Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Good LEO encounter

  1. #1
    Regular Member carry for myself's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    546

    Good LEO encounter

    This actually happened last month, but I lost internet so I was unable to share untill today .

    I was driving north bound on rt1 through saco, before thorton academy around 1am, on my way to pick up a friend at a party. I noticed someone had been pulled over in the right hand lane by two squad cars so I merged left to pass then right again into the lane I was in. one of the squad cars pulled out instantly ands light me up.so I pulled into a side street , shut down the car started my recorder and got my papers together.

    The officer approached the car,i handed him my DL, reg, insurance, and permit to carry, then informed him I was armed. He looked at the permit, asked where and what I was carrying. To which I told him "I'm open carrying a glock 32 in a serpa holster on my right hip . He said ok and went back to the car, came back told me my license plate light was out , told me to fix it. Them asked a few questions on the .357sig round and a few about OC, gave me back my papers and let me on my way . Overall one if the best stops I've had so far .
    i would rather run out of blood, breath and life. and die fighting. than run out of ammo , and die with my pants down -Tom Scantas

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Do you carry the gun on your hip while driving?
    I cant do that, its too uncomfortable. I like to put my gun in the console where I can get quick access to it and not have the seat belt hanging up on it. By doing this, I have no reason to submit a carry license because the gun is in the console.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I know many think encounters where the cop is respectful, doesn't get out of hand, etc are good encounters.

    I would like to submit some additional considerations, give additional perspective.

    First, the OPer's experience was not merely an encounter. It was in fact a seizure of an American citizen by his government.

    A seizure for a burned out license plate light. Gimme a break. Its not even a safety issue. One burned out brake light (out of three) is a stretch, but a license plate light isn't even that.

    Notice the cop didn't bother to inform the citizen why he was seized until late in the seizure. I've read police general orders that require the cop to immediately introduce himself and state the basis for the stop, unless there is exigent or mitigating circumstances. I can't imagine department policies vary all that much on this point. And, even if the policy of this department did vary, does it really require a policy to tell someone at the outset why he's been seized?

    No, this stop wasn't about license plate lights. It was a fishing expedition. Had it really been about license plate lights, the cop could have told him right at the very beginning to fix the light, and then sent him on his way. Our OPer was seized for a fishing expedition, legally justified by the license plate light. The cop darn sure checked the license, checked for warrants, etc. That was what he was really after, hoping for something, fishing for it.

    So, our friend the OPer became fair game (by government rules) and endured a seizure because the cop wanted to fish.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-22-2011 at 11:04 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    While were on the Tag light subject, a few years ago the DPS around here used the tag light as an excuse to pull me over about three time one month. " One time they claimed somone reproted a drunk driver" I drink about 4 beer a year, yea right!! Never even got a warning or a ticket, nothing.
    Since it was my service truck I was always getting pulled over in, I mounted a BIG light aimed directly at the tag!!
    Whats your excuse now????

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I know many think encounters where the cop is respectful, doesn't get out of hand, etc are good encounters.

    I would like to submit some additional considerations, give additional perspective.

    First, the OPer's experience was not merely an encounter. It was in fact a seizure of an American citizen by his government.

    A seizure for a burned out license plate light. Gimme a break. Its not even a safety issue. One burned out brake light (out of three) is a stretch, but a license plate light isn't even that.

    Notice the cop didn't bother to inform the citizen why he was seized until late in the seizure. I've read police general orders that require the cop to immediately introduce himself and state the basis for the stop, unless there is exigent or mitigating circumstances. I can't imagine department policies vary all that much on this point. And, even if the policy of this department did vary, does it really require a policy to tell someone at the outset why he's been seized?

    No, this stop wasn't about license plate lights. It was a fishing expedition. Had it really been about license plate lights, the cop could have told him right at the very beginning to fix the light, and then sent him on his way. Our OPer was seized for a fishing expedition, legally justified by the license plate light. The cop darn sure checked the license, checked for warrants, etc. That was what he was really after, hoping for something, fishing for it.

