Pulled over tonight

[tv1217]

You trust people too much

 

[Beau]

.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You have to take into consideration that the officer is concerned about his personal safety, they're people just like us and they don't want to end their shifts early to take a trip to the hospital/morgue.

I agree with your second point, but your first baffles me. I'm still waiting to hear how handing a gun back to it's rightful owner who just volunteered to you the fact that he's carrying and handed you the pistol to check jeopardizes anyone's safety. Further, OK, so if I really am a threat, is handing me back a gun and an empty mag going to change anything. How many of us carry spare mags on us? and honestly, is it that hard to put a stripped pistol back together?

This is, as noted, about the LEO "feeling safe" even when s/he is less so by his/her own actions, rather than being safe by just leaving well enough alone. If you think you have to check the SN on my pistol, once you verify it's not reported stolen, I'd sure appreciate it being handed back to me with a simple, "Thanks, Sorry for the inconvenience."

It would be similar to <begin movie scenario> if I, driving very fast, get a bubble gum machine in my rear view mirror. I don't slow down, and the cop pulls alongside to point me to the side of the road. My window goes down and I yell, "LADY WITH A BABY!!" or "MY KID IS SICK!!" and instead of stopping me, he pulls ahead and does the "weave" to clear the road for me, recognizing that that's the safer thing to do AND to verify I really am going to the hospital. Once that's confirmed, I might get a citation, but much more likely, I think, that I'd get a "DON'T do that again!" type warning in full understanding of the reason for my actions. The difference? In the latter case, I would actually have been doing something both dangerous and in violation of the law, but for the right reason, where in the former, my actions would have been confirmed as lawful and safe, yet that's the time you're going to intentionally inconvenience me? <end scenario>

I want our good LEOs to go home safely at the end of their shifts, too. Hell, for that matter, I even want our bad LEOs to go home safely at the end of their shifts (though I'd prefer they did so jobless, so as to protect the public from them and stop them tarnishing the others' good names)... but emptying and/or field stripping our guns (with which they may not be familiar) before handing them back is not the way to advance that goal.

Blessings,
Bill

You trust people too much

I'm going to presume you're talking to me with this last, since you included no reference. I trust people too much? I might counter that you trust people too little.

The simple fact is that those people whose only "crime" is an infraction of the traffic code, who carry lawfully (and therefore have at least two levels of background checks done on them) and disclose that fact voluntarily to the LEO are not the people the LEO has to worry about. Even if they were, we don't (or aren't supposed to) infringe on people's rights. See, the LEO has a right to go home to his family, but s/he does not have the right to eff up your day to make that happen unless you have posed some kind of threat to his/her safety. S/he has no more nor less rights than you do, but has the power to infringe on your rights with impunity, unless you have some enormous amount of evidence that s/he has done so improperly. Your word is not enough to say that happened, but his/hers is enough to say that you've committed some crime. Either way, at the end of his/her shift, s/he is going home. You might not. The potential for abuse there is both extreme and undeniable.

I don't deny that LEOs have rights as people/citizens. I don't claim they have fewer rights than the rest of us. I instead state only that they have no more rights, and also that they have the added responsibility to use the powers of their office with the least possible intrusion upon the rights of the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect. Some people seem to think that a LEO's right to his life and desire to go home to his family are more important than a citizen's right to his life and liberty. It is that with which I take issue.

That metal symbol on their uniform shirts does not make them any more valuable, any more trustworthy, any more honest, or any more important. Rather, it's kind of like a Catholic priest's Roman collar in that it's there to identify the person who has chosen to be available and to serve the people. We as a society seem to have forgotten that fact, to the point that the courts stress officer safety above citizens' rights. These two things should be in balance, with preference to rights, not powers, in line with the guide laid out by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Trust too much? No. I understand what our Founders' intent was and how they envisioned the role of government and its agents.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Soundslikejosh]

I have been pulled over a few times (even got to sit in the back of the squad car one time) but have only gotten a couple warnings in the last 25 years. I have always stuck with yes sir, no sir, sorry sir and thank you sir. It has served me pretty well.

+1

 

[dross]

I'm going to presume you're talking to me with this last, since you included no reference. I trust people too much? I might counter that you trust people too little.

