Armed Traffic Stop

[M-Taliesin]

Do you work at a mall on a Segway. Do blend into an area you are basically unnoticeable, just like a gecko. Are you 45 and truly him resurrected?

Nemo

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

Hello!
Nope. Unreasonable comments do not justify a reasonable response

 

[countryclubjoe]

Hello CCJ!
We prefer Fugitive Recovery Agent but bounty Hunter is technically correct. While we do not take the oath of a law enforcement officer, we do adhere to a code of ethics. We also must adhere to law. Failing to do either can result in having a real short run in this line of work.
We carry a variety of weapons, especially handguns, and we practice the "use of force" continue idea using escalation/descalation tactics to accomplish our task with as little fuss as possible.

Thank you for your reply. Very interesting profession.. A few more queries if I may and I understand if you feel not to answer.

1- Are you sanctioned by the Federal Government?
2- Are you employed by a private agency or self employed?
3- How did you acquire authority to carry weapons in all states? If you have said authority..
4- Do you have qualified immunity, if no, how do you shield yourself from criminal and civil litigation?
5- Are you required to post a security bond? if yes, how much?..

Since you are not bound by the constitution I assume the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments do not apply to you while doing your job?..

I look forward to your reply.

Regards
CCJ

 

[Bikenut]

Hello folks:
This thread has gone wildly off topic, which was conduct on a traffic stop while armed.

Can we agree to stick to the topic, please.

Your experience was one method of conducting one's self during a traffic stop. Another method is to only do what one is legally required to do. No more and no less. If there is no legal requirement to inform the officer of the presence of a legally carried gun then not informing could result in much the same ending as yours.

Not knocking how you responded but merely noting that your response isn't necessarily the only, or even always the best, way. A great deal depends on the laws of the State where the traffic stop occurred and the attitude and demeanor of the officer.

Besides, a traffic stop is nothing more than a business transaction where the State's representative (the officer) decides if he/she will impose a financial penalty upon the driver for an infraction whether real or imagined.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Duty to inform and so informing can also get you killed, think Philando Castile.. He informed and was killed.

Caveat, the killer was found not guilty...

Every encounter with a LEO could escalate into a life and death situation. My .02

So far this year 594 people have been killed by police, last year 963 people were killed by police.. (per the Washington post).

We never know when we or a family member or friend will become a statistic..

Stay safe..

CCJ

 

[color of law]

Hello.
He did State the reason for the stop. But the topic had to do with being armed during the stop and how it went well by the simple expedient of showing him respect which tends to keep such a stop at a comfortable level for both of us.

Well after reading your post I started wondering if you are a bounty hunter or a preacher. Or maybe both. But, preaching on this forum doesn't go over very well.

But, now you say “He did State the reason for the stop.” So, it wasn't for being a little over the speed limit as you originally stated.

I got it.

Have a nice day.....

 

[Va_Nemo]

Do you work at a mall on a Segway. Do blend into an area you are basically unnoticeable, just like a gecko. Are you 45 and truly him resurrected?

Nemo

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

Hello!
Nope. Unreasonable comments do not justify a reasonable response

Dayum, Its you, its really you. So glad you decided to come out of stealth ops.

Nemo

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

But, now you say “He did State the reason for the stop.” So, it wasn't for being a little over the speed limit as you originally stated.

I got it.

How you arrived at the reason for the stop being anything other than for speed as stated by the OP is a bit perplexing. Is there some subtext we should infer from "We both had a laugh at that, and I told him I'd need to reach for my wallet on the same side as the gun, but I was happy to move slowly. He checked out my credentials and said I was going a bit over the speed limit. I apologized, and he let me off with a warning" that we're all missing?

 

[solus]

Hello!

So enjoy your ad hominem vitriol but try to have some semblence of fact when you do.

There is a time for tactical gear; when the defendant is known to be armed and willing to shoot. IIIA becomes a matter of survival, not an element of theatrics.

It is interesting your assessment of things you know little or nothing about.

ya mel see your tactical gear time is now!!

as for things known...all someone has to do is read your OCDO post history...interesting read of the things you advocate and criticism spewed.