    So, our friend the OPer became fair game (by government rules) and endured a seizure because the cop wanted to fish.
    The OPer was also breaking the law, for which the cop didn't give him a ticket for and let him be on his way. I've read a lot of your posts Citizen and you are IMO way off the deep end. Government has some legitimate purposes. This OP did in fact break a legally adopted state law which the state has every right to enact and enforce per the US Constitution. This person was seized yes, but he was seized because he broke a law. The officer decided to cut him a break and not issue the citation and let him go on his way. There is nothing wrong here. Look elsewhere.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    I have to agree with Citizen a little here. A burnt out license plate light? Really? Definitely not a safety issue. If someone needs to see a license plate in the dark that's what headlights are for. I also think the officer was hoping for something more. On the other hand, the officer was polite so he gets a few points for that.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    The OPer was also breaking the law, for which the cop didn't give him a ticket for and let him be on his way. I've read a lot of your posts Citizen and you are IMO way off the deep end. Government has some legitimate purposes. This OP did in fact break a legally adopted state law which the state has every right to enact and enforce per the US Constitution. This person was seized yes, but he was seized because he broke a law. The officer decided to cut him a break and not issue the citation and let him go on his way. There is nothing wrong here. Look elsewhere.
    Yes, I'm off the deep end. There is more depth out here. It requires a little more knowledge, a little more willingness to look through the murk.

    I've found it helpful to look past the public-relations image spin put out by police. And, the automatic support for police by many mild-mannered citizens who depend on police for a feeling of security. Somehow they miss all the police mis-conduct, the Blue Wall of Silence, and the huge, glaring discrepancy that so many good cops do not call for reform or eject rights abusers from their midst. Of course, having 7 out of 7 cops lie about you helps wake you up. As does being seized several times for fishing expeditions. As does a cop telling you other cops might use lethal force on you in certain situations where it doesn't even come close to being justified. (Did he know something about his fellow officers we don't?)

    Regardless of whether the OPer violated a law, the officer had total discretion about enforcing it.

    But, the cop was not enforcing that law, either. Enforcing that law required nothing more than walking up to the car and telling the OPer that his light was out and he needed to fix it. The cop was fishing for more. This is what we get when cops are no longer peace officers, but law enforcement officers. Now, we all get to endure the fishing expeditions, exposing people even more to abuse by thug cops who the good cops refuse to eject from their midst.

    As far as government's right to seize people and enforce laws, don't forget Ayn Rand's villain in Atlas Shrugged. Paraphrased: We don't want those laws observed. We want them broken. There is no way to rule over innocent men.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-23-2011 at 01:10 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Yes, I'm off the deep end. There is more depth out here. It requires a little more knowledge, a little more willingness to look through the murk.

    I've found it helpful to look past the public-relations image spin put out by police. And, the automatic support for police by many mild-mannered citizens who depend on police for a feeling of security. Somehow they miss all the police mis-conduct, the Blue Wall of Silence, and the huge, glaring discrepancy that so many good cops do not call for reform or eject rights abusers from their midst. Of course, having 7 out of 7 cops lie about you helps wake you up. As does being seized several times for fishing expeditions. As does a cop telling you other cops might use lethal force on you in certain situations where it doesn't even come close to being justified. (Did he know something about his fellow officers we don't?)

    Regardless of whether the OPer violated a law, the officer had total discretion about enforcing it.

    But, the cop was not enforcing that law, either. Enforcing that law required nothing more than walking up to the car and telling the OPer that his light was out and he needed to fix it. The cop was fishing for more. This is what we get when cops are no longer peace officers, but law enforcement officers. Now, we all get to endure the fishing expeditions, exposing people even more to abuse by thug cops who the good cops refuse to eject from their midst.

    As far as government's right to seize people and enforce laws, don't forget Ayn Rand's villain in Atlas Shrugged. Paraphrased: We don't want those laws observed. We want them broken. There is no way to rule over innocent men.
    Citizen is my new hero. Well said sir.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Yes, I'm off the deep end. There is more depth out here. It requires a little more knowledge, a little more willingness to look through the murk.

    I've found it helpful to look past the public-relations image spin put out by police. And, the automatic support for police by many mild-mannered citizens who depend on police for a feeling of security. Somehow they miss all the police mis-conduct, the Blue Wall of Silence, and the huge, glaring discrepancy that so many good cops do not call for reform or eject rights abusers from their midst. Of course, having 7 out of 7 cops lie about you helps wake you up. As does being seized several times for fishing expeditions. As does a cop telling you other cops might use lethal force on you in certain situations where it doesn't even come close to being justified. (Did he know something about his fellow officers we don't?)

