, but only after the LEOs see the gun, and only after he turns and reaches for something out of sight in the seat of the truck. If as the LEO says there is a duty to inform then the guy blew it. But no matter what the guy says or does otherwise, reaching down in the direction of the weapon, during a police stop, at night, is a bad idea.
    It wasn't Tylenol III. It was Tylenol 500 Xtra Strength. That's 500 mg of Acetominophen with fillers. No frills, no narcotics, nothing fancy.

    From the audio he was stopped (and cited) for missing a license plate light or having a license plate light out.

    He was not required to notify the officers he was carrying a firearm in his state. The officersrepeatedly told him he had to, for his own safety, and he repeatedly said he wasn't aware he was required to. What the LEO's weren't admitting, is that he was correct. He didn't have to tell them, they just wanted him to tell them, and they were trying to justify the drawing of the firearm in the first place.

    We don't know if he reached down for the weapon, or he reached down to get his wallet out of his pocket to produce his ID.



    My suspicion is that the stuff cropped out of the video is the date, time, and the squad car ID along with the officer ID's. The PD probably refused to release that portion of the video for some reason or another. (Maybe the LEO that drew is under an IA review?)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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