Pulled over tonight...

[finity]

Ok ok...I need to interject. It REALLY depends on where you are an officer at. The statistics are misleading. Some cities are worse than others. In my short 12yrs as an LEO here in Indy, I have had a friend shot in the chest (thankfully the vest caught it), I've had one friend shot and killed, 2 friends shot in the head, both surviving but one lost his eye and one lost part of his brain and it was a miracle he survived. I've had one co-worker shot in the chest with a shotgun (thankfully with bird shot). I've had one friend that shot and killed a bad guy who was hiding, it was his K9 that caught the bad guy by surprise. The bad guy shot/killed the K9 instead of the officer. The bad guy was trying to shoot the officer and the dog saved his life. I've had a co-worker shot and killed by a loon with a rifle. How about the officer that was chasing a shoplifter and was stabbed in the eye for his trouble. This does not count the dozen or so funerals I attended for LEO's in other areas of the state that died in the line of duty. If I'm a LEO of Boondock USA...I'll probably never see violence. This is MY reality so please do not talk like you know what dangers I face and the likelihood of violence. I assure you that the only people seeing their buddies getting killed/injured more often than me are military in war time. I'm not complaining, I LOVE this job and gladly face the danger every day. I put the uniform on everyday knowing that it may be the last time I see my wife and kids. But it is my calling, it is in my blood, it is an unavoidable part of my makeup. The statistics are worthless without more data. The larger cities have officers dying often, but there are more smaller departments with little crime so the statistics are skewed. I really dislike hearing that BS about the likelihood of violence. I've seen too much to believe otherwise.

I'm not trying to offend you. Any violence that you are subjected to is very personal & I'm really sorry you have to deal with that.

However, IF the only LEO's who WERE using the threat of violence that they see on the job daily were the only one's to hold the attitude that they NEED to potentially violate peoples rights every time they have a non-LEO encounter at least it would be understandable. Not acceptable still but at least understandable. But for most cops to use officer safety as a wedge to "do what's necessary to survive" rings a little hollow. Especially by your own admission that many (most?) cops WILL NEVER see personal violence in their entire careers. A large amount will never even pull their weapon in anger.

We all have jobs to do. Some are inherently more dangerous than others. Most are important to peoples quality of life. I work in a fairly dangerous field. Many people die every year in my profession. The fatality rate for my job is higher than for law enforcement (LE isn't even in the top ten). It sucks but it's part of the job.

I know stats can be skewed but if you look at the raw numbers, you can't come to any other conclusion.

 

[Joe Williams]

You sure assumed and fabricated a lot from I said. Do you hate cops for a living or just a hobby?
snip.

When you start your post off by being dishonest, by making accusations with no basis in fact, how are we to then accept that any of the rest of what you said is the truth? Why should we believe what you said in THIS post, versus what you said in your previous post?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

OK, I'll play the troll game. What exactly was I dishonest about?

When you start your post off by being dishonest, by making accusations with no basis in fact, how are we to then accept that any of the rest of what you said is the truth? Why should we believe what you said in THIS post, versus what you said in your previous post?

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Hey kiddies, be nice.

 

[Joe Williams]

OK, I'll play the troll game. What exactly was I dishonest about?

Well, first, you claim I hate cops, which is an outright lie, as I've made clear more than once. The only people who repeat the mantra are ones I've called out when they make posts advocating illegal conduct or abuse of their authority, as yours did.

Further, you've twice called me a troll, another deliberate lie. Merely writing material you dislike does not make me a troll, and you know it. You simply hope to deflect attention away from your earlier post in which you made clear that you will abuse your authority with American citizens simply because they are a "prick," (your attempt to redefine the meaning of the word notwithstanding,) and that you would claim probable cause when none existed to cover your actions.

 

[ryanbr]

I hope no one here gets me wrong, I do have a lot of respect for the job cops do but just some of them are good, some are bad, some like the idea of citizens being armed and some think they should be the only ones allowed with a firearm.
I have came to the conclusion my run in with this particular cop was a cop in the later group, plus a possible ego tripper who gets his rocks off bossing people around. Or he was either unaware of any laws as his sister finally left him for his other brother and wanted a change of scenery from west Virgina.

I kid I kid.

I think someone needs to grow up! Werent you the one who got pulled over from the flashing traffic lights to begin with? Are you from West Virgina also? I Kid I Kid "Quote"

 

[ryanbr]

Well, first, you claim I hate cops, which is an outright lie, as I've made clear more than once. The only people who repeat the mantra are ones I've called out when they make posts advocating illegal conduct or abuse of their authority, as yours did.

Further, you've twice called me a troll, another deliberate lie. Merely writing material you dislike does not make me a troll, and you know it. You simply hope to deflect attention away from your earlier post in which you made clear that you will abuse your authority with American citizens simply because they are a "prick," (your attempt to redefine the meaning of the word notwithstanding,) and that you would claim probable cause when none existed to cover your actions.

Hey Joe you claimed I was Anti gun earlier with out a clue who I am. Is this any different? You are coming of as a cop hater. Just sayin, my opinion wich I am entitled to.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Last time. I didn't "claim" you hate cops, I asked a question based upon what seems to be an irrational stance toward reasonable explanations of what others may have done in similar situations. At several points in the thread you made totally unreasonable and outrageous statements and claims.

As for me calling you a troll, again you misconstue my words, as you did in my previous two posts. First I said your response was troll like. After implying me a purjurer, conspiritor and murderer, you follow up with liar. Based upon that I said I would play the troll game.

The definition of a troll is "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion". I would say that as a matter of fact, you fit that description.

It's obvious I can't communicate with you. I apologize to everyone for the thread jack. I'm done feeding the troll now.

Well, first, you claim I hate cops, which is an outright lie, as I've made clear more than once. The only people who repeat the mantra are ones I've called out when they make posts advocating illegal conduct or abuse of their authority, as yours did.

Further, you've twice called me a troll, another deliberate lie. Merely writing material you dislike does not make me a troll, and you know it. You simply hope to deflect attention away from your earlier post in which you made clear that you will abuse your authority with American citizens simply because they are a "prick," (your attempt to redefine the meaning of the word notwithstanding,) and that you would claim probable cause when none existed to cover your actions.

 

[OVERTHEHILLGUY]

Some times life stinks. Just forget about. Chalk it up to another life experience.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

I think someone needs to grow up! Werent you the one who got pulled over from the flashing traffic lights to begin with? Are you from West Virgina also? I Kid I Kid "Quote"

Whats yo beef broseph? And no, I am not from West Virgina, I do have relatives buried there though.

 

[OVERTHEHILLGUY]

What is "troll like"?

 

[finity]

The search wasn't an illegal search, the OP implied consent the moment he complied with the officers request. Remember police are allowed to talk to you and ask you to do things. Until you are under arrest they are under no obligation to remind you of your miranda rights. It's up to the citizen to know their rights until that point and excersice them.

AAhhh...the old "it's not my fault you don't know your rights" argument to justify bad behavior. Nice. Is a victim any less victimized if they don't know they were a victim? How many elderly people are ripped-off every year by corrupt home improvement scams? Does it become somehow legal just because they didn't know they were robbed?

Which is why everybody should know how to politely say the L-word, once you say Lawyer an officer can not question you any further. Well they can, but they are violating your rights at that point. Another thing to remember is that an officer is allowed to use deception. Even if it's making it appear they have the right to demand you to open your trunk. One of their strongest tools is a commanding presence.

Funny, that sounds a lot like intimidation to me. When someone uses intimidation to get you to do something you wouldn't normally do, that's against the law. So now we have someone who was a cop along with others who probably still are & the system even teaching it to their officers as an effective crime fighting tool, promoting actively breaking the law.

Keep in mind that exercising your rights may turn a warning into a ticket. Give a cop an hard time they might just return the favor. They can call another unit, have a K-9 sniff the exterior of your car. Interpret that the K-9 indicated a hit. Thoroughly search your car. It's a two way street. Cops are human, if you are a prick to them they are more likely to be a prick to you. If the cop is the initiator the prick-like behavior, the citizen, might just return the favor and lodge a complaint. Complaints can keep a police officer from advancing. BTW if a cop is exceptionally respectful to you, by all means return the favor and let the department know about the fine job the officer did.

it's good to know that we should be on notice that exercising our rights could get you additional harrassment from the police. So if you don't know your rights & therefore don't exercise them you are a victim without knowing it, & that's OK. If you do know your rights & exercise them then that gives PC to the cops to increase the tactics on the stop to the point of you being removed from your vehicle & you & your car being searched.

If you don't like being lumped in with all the other bad cops don't promote their ideology & tactics.

In fact once he is removed from the vehicle, and can not reasonably get to a weapon in the vehicle, the whole vehicle becomes off limits under Terry.

At least this is how I understand Terry.

As a matter of fact I think there was a recent SCOTUS case about this exact scenario. They stated that once a person was removed from their vehicle (therefore rendering them unable to retrieve anything detrimental to officer safety) there has to be additional PC before the vehicle can be searched.

I'll try to find it.

You sure assumed and fabricated a lot from I said. Do you hate cops for a living or just a hobby?