    Regardless of whether the OPer violated a law, the officer had total discretion about enforcing it.

    But, the cop was not enforcing that law, either. Enforcing that law required nothing more than walking up to the car and telling the OPer that his light was out and he needed to fix it. The cop was fishing for more. This is what we get when cops are no longer peace officers, but law enforcement officers. Now, we all get to endure the fishing expeditions, exposing people even more to abuse by thug cops who the good cops refuse to eject from their midst.

    As far as government's right to seize people and enforce laws, don't forget Ayn Rand's villain in Atlas Shrugged. Paraphrased: We don't want those laws observed. We want them broken. There is no way to rule over innocent men.
    What you're saying is dangerous to a civil society. I am the first person to support someone when police go outside their lawful authority. These officers did NOT go outside that authority. They stayed well within their authority and were even more lenient than they needed to be. They could have issued a summons. Not only did they have reasonable suspicion to make the detainment under Terry. They had probable cause to issue the summons for the broken light. When they have the legal authority to issue a summons, you are required by Maine State Law to ID yourself.

    If you don't like that, work to get the law changed, don't advocate that the officer was acting outside the law. It was a State Authorized Law Enforcement Officer enforcing a State Law. The Law was legally adopted by the state. Through personal observation the officer observed the law being broken and pulled the offender over. If that isn't a legitimate use of LEO powers, then what is? If you don't agree with the law, work on getting the law changed, but until it is changed, this officer did nothing wrong.
    Last edited by boyscout399; 09-23-2011 at 07:24 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    The OPer was also breaking the law, for which the cop didn't give him a ticket for and let him be on his way. I've read a lot of your posts Citizen and you are IMO way off the deep end. Government has some legitimate purposes. This OP did in fact break a legally adopted state law which the state has every right to enact and enforce per the US Constitution. This person was seized yes, but he was seized because he broke a law. The officer decided to cut him a break and not issue the citation and let him go on his way. There is nothing wrong here. Look elsewhere.
    How do you know if your plate lights are burned out? Do you do a preflight walk around? Stopping someone for a plate light out may be legal, but it is 9 out of 10 times a fishing expedition by the cop. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Walk up to the car and say "I stopped you for a burnt out plate light. You need to get it fixed. Have a good day." is all the interaction needed. Anything else is a fishing expedition. Give a ticket for it and the judge will ask, 99 out of a 100 times, "is it fixed?" IF so, he will dismiss the case. At the very worst, a cop could give a 'fix it' ticket. When the light is replaced, show it to any cop and he'll sign it off. End of case. There are a lot of laws wherein the cop has absolute discretion. Jaywalking on a street with no traffic is a good example. Ever do that?
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    What you're saying is dangerous to a civil society. I am the first person to support someone when police go outside their lawful authority. These officers did NOT go outside that authority. They stayed well within their authority and were even more lenient than they needed to be. They could have issued a summons. Not only did they have reasonable suspicion to make the detainment under Terry. They had probable cause to issue the summons for the broken light. When they have the legal authority to issue a summons, you are required by Maine State Law to ID yourself.