The simple fact is that those people whose only "crime" is an infraction of the traffic code, who carry lawfully (and therefore have at least two levels of background checks done on them) and disclose that fact voluntarily to the LEO are not the people the LEO has to worry about. Even if they were, we don't (or aren't supposed to) infringe on people's rights. See, the LEO has a right to go home to his family, but s/he does not have the right to eff up your day to make that happen unless you have posed some kind of threat to his/her safety. S/he has no more nor less rights than you do, but has the power to infringe on your rights with impunity, unless you have some enormous amount of evidence that s/he has done so improperly. Your word is not enough to say that happened, but his/hers is enough to say that you've committed some crime. Either way, at the end of his/her shift, s/he is going home. You might not. The potential for abuse there is both extreme and undeniable.

I don't deny that LEOs have rights as people/citizens. I don't claim they have fewer rights than the rest of us. I instead state only that they have no more rights, and also that they have the added responsibility to use the powers of their office with the least possible intrusion upon the rights of the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect. Some people seem to think that a LEO's right to his life and desire to go home to his family are more important than a citizen's right to his life and liberty. It is that with which I take issue.

That metal symbol on their uniform shirts does not make them any more valuable, any more trustworthy, any more honest, or any more important. Rather, it's kind of like a Catholic priest's Roman collar in that it's there to identify the person who has chosen to be available and to serve the people. We as a society seem to have forgotten that fact, to the point that the courts stress officer safety above citizens' rights. These two things should be in balance, with preference to rights, not powers, in line with the guide laid out by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Trust too much? No. I understand what our Founders' intent was and how they envisioned the role of government and its agents.

Blessings,
Bill

Very well said. I'd rep you but it won't let me.

 

[Beau]

I 100% do not agree to being disarmed for officer safety. To me it's just their way of establishing who is alpha. What about my safety? Once they have my pistol I am at their mercy.

I will not hand over my firearm. If LE wants it. They will have to remove it from my person. Under protest. And you can bet I will file a complaint afterwords.

 

[dross]

I instead state only that they have no more rights, and also that they have the added responsibility to use the powers of their office with the least possible intrusion upon the rights of the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect. Some people seem to think that a LEO's right to his life and desire to go home to his family are more important than a citizen's right to his life and liberty. It is that with which I take issue.

That metal symbol on their uniform shirts does not make them any more valuable, any more trustworthy, any more honest, or any more important. Rather, it's kind of like a Catholic priest's Roman collar in that it's there to identify the person who has chosen to be available and to serve the people. We as a society seem to have forgotten that fact, to the point that the courts stress officer safety above citizens' rights.

What you've said here is so fundamental to what I believe, it's hard for me to understand why it's not plain to everyone. I don't mean to disparage with that comment, I'm just revealing an area that's so dear to me it's hard to understand the other side's point of view.

When I am stopped and detained, even for a little while, it's a very tough experience for me. I don't like to relinquish that power, evne for a little while. I put up with it (politely) because I understand that's the price we have to pay for a reasonable amount of safety. If I was speeding, or if I ran a stop light, or even if my windows are tinted, I'll accept being stopped as a consequence of being a citizen. What I expect from the officer is to be treated with the utmost courtesy - because that's what I"m going to extend to him. Any thing at all not having to do with the stop is none of his damned business, unless he's making friendly conversation, which I'll return in kind. He's currently holding me against my will, with the threat of force and the awesome power of the government behind him. He's literally got a captive audience. At the same time, I'm a law-abiding tax-paying (and my household has to pay the share for the 50% who don't pay taxes) citizen, and he should use as little of his power as he can to get the job done, and he needs little of it with me. Rudeness, smartassery, lectures, and comments about my weapon are way out of line, and an abuse of authority, though a small one.

As an example, once I was pulled aside for an extra carry-on search. The guy going through my bag took his sweet time reading the back cover of a novel I had in my bag. Whether by accident, or as a little show of power, that kind of thing is out of line.

As an officer, I understand you must approach every stop as if the person is a potential threat. Yet, you should still treat everyone as if they are an upstanding citizen until you have reason to believe differently. And when you get reason to believe they are upstanding, for instance, an LTCH which requires a background check, you should extend them more of the benefit of the doubt.

 

[public servant]

I 100% do not agree to being disarmed for officer safety. To me it's just their way of establishing who is alpha. What about my safety? Once they have my pistol I am at their mercy.