1. 2012: http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/show...ry-first-MWAG-call-HAHA&p=1808905#post1808905

Howdy Citizen!
Thank you so much for running off another newcomer to the movement here in Colorado! What a credit to the movement!
Run 'em off, so you can be the only one left standing to defend your 2a rights, because you evidently don't much care for another person's 1a rights.

2. 2013: http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/show...s-related-to-open-carry&p=1991127#post1991127

Howdy Again!
Oh, and lest I forget....
I OC in Denver frequently, often in the company of cops.
Never seem to have a problem.

3. 2013: http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?115044-Visiting-Denver-Area&p=1951364#post1951364

I'm an odd one that normally OC's in Denver territory. Call it "taking my chances", but I haven't been bothered at all.

as indicated...just a wanta-be boy in blue aren't you mel advocating on this public forum how 'special' you truly are...

 

[color of law]

How you arrived at the reason for the stop being anything other than for speed as stated by the OP is a bit perplexing. Is there some subtext we should infer from "We both had a laugh at that, and I told him I'd need to reach for my wallet on the same side as the gun, but I was happy to move slowly. He checked out my credentials and said I was going a bit over the speed limit. I apologized, and he let me off with a warning" that we're all missing?

This should be self explanatory.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Traffic-Stop&p=2221910&viewfull=1#post2221910
I asked about the reason for being over the speed limit. He then says "He did State the reason for the stop." That gives me reasoning to believe that the stop was not for being over the limit. Or he is playing word games to imply something else. Or I'm being dense.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I wouldn't necessarily say dense, but there are times when you have misunderstood things, such as what the controlling authority was for the Secret Service to have the power to declare restricted area in regards to a Presidential visit.

In this case, could you point out exactly (as in the OP's very words) where the stop was for anything other than speed in excess of posted speed limits?

 

[OC for ME]

I have a pickup truck, with a higher than most cars center console. My OC'd hand gun is not visible from the passenger side window let alone the driver side window.

 

[color of law]

I wouldn't necessarily say dense, but there are times when you have misunderstood things, such as what the controlling authority was for the Secret Service to have the power to declare restricted area in regards to a Presidential visit.

No, not at all; you chose to not answer my question. You deflected by quoting a penalty statute. That statute did not answer my question and you knew it didn't.

In this case, could you point out exactly (as in the OP's very words) where the stop was for anything other than speed in excess of posted speed limits?

M-Taliesin said in his first post: “He checked out my credentials and said I was going a bit over the speed limit. I apologized, and he let me off with a warning.”

Color of law asked: “Did he say the speed you were traveling at was unreasonable or not prudent under the conditions at the time he pulled you over?”

M-Taliesin responded to my question with this: “He did State the reason for the stop.”

The law requires that to be pulled over for being over the limit is that the overage is because it was either unreasonable or not prudent under the conditions.

The logical conclusion is the reason given for being pulled over for exceeding the posted limit was for some other reason which M-Taliesin chose not to say what it was or he was playing word games. Either way, he is being evasive.

From all the posts on this thread it is clear that his message is he is superior in his own mind in regards to his knowledge in how we are to handle traffic stops while carrying a gun.

It is my opinion this guy is infatuated with himself. There are hundreds of posts telling stories and the OP usually is accommodating to questions asked, even questions somewhat off topic.

Just say'n.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The law requires that to be pulled over for being over the limit is that the overage is because it was either unreasonable or not prudent under the conditions.

And 'reasonable and prudent' is defined in § 42-4-1101 (4). A link you provided, no less.

 

[color of law]

And 'reasonable and prudent' is defined in § 42-4-1101 (4). A link you provided, no less.

So, now that you figured out what I was quoting, lets hear your interpretation of part 4. I suggest you read it closely and take every word at its full value and to whom part 4 is speaking.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The law requires that to be pulled over for being over the limit is that the overage is because it was either unreasonable or not prudent under the conditions.

And 'reasonable and prudent' is defined in § 42-4-1101 (4). A link you provided, no less.


§ 42-4-1101(2)(g) says the speed limit for the type of road that OP was traveling on is 65 mph. IOW a motorist can't say he thought traveling 80 was OK because he 'didn't know what the speed limit was'. Without signage, the speed limit is 65mph.