    If you don't like that, work to get the law changed, don't advocate that the officer was acting outside the law. It was a State Authorized Law Enforcement Officer enforcing a State Law. The Law was legally adopted by the state. Through personal observation the officer observed the law being broken and pulled the offender over. If that isn't a legitimate use of LEO powers, then what is? If you don't agree with the law, work on getting the law changed, but until it is changed, this officer did nothing wrong.
    Minor traffic violations are not Terry. There is no "probable cause," there is a violation, period. The cop did nothing unlawful; that doesn't imply he did nothing wrong. While he's ******* around on a piss ant issue, no crimes were being committed anywhere nearby? No drunks on the road? No reckless driving? No 'road rage'? A waste of taxpayers' money, a waste of the driver's time. There is no more "civil society" than a concentration camp.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 09-23-2011 at 01:21 PM.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Minor traffic violations are not Terry. There is no "probable cause," there is a violation, period. The cop did nothing unlawful; that doesn't imply he did nothing wrong. While he's ******* around on a piss ant issue, no crimes were being committed anywhere nearby? No drunks on the road? No reckless driving? No 'road rage'? A waste of taxpayers' money, a waste of the driver's time. There is no more "civil society" than a concentration camp.
    Minor traffic violations are a seizure and as such would fall under the same reasonable suspicion/probable cause burden of proof for initiating the stop. See Prouse v Delaware.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    How do you know if your plate lights are burned out? Do you do a preflight walk around? Stopping someone for a plate light out may be legal, but it is 9 out of 10 times a fishing expedition by the cop. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Walk up to the car and say "I stopped you for a burnt out plate light. You need to get it fixed. Have a good day." is all the interaction needed. Anything else is a fishing expedition. Give a ticket for it and the judge will ask, 99 out of a 100 times, "is it fixed?" IF so, he will dismiss the case. At the very worst, a cop could give a 'fix it' ticket. When the light is replaced, show it to any cop and he'll sign it off. End of case. There are a lot of laws wherein the cop has absolute discretion. Jaywalking on a street with no traffic is a good example. Ever do that?
    if you read the OP's post, he basically did just take his info, and tell him to get the light fixed. After that, it seems that the OP and the officer had a chat about calibers and firearms. At that point I would feel that the stop is over and they are engaging in a consensual encounter.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    What you're saying is dangerous to a civil society. I am the first person to support someone when police go outside their lawful authority. These officers did NOT go outside that authority. They stayed well within their authority and were even more lenient than they needed to be. They could have issued a summons. Not only did they have reasonable suspicion to make the detainment under Terry. They had probable cause to issue the summons for the broken light. When they have the legal authority to issue a summons, you are required by Maine State Law to ID yourself.

    If you don't like that, work to get the law changed, don't advocate that the officer was acting outside the law. It was a State Authorized Law Enforcement Officer enforcing a State Law. The Law was legally adopted by the state. Through personal observation the officer observed the law being broken and pulled the offender over. If that isn't a legitimate use of LEO powers, then what is? If you don't agree with the law, work on getting the law changed, but until it is changed, this officer did nothing wrong.
    (sigh)

    I never said the cop acted illegally. In fact, if you will please re-read my post you will see I expressly said the seizure was legally justified.

    Regarding civil society. What is dangerous to civil society is a government that passes plagues of laws and regulations that can then be used to ensnare citizens. Gunslinger's comment about doing a pre-flight checklist to check each bulb before every use of the car is an example directly on point.

    This is all perfectly legal, of course. The law says so. The legislature says so, of course. And, too often, so do the courts, speciously.

    Legislatures are not civil. They are filled degenerates who pass laws for their own political gain. And, threaten the rest of us into compliance with gun-toting thugs, prison, forfeiture, and death. This is not to say all laws are bad, but vast amounts are done for other reasons. Too often, bad laws or unconstitutional laws are passed. Bottom line, as long as government is the sole arbiter of the limits of its powers, it will always find justification for a little more, sometimes a lot.

    Thus, although a law may be legal, that is damn sure no guarantee it is legitimate. Or civil.

    There is nothing dangerous to civil society in my saying this. There is truth in it. Some Founders said far more dangerous things, after the Framing and ratification, thank you very much. It is far more dangerous to civil society to insist that just because something is legal, it is above criticism.

    I could be wrong, but I think that at the heart of this matter, will be the degree of willingness on your part to re-examine some ideas you accepted uninspected, or perhaps inadequately inspected. I didn't just wake up one day and decide to be a contrarian, to dissent, to criticize, you know.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-23-2011 at 09:12 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    68
    My thoughts are that if the officer is not going to see it then don't let him know you are armed. I think it could unnecessarily make things more tense and also if you get the wrong cop that license plate light out is going to cost you some more money in addition to what it costs to get it fixed.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Large Caliber Kick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mooresville, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    224
    For those who are opposed to this leo's actions,


    Consider how many times a fishing expedition started by something as simple as a burned out light has led to an arrest for much more serious charges. Could there be a passenger in the back smoking weed, or an illegal firearm under the passenger seat, or a spare tire full of cocaine in the trunk? All these are possibilities that have happened before and will happen again. Since I have nothing to hide I don't mind answering a few questions or if I have the time, allowing a search. It has been my experience (four out of five) that being cooperative and consenting to a search results in NO SEARCH and NO TICKET. That last one I really deserved so I won't complain. Bottom line is, lighten up and make their day with a positive stop (cause most don't) and it will get you far.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Large Caliber Kick View Post
    For those who are opposed to this leo's actions,


    Consider how many times a fishing expedition started by something as simple as a burned out light has led to an arrest for much more serious charges.
    This is exactly how the government justifies it, and justifies the expansion of government intrusion, and justifies the diminishment of liberty. It is law-enforcement officering, not peace-officering.