I will not hand over my firearm. If LE wants it. They will have to remove it from my person. Under protest. And you can bet I will file a complaint afterwords.

Then you're going to jail...and yes, it will be taken away. One way or another. It really has nothing to do with who has the bigger testicles.

Unbelievable.


IC 35-44-3-3
Resisting law enforcement; mandatory sentence
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties;
(2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or
(3) flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop;
commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The offense under subsection (a) is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the offense is described in subsection (a)(3) and the person uses a vehicle to commit the offense; or
(B) while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person draws or uses a deadly weapon, inflicts bodily injury on or otherwise causes bodily injury to another person, or operates a vehicle in a manner that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person;
(2) Class C felony if, while committing any offense described
in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes serious bodily injury to another person; and
(3) Class B felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes the death of another person.
(c) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer includes an enforcement officer of the alcohol and tobacco commission and a conservation officer of the department of natural resources.
(d) If a person uses a vehicle to commit a felony offense under subsection (b)(1)(B), (b)(2), or (b)(3), as part of the criminal penalty imposed for the offense, the court shall impose a minimum executed sentence of at least:
(1) thirty (30) days, if the person does not have a prior unrelated conviction under this section;
(2) one hundred eighty (180) days, if the person has one (1) prior unrelated conviction under this section; or
(3) one (1) year, if the person has two (2) or more prior unrelated convictions under this section.
(e) Notwithstanding IC 35-50-2-2 and IC 35-50-3-1, the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under subsection (d) may not be suspended.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.4. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.61; Acts 1979, P.L.83, SEC.11; P.L.188-1984, SEC.1; P.L.325-1987, SEC.1; P.L.248-1993, SEC.1; P.L.13-1998, SEC.1; P.L.143-2006, SEC.2.

 

[dross]

As this has been discussed, several people have expressed understanding of the LEO's issues of safety, and expressed their understanding of the LEO having ultimate authority. Even if we disagree, we have expressed that we understand the officer's concerns. What I have yet to see from an LEO here, is any understanding of why we're troubled by handing over our weapon. Agree or disagree with our viewpoint, can you at least acknowledge that you understand why we're having trouble with this?

 

[public servant]

As this has been discussed, several people have expressed understanding of the LEO's issues of safety, and expressed their understanding of the LEO having ultimate authority. Even if we disagree, we have expressed that we understand the officer's concerns. What I have yet to see from an LEO here, is any understanding of why we're troubled by handing over our weapon. Agree or disagree with our viewpoint, can you at least acknowledge that you understand why we're having trouble with this?

I do understand why one would be upset about it. You view yourself as an innocent, law abiding citizen (and rightfully so, I'm sure) and the LEO is taking something that you are legally and rightfully able to have and carry. It's not about whether or not you're law abiding and innocent...it's about what all people are capable of at any given moment.

Unlike the last poster stated....it's not about who is running the show or who is more of a man (that's just ridiculous). It is allowed by the courts. The courts have decided it is acceptable. If and when the courts decide it isn't, then that's the field we'll play on. I believe you acknowledged that you understood it was legal...and then asked if it was "right". If the court allows it and it does not infringe on your rights as decided by those courts....then yes, I believe it is "right".

 

[HICKMAN]

I 100% do not agree to being disarmed for officer safety. To me it's just their way of establishing who is alpha. What about my safety? Once they have my pistol I am at their mercy.

I feel the same way, he has no more right his safety than I do mine. If a cop pulls over an off-duty cop, does he disarm him? No...

I will point out that I generally trust cops, knowing a few serving on various PD's around the area, but I'm not naive to the fact that cops are human and have also committed crime while on duty and off.

 

[HICKMAN]

It's not about whether or not you're law abiding and innocent...it's about what all people are capable of at any given moment.

I guess that's the point I'm trying to make above. Your badge should set me at ease with you being armed, as my little pink card should with the officer... at least initially.

Now if some behavior being displayed sets off an alarm, I'd understand. The officer who pulled me over in Shelbyville is my perfect example. Gave him my license and card, he asked if I was armed, I replied yes, he asked where it was, told him it was on my hip and he suggested we just leave it there.

