Let Me Entertain You...

Let Me Entertain You…


Okay, so TigerLily (TL) is on her motorcycle this past weekend and she is open carrying her Springfield XD .45. She is traversing the expanses of the great city of North Las Vegas, NV, near the city police station on Lake Mead Blvd. Well, an NLV police cruiser with two officers aboard lights her up and pulls her over for a suspected helmet violation, NRS 486.231.2 (Nevada is a helmet mandatory state – one of 20 or so in the country). TL has “something” on her head but the officers don’t believe it is a helmet or that there’s a “helmet” under whatever she has on her head. So… one of the officers sets forth to perform all the protocol required of a traffic stop… you know… driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. And… since TL has a visible firearm holstered on her hip, the officer also asks for her “Blue Card.” So, without further ado, here are some quotes from the conversation that took place between the officer and TL (Oh, yeah, she had her recorder going):

[FONT=&quot]Officer: “Do you have a permit for your license…. uh… for your firearm? You have a blue card? You have it registered and everything?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
TL: I’d like to plead the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] on that sir.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Officer: Okay, you can’t plead the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] on that one. I have to know that it’s registered or not. You have the right to legally have a firearm in public, and that’s perfectly fine. But it has to be registered in the State of Nevada. So is that your firearm or can I presume that it’s stolen?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
TL: I’m pleading the 5[SUP]th[/SUP].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Officer: Okay, very good.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Okay, at this point the “interrogation” about the weapon registration ceases without any further engagement. Please note that the officer is under the apparent impression that it is the “State of Nevada” that requires firearm registration. Keep that in mind, because it will come up later in my narrative here based upon one other thing the officer says... also contrary to "the law."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So… let’s continue…[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
TL:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Engaging the officer in a conversation about citizens’ rights vs. police authority.) One of the things is keeping an oath to the Constitution, sir.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Officer: I don’t make the law. I swore to serve the law.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot](This is an important statement by the officer at this point, because he’s already espoused his ignorance of the firearm registration “law.” He’ll continue with his ignorance of “the law” in at least one more statement… let’s listen)…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Officer: The law also does say you have to wear some kind of eye protection while you’re riding. Do you have clear glasses or sun glasses?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
TL: …Well, first of all, I’ve got a (wind)screen there … on my motorcycle…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Officer: I’m gonna let you read it. This is from the Nevada Revised Statutes. [/FONT][FONT=&quot](The officer showed TL a “cheat sheet” NRS bullet point list showing that protective eye gear is required by a motorcycle driver and passenger, NRS 486.231.2). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
TL: I’m very familiar with the Nevada Revised Statute.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Officer[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: (Showing TL his list) It says here, “headgear, helmet, eye protection.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
TL was eventually cited for not wearing a helmet in violation of NRS 486.231.2 and was given a verbal warning under the same statute for not wearing protective eye gear (glasses, goggles, or face shield) once she put a pair of sunglasses on. However, it is apparent that the officer was ignorant of the law found at NRS 486.231.3, which specifically states that when a “[/FONT]motorcycle … is equipped with a transparent windscreen (which TL’s was)…, the driver and passenger are not required to wear glasses, goggles or face shields.”


So, here we have a police officer that in response to a citizen’s contention that it he is duty bound to uphold the oath he took to the Constitution, states that he “swore to serve the law,” even though he is pretty much ignorant of at least two aspects of “the law” that came up during this traffic stop. How many more "laws" he is ignorant with respect to or has misinterpreted we can only surmise.


And who is this fine officer who “swore to serve the law?” Well it is none other than Officer S. Salkoff, #1686. If any of you happen to encounter him, please give a great big shout out from TL.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Sounds like she handled herself extremely well.

It is sad that many cops think they swore an oath to the law, not the Constitution. However, it is not surprising.

ManInBlack said:

Sounds like she handled herself extremely well.

It is sad that many cops think they swore an oath to the law, not the Constitution. However, it is not surprising.

Click to expand...