    In order to accept the government's position, one must overlook or not consider the full picture. Taken alone, LCK's justifications make sense. Who doesn't want the subject of a warrant arrested? If you support the War on Some Drugs, wouldn't you want dope-heads arrested?

    But, the picture is broader. It is by these little pricks and diminishments that government puts us all in a little more legal jeopardy, and a little more, and a little more. Pretty soon government will think it has the power to forced us to wear seat-belts, and pay the increased manufacturing costs for cars with air-bags and black box recorders---oh, wait.

    First lets examine the burned-out license plate light. The BoyScout called the OPer an offender. No joke, an offender. But, Gunslinger pointed out that the only way to never fail to comply is to walk around the car and check all the lights before each trip (and hope the bulb doesn't burn out during the trip, a circumstance that would require having mirrors at each light so you could check as you drive). How far must we go to comply, to avoid being stopped, to maintain the illusion that we are free? How far must one go to avoid being an offender against the license plate light law? To avoid giving the government a circumstance that it itself has said is sufficient justification to seize you for a time. And, where does it end with these little pricks and diminishments?

    Also, not all cops are nice. So, while LCK's justification seems not so bad in a perfect world, what really occurs is that now citizens are also subjected to bad cops and cops with crappy attitudes on fishing expeditions, not just good cops on fishing expeditions. I can tell you first hand that exercising your rights against some of them puts you not in legal jeopardy but physical jeopardy. But, hey, fishing expeditions sometimes catch crooks.

    Some of the government's justification falls apart on casual examination, too. For example, sometimes an outstanding warrant is discovered. Oh! Noes!! An outstanding warrant! Well, if the subject of the warrant was all that dangerous, why wasn't government out hunting him down? Now, the rest of us get to endure fishing expeditions because the government doesn't want to chase down the warrants or pay bounty hunters? Give me a break!

    Same deal for running concealed handgun permits. We have had a cop right here on this forum explain that cops want to run the permit through the computer because it might have been revoked. Oh! Noes! A revoked permit not surrendered or mailed back! Well, if it was all that important to get the permit back, why didn't the sheriff's office hunt down the person and seize back the permit? So, now the rest of us have to endure fishing expeditions because the sheriff's office can't be bothered to actually go and get the revoked permit? Give me a break! Given some of the anti-freedom, statist, anti-rights attitudes I've read from cops, I would experience no surprise whatever if it was discovered warrants and permits aren't chased at the front end simply to give cops something to do on the back end--job security for street cops. Keep 'em from getting bored.

    "But Timothy McVeigh was captured because he was stopped for an expired license!" Yep. And, they woulda caught him anyway because the FBI traced the bomb truck through a serial number on the rear axle. Led them to Terry Nichols, if I recall, too.

    Lets also consider plain-view searches. Now that you are stopped for a legal fisihing expedition, anything questionable or illegal and visible in your car is now fair game to the cop. Didn't know those jangly things on your rear-view mirror were illegal? You will in just a moment. Guilty. Pay the clerk. Next case. That old half-flattened beer can in the back of your van, the one that fell out of the torn trash bag? For a plain-view cop looking in the back window who doesn't like that you know your rights that beer can is called an open container. Guilty. Pay the clerk. Next case.

    Government wants violators and offenders. The more the better. The more violators, the more cops needed, the more courts and judges needed, the more prison guards have jobs. The more money needed into the system. Cops can't play cops-and-robbers unless there are violators to catch.

    Neither you nor I owe it to government to make ourselves targets so they can play. We may be stuck with it because they have the guns, but the least we can do is not swallow the self-serving rationale fed to us by the government.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-24-2011 at 12:54 AM.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Large Caliber Kick View Post
    SNIP Since I have nothing to hide I don't mind answering a few questions or if I have the time, allowing a search. It has been my experience (four out of five) that being cooperative and consenting to a search results in NO SEARCH and NO TICKET. That last one I really deserved so I won't complain. Bottom line is, lighten up and make their day with a positive stop (cause most don't) and it will get you far.
    I always cooperate fully: "Oh, I'm sorry officer. I'm a patriotic American. I will cooperate to the full extent required by our laws." Followed by refused consent and silence.

