Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
ProShooter wrote:
Think it, through, ProShooter. (Also, you'll get further with me if you keep it calm and offer alternatives to help persuade rather than just arguing with declarations and telling the forum that my advice will cause trouble.)
Did he ask him to step out of the car because he saw again the gun he'd already seen?
Did he ask him to step out of the car because he wanted to talk to him when he had earlier talked to him in the car?
Did he ask him to step out of the car because he noticed the gun covered the VIN?
Nope. Looked at the voice-recorder. Then asked the OP to step outof the car.
To say loudly that the only person who knows what the officer was thinking is like sayingthe officer took out his ticket book after looking at tires that are known to be bald andconcluding he isabout to writean invitation to the policeman's ball.
The only way this might work is if the officer already intended to get him outof the car whenthe officer came back from the patrol car out of suspicionsomething was up over the CHP not being in thestate police data base.And then justhappened to glance at the gun while giving his preamble for getting the OP out of the car. None of which quite makescomplete sense weighed against the fact that there would be no reason to preamble or explain, ifthe officerwas genuinely suspicious of something.Also, itdoesn't makesense that he would mentiona fact that in a guilty person would trigger some sort of indication of deceptionin the middle of getting him out of the car. Nor does it make sense that he would mention it before getting him out of the car and then interrupt an interrogation to get him away from the gun.
Fortunately our 1st Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance does not require us to completely investigate and eliminate all possibilities.
I maintain that the officer ordered him out of the car to separate himself from the recording.
If the officer has a good reason, he can bring it up during the internal affairs investigation. If its valid and has the ring of truth, his superiors will accept it.
ProShooter wrote:
SNIP [arguing with Citizen in red ink]
Think it, through, ProShooter. (Also, you'll get further with me if you keep it calm and offer alternatives to help persuade rather than just arguing with declarations and telling the forum that my advice will cause trouble.)
Did he ask him to step out of the car because he saw again the gun he'd already seen?
Did he ask him to step out of the car because he wanted to talk to him when he had earlier talked to him in the car?
Did he ask him to step out of the car because he noticed the gun covered the VIN?
Nope. Looked at the voice-recorder. Then asked the OP to step outof the car.
To say loudly that the only person who knows what the officer was thinking is like sayingthe officer took out his ticket book after looking at tires that are known to be bald andconcluding he isabout to writean invitation to the policeman's ball.
The only way this might work is if the officer already intended to get him outof the car whenthe officer came back from the patrol car out of suspicionsomething was up over the CHP not being in thestate police data base.And then justhappened to glance at the gun while giving his preamble for getting the OP out of the car. None of which quite makescomplete sense weighed against the fact that there would be no reason to preamble or explain, ifthe officerwas genuinely suspicious of something.Also, itdoesn't makesense that he would mentiona fact that in a guilty person would trigger some sort of indication of deceptionin the middle of getting him out of the car. Nor does it make sense that he would mention it before getting him out of the car and then interrupt an interrogation to get him away from the gun.
Fortunately our 1st Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance does not require us to completely investigate and eliminate all possibilities.
I maintain that the officer ordered him out of the car to separate himself from the recording.
If the officer has a good reason, he can bring it up during the internal affairs investigation. If its valid and has the ring of truth, his superiors will accept it.