And equally as surprising is this particular officer's absolute IGNORANCE of "the law." Ya kinda wonder if his "sworn oath" is actually to "the law" or to his misguided interpretation of "the law."

usmcmustang said:

And equally as surprising is this particular officer's absolute IGNORANCE of "the law." Ya kinda wonder if his "sworn oath" is actually to "the law" or to his misguided interpretation of "the law."

Click to expand...

She did a great job as always. Did she also get her usual video?

Vegassteve said:

She did a great job as always. Did she also get her usual video?

Click to expand...

Yes, she has video and I'm sure will be YouTubing it.

Love from the east coast, TL!

And this is what this fine officer is paid annually to have NO idea what "the law" is (you know, the law he is sworn to enforce)... more than $150,000.00 !! http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?q=salkoff&t=name&j=any&y=any

usmcmustang said:

And equally as surprising is this particular officer's absolute IGNORANCE of "the law." Ya kinda wonder if his "sworn oath" is actually to "the law" or to his misguided interpretation of "the law."

Click to expand...

Not "his interpretation", but what he has been told the law is and his duties toward that end. As many localities only hire those with an IQ sufficient to follow orders, but not smart enough to question them.

TBG

North Las Vegas??? No dangerous weapon charge? What's up with that?

TBG

The Big Guy said:

North Las Vegas??? No dangerous weapon charge? What's up with that?

TBG

Click to expand...

Don't know... but one rides ON a motorcycle and NOT in a motorcycle. NLV Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 specifically refers to possession of a dangerous or deadly weapon IN a vehicle.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]By that simple "truth" it would seem that open carrying while one is on a motorcycle doesn't fall within the city's prohibitive ordinance.

Or, maybe these fine officers who have taken oaths to "the law" have been told to discontinue their illegal enforcement of that particular law... who's to say? I think it's all a crap shoot when dealing with these overpaid and under achieving clowns.

Holy crap, that is a lot of money for a cop salary!

I tell you what, they sure don't make that up home in Canada. Starting pay on the RCMP is like 50,000 and a good paid one may make 80,000 after years of employment. Our cost of living was higher up there too. Crazy!

usmcmustang said:

[font=&amp] <snip> tl: I’d like to plead the 5[sup]th[/sup] on that sir.[/font]
[font=&amp]
officer: Okay, you can’t plead the 5[sup]th[/sup] on that one.[/font] <snip>

Click to expand...

doh!!

usmcmustang said:

And this is what this fine officer is paid annually to have NO idea what "the law" is (you know, the law he is sworn to enforce)... more than $150,000.00 !! http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?q=salkoff&t=name&j=any&y=any

Click to expand...

What is "Other pay" $11,382.90? Graft?

No wonder the city is broke.

TBG

jdholmes said:

Holy crap, that is a lot of money for a cop salary!

I tell you what, they sure don't make that up home in Canada. Starting pay on the RCMP is like 50,000 and a good paid one may make 80,000 after years of employment. Our cost of living was higher up there too. Crazy!

Click to expand...

Not sure where in Canada you are from (I'm from BC originally, and now Edmonton) but it's not "WAS higher up there too"... it still IS higher......my rate of pay may be higher than the average of same job in the U.S but I have way less to play with after paying for food/rent/etc.. Sigh...

sorry for the threadjacking.

Great story, nice job of reporting. I am amazed he did not try to ramp up the fact she was OCing. I am hoping this is a sign NLV may be easing on the carry issue. Like usmcmustang says it is a crap shoot.

Steve Larson said:

Not sure where in Canada you are from (I'm from BC originally, and now Edmonton) but it's not "WAS higher up there too"... it still IS higher......my rate of pay may be higher than the average of same job in the U.S but I have way less to play with after paying for food/rent/etc.. Sigh...

sorry for the threadjacking.

Click to expand...

Yeah, western Canada is even higher than eastern Canada when it comes to living expense. I am from NB. It is much cheaper living here.