    Also, "Officer, something over a million Americans have literally died defending these rights. I'm not going to spit on their graves by waiving those rights just because a police officer asks."

    You'll also want to watch a few videos.* You're putting yourself in legal jeopardy unnecessarily. Especially, since you may not be able to tell the bad cop from the good cop until it is too late. Many of us recall the police dash-cam audio posted here where the cops where oh-so nice and polite to the OCer while interviewing him, but back at the cruiser one cop was plainly heard to say, "There's got to be something we can get him for."

    The nice cop can be the most dangerous. The smart cop knows full well that he needs your willingness to obtain your consent. He needs you to talk some more to turn reasonable suspicion into probable cause for an arrest. The police officer who is investigating you is not your friend. That's not his job. If he is being polite while he is investigating you, it is because it is to his advantage for you to not realize it is an adversarial encounter. If a cop is investigating you, it is always an adversarial encounter. No matter how nice he is. Whether you think you have done nothing wrong is not the point. Whether he finds something he thinks is wrong, even if you didn't know it was wrong is the problem. Whether he finds something that he interprets as probable cause is the problem. Even if you win in court, you still have the arrest record and the cost of the legal defense.


    Talking to Police by Prof James Duane of Regent University Law School. Pay very close attention to what the cop says when he arrives to the podium after the professor speaks.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc


    Busted: A Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters by FlexYourRights.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA


    Ten Rules for Dealing With Police by FlexYourRights.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmrbN...layer_embedded

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    This is exactly how the government justifies it, and justifies the expansion of government intrusion, and justifies the diminishment of liberty. It is law-enforcement officering, not peace-officering.

    In order to accept the government's position, one must overlook or not consider the full picture. Taken alone, LCK's justifications make sense. Who doesn't want the subject of a warrant arrested? If you support the War on Some Drugs, wouldn't you want dope-heads arrested?

    But, the picture is broader. It is by these little pricks and diminishments that government puts us all in a little more legal jeopardy, and a little more, and a little more. Pretty soon government will think it has the power to forced us to wear seat-belts, and pay the increased manufacturing costs for cars with air-bags and black box recorders---oh, wait.

    First lets examine the burned-out license plate light. The BoyScout called the OPer an offender. No joke, an offender. But, Gunslinger pointed out that the only way to never fail to comply is to walk around the car and check all the lights before each trip (and hope the bulb doesn't burn out during the trip, a circumstance that would require having mirrors at each light so you could check as you drive). How far must we go to comply, to avoid being stopped, to maintain the illusion that we are free? How far must one go to avoid being an offender against the license plate light law? To avoid giving the government a circumstance that it itself has said is sufficient justification to seize you for a time. And, where does it end with these little pricks and diminishments?

    Also, not all cops are nice. So, while LCK's justification seems not so bad in a perfect world, what really occurs is that now citizens are also subjected to bad cops and cops with crappy attitudes on fishing expeditions, not just good cops on fishing expeditions. I can tell you first hand that exercising your rights against some of them puts you not in legal jeopardy but physical jeopardy. But, hey, fishing expeditions sometimes catch crooks.

    Some of the government's justification falls apart on casual examination, too. For example, sometimes an outstanding warrant is discovered. Oh! Noes!! An outstanding warrant! Well, if the subject of the warrant was all that dangerous, why wasn't government out hunting him down? Now, the rest of us get to endure fishing expeditions because the government doesn't want to chase down the warrants or pay bounty hunters? Give me a break!

    Same deal for running concealed handgun permits. We have had a cop right here on this forum explain that cops want to run the permit through the computer because it might have been revoked. Oh! Noes! A revoked permit not surrendered or mailed back! Well, if it was all that important to get the permit back, why didn't the sheriff's office hunt down the person and seize back the permit? So, now the rest of us have to endure fishing expeditions because the sheriff's office can't be bothered to actually go and get the revoked permit? Give me a break! Given some of the anti-freedom, statist, anti-rights attitudes I've read from cops, I would experience no surprise whatever if it was discovered warrants and permits aren't chased at the front end simply to give cops something to do on the back end--job security for street cops. Keep 'em from getting bored.

    "But Timothy McVeigh was captured because he was stopped for an expired license!" Yep. And, they woulda caught him anyway because the FBI traced the bomb truck through a serial number on the rear axle. Led them to Terry Nichols, if I recall, too.