§ 42-4-1101(8)(b) says despite (2)(g) that maximum legal speed in the state shall not exceed 75mph. This allows for the 75mph speed limit on portions of Interstate 70.

§ 42-4-1101 (4) as noted above defines what "reasonable and prudent" means.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

So, now that you figured out what I was quoting, lets hear your interpretation of part 4. I suggest you read it closely and take every word at its full value and to whom part 4 is speaking.

It's not exactly rocket science, but I can understand your confusion. Allow me to break it down Gangham style for you....

(4) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of subsection (8) of this section, any speed in excess of the lawful speeds set forth in subsection (2) of this section shall be prima facie evidence that such speed was not reasonable or prudent under the conditions then existing.

As used in this subsection (4), "prima facie evidence" means evidence which is sufficient proof that the speed was not reasonable or prudent under the conditions then existing, and which will remain sufficient proof of such fact, unless contradicted and overcome by evidence bearing upon the question of whether or not the speed was reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.

First sentence -
Explains that any speed in excess of that listed in subsection (2) is evidence of said speed not being reasonable or prudent.

Second sentence -
Explains what 'prima facie evidence' means. It means that there is no burden upon the state to prove that any cited speed was either unreasonable or imprudent. The speed itself is sufficient evidence unless the motorist provides proof to the contrary. See Cornell University.com, or TheLawDictionary (featuring Black's Law Dictionary), Wikitionary or as a last resort, Wikipedia.

Perhaps we would be better served by you explaining what you think those two sentences mean as the logical conclusion is that the misunderstanding lays with you?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Whelp, even though the poster has posted in other sections it's been 48-hours and no correction or counter to my interpretation of sub-section (4). I guess the logical conclusion is that my summation is correct.

 

[color of law]

Whelp, even though the poster has posted in other sections it's been 48-hours and no correction or counter to my interpretation of sub-section (4). I guess the logical conclusion is that my summation is correct.

If you are referring to me, your summation is logically incorrect. I'm waiting for you to answer the question in total.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

If you are referring to me, your summation is logically incorrect. I'm waiting for you to answer the question in total.

Ummm.. sure "So, now that you figured out what I was quoting, lets hear your interpretation of part 4. I suggest you read it closely and take every word at its full value and to whom part 4 is speaking.?
My interpretation of subsection (4) has already been posted.
I paid close attention to every word and every phrase in those two rather short sentences.

As to whom part (4) is speaking to, I imagine it's speaking to anyone subject to the laws of Colorado. It certainly doesn't seem to apply to motorists in Alabama (unless and until they are within the state lines of Colorado.)

Now... please, give us your opionion.
I'd be especially interested in what you think "reasonable and prudent" means, with a citation to any law where it's mentioned.

 

[color of law]

This

........

Second sentence -
Explains what 'prima facie evidence' means. It means that there is no burden upon the state to prove that any cited speed was either unreasonable or imprudent. The speed itself is sufficient evidence unless the motorist provides proof to the contrary. See Cornell University.com, or TheLawDictionary (featuring Black's Law Dictionary), Wikitionary or as a last resort, Wikipedia.......

contradicts this.

Ummm.. sure "So, now that you figured out what I was quoting, lets hear your interpretation of part 4. I suggest you read it closely and take every word at its full value and to whom part 4 is speaking.?
My interpretation of subsection (4) has already been posted.
I paid close attention to every word and every phrase in those two rather short sentences.

As to whom part (4) is speaking to, I imagine it's speaking to anyone subject to the laws of Colorado. It certainly doesn't seem to apply to motorists in Alabama (unless and until they are within the state lines of Colorado.)

Now... please, give us your opionion.
I'd be especially interested in what you think "reasonable and prudent" means, with a citation to any law where it's mentioned.

You are reading into part (4) things that are not there. You are a smart guy and that has gotten you to over think the sentence.

I'll give you a clue.

Blacks Law Dictionary 5th

Prima facie: At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary. State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110.

Again, to whom is it speaking. And this response is also a clue. Hint - contradict.