WOW that is nothing short of incredible... The ignorance AND the pay.

It's a fairly common ploy of LEOs to remain 'vague' on the law, such that they can use their 'discretion' in arresting, detaining or harassing someone. And it's defensible. "I'm not familiar with the complete text of that law, Judge, nobody can know all the laws, I just use my discretion and let the courts sort it out" - is a common comment.

So don't be surprised if a LEO is or feigns ignorance of the details of a law. IMO, we should have 'traffic wardens' and not LEOs who patrol the highways, and these wardens can only deal with traffic offenses.

BUT, consider why we don't. IMO, it's because of the illegal substances laws, and IMO, the majority of LEOs stop people to try and find illegal stuff (guns, money, substances, illegal aliens being trafficked) and not just for traffic offenses. If we reduced or made logical these other laws like some European countries have, we wouldn't need half the LEOs we have.

sawah said:

It's a fairly common ploy of LEOs to remain 'vague' on the law, such that they can use their 'discretion' in arresting, detaining or harassing someone. And it's defensible. "I'm not familiar with the complete text of that law, Judge, nobody can know all the laws, I just use my discretion and let the courts sort it out" - is a common comment.

So don't be surprised if a LEO is or feigns ignorance of the details of a law. IMO, we should have 'traffic wardens' and not LEOs who patrol the highways, and these wardens can only deal with traffic offenses.

BUT, consider why we don't. IMO, it's because of the illegal substances laws, and IMO, the majority of LEOs stop people to try and find illegal stuff (guns, money, substances, illegal aliens being trafficked) and not just for traffic offenses. If we reduced or made logical these other laws like some European countries have, we wouldn't need half the LEOs we have.

Click to expand...

I don't expect LEOs to know the details, minutia, or specifics of each and every law their attempting to enforce. If they did, then we wouldn't need the judiciary... the LEO could serve the enforcement and judicial function right there on the side of the road.

But... an LEO does need to have some basic knowledge/understanding of the law. In the scenario I reported on, the LEO wasn't at all "knowledgeable" or "understanding" of two "simple" laws. No. 1 - he made the bold statement that the state of Nevada requires firearm registration. That's blatantly false. The state of Nevada requires nothing of the kind and if an LEO in the state of Nevada is quoting that as the law and attempting to enforce that as the law... well, he's a moron. No. 2 - he made the statement that wearing eye protection while riding a motorcycle in Nevada is a requirement of the law. Well, it is and it isn't. He said he had been riding for many years and he knew what the motorcycle laws were. Not so! If one has a windscreen on their motorcycle, protective eye wear is NOT required... and that IS the law in Nevada.

I agree that we have many "illogical" laws... too many laws in general... and we need to have legislators (let's call 'em non-legislators) who realize that fact and who will set about to repeal a whole hell of a lot of 'em. But... will that happen... NO.

usmcmustang said:

I don't expect LEOs to know the details, minutia, or specifics of each and every law their attempting to enforce. If they did, then we wouldn't need the judiciary... the LEO could serve the enforcement and judicial function right there on the side of the road.

But... an LEO does need to have some basic knowledge/understanding of the law. In the scenario I reported on, the LEO wasn't at all "knowledgeable" or "understanding" of two "simple" laws.

Click to expand...

I understand your frustration, but (and I'm not trying to be argumentative), it's not up to what you expect of a LEO that determines what he -says- he knows. They can lie, they can give you their version of the law (they might be recent transfers from another state where the laws are different and really be conflating).

I'm just relating to you how LEOs use this ploy of being 'unfamiliar' and of telling you a legal opinion when they do not, in fact, have it right. There is no legal requirement that they know the law about ANYTHING. Their job is to arrest people and let the courts sort it out. If they make a mistake it is instantly forgiven by their superiors and the judges, other than blatant abuse and police policy violations (which are usually covered up, and internal discipline applied).

So, just be aware that there really is no requirement, it's frustrating and there is no 'justice' out there, so be careful!