Of course, the whole time I was polite and courteous, giving him the respect I feel the job deserves. I'm sure the stop would have gone a complete different direction had I acted otherwise.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I 100% do not agree to being disarmed for officer safety. To me it's just their way of establishing who is alpha. What about my safety? Once they have my pistol I am at their mercy.

I will not hand over my firearm. If LE wants it. They will have to remove it from my person. Under protest. And you can bet I will file a complaint afterwords.

Then you're going to jail...and yes, it will be taken away. One way or another. It really has nothing to do with who has the bigger testicles.

Unbelievable.


IC 35-44-3-3
Resisting law enforcement; mandatory sentence
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties;
(2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or
(3) flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop;
commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The offense under subsection (a) is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the offense is described in subsection (a)(3) and the person uses a vehicle to commit the offense; or
(B) while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person draws or uses a deadly weapon, inflicts bodily injury on or otherwise causes bodily injury to another person, or operates a vehicle in a manner that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person;
(2) Class C felony if, while committing any offense described
in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes serious bodily injury to another person; and
(3) Class B felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes the death of another person.
(c) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer includes an enforcement officer of the alcohol and tobacco commission and a conservation officer of the department of natural resources.
(d) If a person uses a vehicle to commit a felony offense under subsection (b)(1)(B), (b)(2), or (b)(3), as part of the criminal penalty imposed for the offense, the court shall impose a minimum executed sentence of at least:
(1) thirty (30) days, if the person does not have a prior unrelated conviction under this section;
(2) one hundred eighty (180) days, if the person has one (1) prior unrelated conviction under this section; or
(3) one (1) year, if the person has two (2) or more prior unrelated convictions under this section.
(e) Notwithstanding IC 35-50-2-2 and IC 35-50-3-1, the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under subsection (d) may not be suspended.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.4. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.61; Acts 1979, P.L.83, SEC.11; P.L.188-1984, SEC.1; P.L.325-1987, SEC.1; P.L.248-1993, SEC.1; P.L.13-1998, SEC.1; P.L.143-2006, SEC.2.

Public servant, expand on this, please? If I'm reading Beau correctly, he's not saying he would physically resist the officer or interfere with the removal, only that he would not voluntarily disarm himself and that if the officer still insisted on removing the pistol, he would protest this action (that is, verbally).

While technically, he would be failing to comply with the LEO's instructions, I don't think that would fall under the umbrella of "resisting", at least not under the IC you cited, as the "resistance" is not "forcible".

Clarify?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Beau]

Then you're going to jail...and yes, it will be taken away. One way or another. It really has nothing to do with who has the bigger testicles.

Unbelievable.


IC 35-44-3-3
Resisting law enforcement; mandatory sentence
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties;
.

I'm going to jail? What for? I never said anything about resisting. I said I would not hand my weapon over. I would allow them to take it under protest.

But since you brought it up..How is disarming me part of LEs lawfull duties?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I do understand why one would be upset about it. You view yourself as an innocent, law abiding citizen (and rightfully so, I'm sure) and the LEO is taking something that you are legally and rightfully able to have and carry. It's not about whether or not you're law abiding and innocent...it's about what all people are capable of at any given moment.

Unlike the last poster stated....it's not about who is running the show or who is more of a man (that's just ridiculous). It is allowed by the courts. The courts have decided it is acceptable. If and when the courts decide it isn't, then that's the field we'll play on. I believe you acknowledged that you understood it was legal...and then asked if it was "right". If the court allows it and it does not infringe on your rights as decided by those courts....then yes, I believe it is "right".

Two points here:
1) "it's not about whether or not you're law abiding and innocent...it's about what all people are capable of at any given moment."

By this, I think you mean that anyone and everyone is physically capable on a whim of drawing and shooting the LEO who is only doing his job, prevented from that action only by being kept in their (disarmed, subordinate) place. If this is indeed what you mean, and all people are capable of snapping in this manner, and LEOs are people just like everyone else, what is keeping those people from doing so?
A while back, I saw a device to be attached to the fender of a squad car. It consisted of a box with two cuffs on top of it, and was designed to physically restrain someone who was temporarily compliant prior to the officer exiting his vehicle. If this view I've described is correct, why, then, are these devices not used in any and all interactions with citizens? Could it be because maybe it's going too far toward "officer safety"?

2) "If the court allows it and it does not infringe on your rights as decided by those courts....then yes, I believe it is "right"."