    Lets also consider plain-view searches. Now that you are stopped for a legal fisihing expedition, anything questionable or illegal and visible in your car is now fair game to the cop. Didn't know those jangly things on your rear-view mirror were illegal? You will in just a moment. Guilty. Pay the clerk. Next case. That old half-flattened beer can in the back of your van, the one that fell out of the torn trash bag? For a plain-view cop looking in the back window who doesn't like that you know your rights that beer can is called an open container. Guilty. Pay the clerk. Next case.

    Government wants violators and offenders. The more the better. The more violators, the more cops needed, the more courts and judges needed, the more prison guards have jobs. The more money needed into the system. Cops can't play cops-and-robbers unless there are violators to catch.

    Neither you nor I owe it to government to make ourselves targets so they can play. We may be stuck with it because they have the guns, but the least we can do is not swallow the self-serving rationale fed to us by the government.
    If you don't like it, work to get the Constitution changed. All of these laws enacted by the states are perfectly within the state's rights to enact. Or work to get the laws of the state changed. You're coming close to advocating non-compliance when you are in fact breaking the written law. I am a firm believer in following the law, and if you're not following the law, paying the price of the prescribed penalty. I work to get laws changed so that it's better and clearer for everyone involved. This officer in this case followed the law and let the OP go within minutes. A minor intrusion considering he was in fact violating the law. An intrusion that could have gone much worse if the officer chose to be a jerk about it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    If you don't like it, work to get the Constitution changed. All of these laws enacted by the states are perfectly within the state's rights to enact.
    Can we impute a well-known Internet Law here, without direct reference?

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    If you don't like it, work to get the Constitution changed. All of these laws enacted by the states are perfectly within the state's rights to enact. Or work to get the laws of the state changed. You're coming close to advocating non-compliance when you are in fact breaking the written law. I am a firm believer in following the law, and if you're not following the law, paying the price of the prescribed penalty. I work to get laws changed so that it's better and clearer for everyone involved. This officer in this case followed the law and let the OP go within minutes. A minor intrusion considering he was in fact violating the law. An intrusion that could have gone much worse if the officer chose to be a jerk about it.

    --Moderator deleted personal attack--
    How dare you accuse me of "coming close to advocating non-compliance"?

    You can't accuse me of sedition, rebellion, or even civil disobedience, so you invent a new accusation to support getting all worked up. "Coming close to advocating non-compliance"!! Oh! Noes!

    Bwhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!

    Hey! Somebody tell Rosa Parks to get to the back of the bus. And, keep her mouth shut! Not only is time-honored civil disobedience railed against, but even coming close to advocating it deserves assault on the close-to advocate!

    I see he gave up trying to accuse me of being a danger to civil society. I guess that's something. I'm now somewhere in between being a menace to civil society and coming close to advocating civil disobedience.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-24-2011 at 03:29 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member crdonov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    463
    Easy boys!!!

    Xd-over

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    33
    Citizen, I have much respect for those who can rationalize beyond "common knowledge and social norms", and beyond what most would accept as acceptable. You sir, are an inspiration!

    Just saying...

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Boy scout,

    Have you noticed that Citizen has over 11,000 posts? If he was advocating for "non-compliance" he would have been kicked off the board a long time ago. Do not criticize him for saying things that you lack the courage to say. Citizen, keep the wisdom coming.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  25. #25
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    Do you carry the gun on your hip while driving?
    I cant do that, its too uncomfortable. I like to put my gun in the console where I can get quick access to it and not have the seat belt hanging up on it. By doing this, I have no reason to submit a carry license because the gun is in the console.
    I also OC on my right hip. I think the big thing is the design of your seats, and the holster. Once I have my seatbelt locked in place, and the strap under the carry. I do not even feel mine (until I need to release the seat belt.) (custom holster)

    The only difference is, I have been stopped a few (very few) times since I received my CPL. No need to inform, I have not, and have never been asked. In WA your CPL is tied to your drivers license, when they check (if they do) your DL, they know you have a CPL...and like I said, I have never been asked for it.

    The last time I was stopped the guy was looking for DUI. "He said" I had not dimmed my headlights...well, I have those Zeon headlights so he may have had a complaint, I think he was bored...anyway...not a question about my carry as has been normal in my experience (it was 02:00)
    Last edited by hermannr; 09-24-2011 at 08:32 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •