Stopped and detained by Beech Groves Finest

[Ted]

Dupe post.

 

[Ted]

lmaoafter curfew kids were in bed and mine know about guns and gun safety. minus the 6 month old

I've been laughing at all the armchair quarterbacking for the last couple days.

We don't know if the vehicle description matched a vehicle used in an armed robbery/murder/rape....or a report of a hit and run that just occurred that broke the headlight.....or the driver unknowingly weaved over a road line to suspect the driver of driving under the influence.......or any of who knows any number of things to warrant reasonable suspicion for a stop and temporary seizure of the driver's firearms.

But I do know that no matter how reasonable a stop and temporary seizure is, there are those on this site that will always hold the same position that the police were 100% in the wrong....mostly because they don't like LE.

 

[Jack Burton]

Well it used to be but they outlawed Pintos quite a few years ago.

When I was 19 I was down a little side road late one night doing some "getting to know you better" time with a new girlfriend. A pinto full of kids was doing about 60 in a 45 zone, ran off the road and the inexperienced driver jerked it back.

The lip of the pavement spun the car around and it was doing 60 backwards down the wrong lane. It met another car doing 60 right in front of the road we were down. The Pinto had it's gas tank hit at approximately 120 miles per hour. No one survived.

 

[Jack Burton]

I suppose a $100 Dodge Dart in a rich neighborhood, or a $150,000 Mercedes Benz in the ghetto would be an obvious clue to something being out of place.
​

Conflating "out of place" with "imminently dangerous."

I'm out of place at the bowling alley but I don't expect the police to pick me up just because I am standing in the foyer.

 

[Jack Burton]

I've been laughing at all the armchair quarterbacking for the last couple days.

We don't know if the vehicle description matched a vehicle used in an armed robbery/murder/rape....or a report of a hit and run that just occurred that broke the headlight.....or the driver unknowingly weaved over a road line to suspect the driver of driving under the influence.......or any of who knows any number of things to warrant reasonable suspicion for a stop and temporary seizure of the driver's firearms.

But I do know that no matter how reasonable a stop and temporary seizure is, there are those on this site that will always hold the same position that the police were 100% in the wrong....mostly because they don't like LE.

And there will always be people on this site who'll give up freedom in a moment... which is why we still struggle to win full and free RKBA.

 

[Ted]

And there will always be people on this site who'll give up freedom in a moment... which is why we still struggle to win full and free RKBA.

Yeah, that is because all rights shouldn't have the smallest of a reasonable restriction.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Yeah, that is because all rights shouldn't have the smallest of a reasonable restriction.

Its NOT a "reasonable restriction" when 9x out of 10 there ISN'T a legal reason to inquire about firearms after the LTCH is shown, NO RAS for detainment, NO PC for a warrantless search and seizure etc.

I believe it is good practice to stand up for your rights ALWAYS.

If the LEO does have a legitimate reason for continuing with the stop/search/detainment/seizure then by all means go ahead but the reality is that very few times in the relatively large group of INGOers we have here has there EVER been any actual factors for continuing a stop be it traffic or Terry.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Its NOT a "reasonable restriction" when 9x out of 10 there ISN'T a legal reason to inquire about firearms after the LTCH is shown, NO RAS for detainment, NO PC for a warrantless search and seizure etc.

I believe it is good practice to stand up for your rights ALWAYS.

If the LEO does have a legitimate reason for continuing with the stop/search/detainment/seizure then by all means go ahead but the reality is that very few times in the relatively large group of INGOers we have here has there EVER been any actual factors for continuing a stop be it traffic or Terry.

Very well written sir. Most people with the LTCH commit very very very few crimes.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Very well written sir. Most people with the LTCH commit very very very few crimes.

Thanks. I would even go as far as saying if my vehicle matched one used for a bank robbery or some other felony and I was stopped the LEOs would ABSOLUTELY have RAS to detain and search me! I have NO problem with that!

Just follow the law and remember three things. Warrant, Probable Cause, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.

 

[Ted]

Its NOT a "reasonable restriction" when 9x out of 10 there ISN'T a legal reason to inquire about firearms after the LTCH is shown, NO RAS for detainment, NO PC for a warrantless search and seizure etc.

I believe it is good practice to stand up for your rights ALWAYS.

If the LEO does have a legitimate reason for continuing with the stop/search/detainment/seizure then by all means go ahead but the reality is that very few times in the relatively large group of INGOers we have here has there EVER been any actual factors for continuing a stop be it traffic or Terry.

Again, I'm not debating that fact that there are some ignorant LEOs who have little comprehension of the definition of liberty and its application upon the law. As a matter of a fact, there are some downright pretty stupid cops that should have never have received an appointed to their position of authority. Of course, this doesn't mention the corruption among a number of LEOs, that appear systemic in some departments too.

But in contrast, there are a bunch of people here that think that their liberties are absolute as well. Clearly these individuals are every bit as much of a danger as they rail against a lawful authority who is legitimately exercising its power.

When I am pulled over, I keep my hands upon the wheel, and I don't open my window more than a couple of inches. I don't inform the officer that I have a firearm, and I don't provide them an opportunity to take advantage of a situation which has a high likelihood of myself becoming a victim.

Prevention and being proactive in that pursuit, is the first rule of standing up for one's rights. It may not be the most manly method, but it provides an effective method to protect myself, as provides me a defense to aggression.

 

[KG1]

I've been laughing at all the armchair quarterbacking for the last couple days.

I do believe there might be a few posters here laughing at some of your posts the last couple of days as well.

Trying to have a serious discussion with you often times turns into an effort in futility because every time you get cornered in a dead end you switch the discussion to a different avenue.

I liken it to attempting to get a firm grasp on a slippery eel.

 

[Jack Burton]

Its NOT a "reasonable restriction" when 9x out of 10 there ISN'T a legal reason to inquire about firearms after the LTCH is shown, NO RAS for detainment, NO PC for a warrantless search and seizure etc.

I believe it is good practice to stand up for your rights ALWAYS.

If the LEO does have a legitimate reason for continuing with the stop/search/detainment/seizure then by all means go ahead but the reality is that very few times in the relatively large group of INGOers we have here has there EVER been any actual factors for continuing a stop be it traffic or Terry.

Common sense and logic are not allowed in INGO posts. How dare you.

 

[Ted]

I do believe there might be a few posters here laughing at some of your posts the last couple of days as well.

Trying to have a serious discussion with you often times turns into an effort in futility because every time you get cornered in a dead end you switch the discussion to a different avenue.

I liken it to attempting to get a firm grasp on a slippery eel.

Yours is just another ad hom post, but I'll stay on point to allow you to think of what you can do with it.

 

[jeremy]

Yours is just another ad hom post, but I'll stay on point to allow you to think of what you can do with it.

I think he was actually complimenting you...

 

[NDguido]

The evolution from liberalism is one of thought, logic, and comtemplation over feelings. Liberalism is the easiest thing in the world because it's all based on feelings. I congratulate you on the way you are receiving the abuse in these posts. If you'll take time to think some of these things through, I suspect many of the positions you take now will change.

Well said

 

[FatsMcKay]

Didnt read the 40 pages of posts. Ill say this--Should have checked that all your headlights worked. Should have put rifle in a case. Would have saved you the butthurt, would have saved these posts from being made

 

[Rookie]

Why should he put his rifle in a case?

 

[Hotdoger]

Didnt read the 40 pages of posts. Ill say this--Should have checked that all your headlights worked. Should have put rifle in a case. Would have saved you the butthurt, would have saved these posts from being made

Doesn't matter if the rifle was in a case or not, the officer conducted an illegal seizure of the firearm reguardless.

 

[KG1]

Doesn't matter if the rifle was in a case or not, the officer conducted an illegal seizure of the firearm reguardless.

That depends on the totality of the circumstances. I heard that somewhere.

 

[dukeboy_318]

No they do not have a Legitimate Reason, Legal Reason to just take Firearms from someone during a traffic stop. They do not have a Legal Reason to take Weapons from a Vehicle just cause it is a Firearm. If more Hoosiers were aware of what their Legal Rights were you would not even see/hear this crap.

There are a fairly significant number of Motorists killed on the sides of the road by LE Impersonators as well. Does that mean I get to take the Cops Firearms until we have it sorted out who is Dangerous and who is not...

Not to mention I am getting damn tired of hearing it is for Officer Safety...
Don't like how dangerous your job is, then pick another one and STHU...

Repped