So what happens when the courts go so far in favor of "officer safety" that the rights of the people are deemed nonexistant? There was a situational that was presented on a site dedicated to jury nullification that I saw a couple of years ago. It asked if a person was accused of a crime, admitted to the crime, and in his defense, said that the law was wrong and should be unenforceable, what would your answer be as a juror; guilty or not guilty? (Admittedly, the information is limited, but...)

When you answered that yes, the person was indeed guilty as charged, you were told that the person was the homeowner of the house where Anne Frank and her family were hidden in WWII, and you had just sentenced him to death for doing so.

The fact is that the courts decide the law, but that does not have much (if any) bearing on what is right, except on occasion, and probably by accident.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm going to jail? What for? I never said anything about resisting. I said I would not hand my weapon over. I would allow them to take it under protest.

But since you brought it up..How is disarming me part of LEs lawfull duties?

Thanks for clarifying that, Beau.

Disarming someone who is a threat is part of their duty to society as a whole and to their families so they can go home at the end of their shifts. I don't dispute that. The point I think you're getting at, and that I know I'm getting at, is that disarming someone who is NOT a threat exceeds that duty. There is something to be said for overachieving, however I don't think it applies in this discussion.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[esrice]

Again, me thinking procedurally here. . .

When the officer approaches your car and asks for your DL (and LTCH in this case) and finds that you are armed, he then asks for the weapon (disarms).

I see what BoR is saying, but at this point in the interaction the officer does not indeed know if the person's DL or LTCH are valid, because he has not run the checks yet. Sure he may have the pieces of ID in his hand, but he hasn't verified them yet-- they could be fakes/stolen (which is common for the criminal element). So at this point he doesn't take any chances and takes control of the weapon, taking it out of the equation completely. If you're a good guy you get it back, if you're a bad guy you don't.

Maybe the issue here is simply timing??

 

[Beau]

Again, me thinking procedurally here. . .

When the officer approaches your car and asks for your DL (and LTCH in this case) and finds that you are armed, he then asks for the weapon (disarms).

I see what BoR is saying, but at this point in the interaction the officer does not indeed know if the person's DL or LTCH are valid, because he has not run the checks yet. Sure he may have the pieces of ID in his hand, but he hasn't verified them yet-- they could be fakes/stolen (which is common for the criminal element). So at this point he doesn't take any chances and takes control of the weapon, taking it out of the equation completely. If you're a good guy you get it back, if you're a bad guy you don't.

Maybe the issue here is simply timing??

I can see where your coming from esrice. But thinking along those lines why not take a persons car keys during a traffic stop? What's to stop a person from running over the officer? How many times on Cops have you seen someone take off from a traffic stop. This results in a high speed chase usually ending with a crash and people getting hurt.

Now how many times do people pull their weapon and start firing at LE after they've notified LE that they were carrying? I've seen a person on Cops shoot at LE during a traffic stop not once did the person notify he was carrying before they started shooting.

Seems the best thing to do is keep your mouth shut unless asked by LE if your carrying any weapons.

Not really a choice for me being how I OC 99% of the time.

 

[esrice]

Now how many times do people pull their weapon and start firing at LE after they've notified LE that they were carrying?

Very good point. But I'm thinking that just the simple verbal notification isn't enough to make them suddenly trust the person 100% either.

I picture a police administration all sitting in a room trying to come up with SOPs (standard operating procedures) and pulling their hair out. Its tough trying to come up with something that works for EVERY case. Therefore many times I think things are just put in place because of the lowest common denominator.

 

[haldir]

Does Indiana not have the requirement, that many other states have, of complying with the lawful orders of a law enforcement officer? Maybe I am just too respectful of police in general, but if an officer tells me to hand him my gun, I will do so. I may ask him if he would like it unloaded first, but I will follow his orders. I have always lived in fairly small towns so maybe my background makes me look at things differently. If I am a pain in the ass to the local officer that I deal with, I am quite certain that every officer in town would know it. So the next time I would perhaps need them for something, they would know it is that pain in the ass haldir they are going out to assist. Wonder what kind of an attitude they are going to have about helping me? If I get myself involved in a dispute, how do I want the officer assessing the statement of the two parties. Hey this haldir is a great guy I have dealt with before or this haldir guy is a jerk, no wonder this other guy did x to him.