Oh please. Lay off the "you must hate all cops if you disagree with the tactics of the bad ones".

I never said anything about searching his trunk. I would not have, unless he got out of the vehicle and went to open it himself. If he said that he had a weapon in the trunk I would have left it at that. As I said, at that point I was concerned about public safety, his safety, and my safety and whether he may have had something debilitating his ability to safely operate a vehicle.

He can absolutely exercise his Constitutional right to not answer questions. However, after a stop that HE initiated I would have had both a moral and legal obligation to ensure his safety before allowing him to continue to execute the PRIVILEGE of driving on Indiana public highways, roads and streets.

I don't know why you think that in my mind being a prick would mean not answering my questions. It would be acting irrationally. Acting debilitated. Acting like a total ***hole for no apparent reason.

So he has the right to not answer your questions but as soon as he doesn't, he's irrational & it becomes grounds for escalation? Funny I thought that Constitutional rights were fairly rational, or at least our Founders did. Silly me.

I pulled somone over once for erradic driving. It turns out he was hypoglycemic and was in insulin shock. He passed out while I had him stopped, and without treatment could have died. Instead, I called an ambulance and his family. Everything turned out fine. He was actually able to drive home. Didn't even get charged for the EMS to come save him. And I didn't write him a ticket for being sick. Bet you don't believe that, do you?

What do you think the outcome would have been if I would have taken your stance and just said "well, you haven't broken any laws, so you're free to die now"? How many lawsuits do you think I would have endured had he gotten into an accident and killed himself or someone else? For that matter, what do you think would have happened if I had just left him in that state and he died? But hell, anything so as not to trample his Constitutional right to go into diabetic coma.

I worked in a jurisdiction that had over twice as many reserves as full time officers. I never wrote a single traffic ticket; most of the reserves didn't. If someone was speeding I'd just hit my lights. They would slow down. As far as I was concerned that solved the problem.

In this case you had PC for the stop. I mean, he was driving 'erradically', () right?

After you pulled him over & he passed out then no, you had no obligation to let him drive on down the road. If you left him to die knowing that he was obviously in dire straits then, yes, you should be held accountable.

This situation is way different than the OP. In that there was NO INDICATION that anything illegal or dangerous was taking place. Do you have a right to be curious? yes. Do you have a right to escalate the stop without SOME evidence of a crime? no. Exercising Constitutional rights is not evidence of a crime.

 

[Griffeycom]

 

[IndyGunSafety]

.

You have posted this multiple times on this thread. Do you have anything of value to add? Where are the mods?

 

[VUPDblue]

Some of you are right on the line here... There will be no infractions if this becomes un-civil, only vacations. I'm not closing this, YET, but if it doesn't get back on track and back to the realm of civility, I will.

 

[FordMan08]

VUPDblue has an itchy thread lock finger......IBTL

 

[cbop]

I would hope that we all can be adults and reasonable. I think that society tends to run smoother when all parties concerned show a little patience and prudence with each other. I am more than willing to give a police officer the benefit of the doubt and I would hope I could expect the same from them.

While I have never had any major infractions or 'run-ins' with the law, I have been given a break by police before and I was grateful for it. I think it is only fair that I should give the police a break in return and if that means informing them of my weapon and allowing him to feel safe throughout our dealings together, so be it. Other police have bought that consideration from me so I pay it back in kind.

Years ago, a state trooper I knew said that laws had to be written vague in an effort to allow elasticity to the many variables and that the laws are intended to be tempered with common-sense. That is why we relay on 'jurisprudence'. I tend to think that when one side or the other stands too firmly on one viewpoint without giving any ground is where the trouble arises. I also tend to think that, as in so many cases, it is a very small minority that dictates how we deal with the majority. The vast majority of police have no desire to trample rights just as the vast majority of citizens mean no harm to the police. We have allowed ourselves to bend to the minority and have traded common-sense for zero tolerance and that my friends, is a sad commentary on the state of our society.

 

[WestSider]

I think that in general as long as you are reasonable and cooperative with a police officer, they are going to be the same with you. There are always exceptions either way.

However, one thing I do believe one should do is to never offer more information than necessary to accomplish the goal of the stop / interaction. If the officer asks me a question that does not relate directly with what I am being stopped for (ie how fast was I going, etc) I simply will not answer it. People have been falsely accused, arrested, and even convicted of crimes because they unknowingly incriminated themselves by answering questions from the police and didn't realize that they happened to match the description of a person that committed a crime in the area and they end up getting blamed for it. It doesn't happen very often but it can happen.

 

[Pami]

I appreciate that VUPDblue may be willing to let this continue, but we've given at least three warnings in this thread now. I think that's plenty.