Traffic stop - trooper asked about guns

[finity]

Second, despite any officer's high degree of responsibility to the public, their first responsibility is to make sure they are able to go home after their shift is over.

I disagree. The officer took, in some manner, an oath to uphold the Constitution & protect the public. Their duty to protect the public from harm is just as important as them protecting themselves. If they don't like that they may have to give their lives in the defense of the public then don't raise their hands.

Officer safety IS a valid concern but it shouldn't be the foremost concern. That's why most people respect the "jobs" that LEO's perform. It is a noble effort that asks a lot of them. OTOH, the reason a lot of people don't respect individual officers are that even among the "good ones" there is that underlying idea their safety is way more important than our rights.

I believe any responsible citizen should respect that. If I were an officer, I don't think I could just assume everything will be fine just because someone with a gun shows me a little pink piece of paper that came out of a copy machine. Finding out that little piece of paper was valid would help, but it guarantees nothing. Even if an officer appears to be being unreasonable in his confiscation of my weapon, I can't think of any scenario that would allow my resistance to have a positive outcome. If the officer was in the wrong, I'm sure I would have much better luck pursuing the matter later if my resistance were not a factor.

That's why we have to hold them to higher standards. They have immense power over us. On the side of the road they are the judge & jury & could be the executioner. In the courtroom, the judge & jury almosty unfailingly side with the officer unless there is unmistakable & overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing. Sometimes innocent people pay the price.

Any responsible citizen SHOULD respect that but any responsible officer SHOULD also respect the rights & safety of the citizens they took AN OATH to protect.

And what about the fact that the vast majority of people on traffic stops aren't deranged psychopaths hell-bent on murdering a cop. But many (probably the majority) use those incidents to justify (sometimes excessive) actions based on the "worst case scenario" for their safety but when a non-LEO bases their reaction to a LEO on the minority of bad cops (which if it is a bad cop could have far a reaching impact on the non-LEO's life as well) it is unreasonable & somehow an affront to their dignity.

Respect goes both ways.

Telling us that by using our right to remain silent gives a LEO PC or RAS for further investigation doesn't go very far in promoting leo/non-leo mutual respect.

 

[dburkhead]

I disagree. The officer took, in some manner, an oath to uphold the Constitution & protect the public. Their duty to protect the public from harm is just as important as them protecting themselves. If they don't like that they may have to give their lives in the defense of the public then don't raise their hands.

Officer safety IS a valid concern but it shouldn't be the foremost concern. That's why most people respect the "jobs" that LEO's perform. It is a noble effort that asks a lot of them. OTOH, the reason a lot of people don't respect individual officers are that even among the "good ones" there is that underlying idea their safety is way more important than our rights.




That's why we have to hold them to higher standards. They have immense power over us. On the side of the road they are the judge & jury & could be the executioner. In the courtroom, the judge & jury almosty unfailingly side with the officer unless there is unmistakable & overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing. Sometimes innocent people pay the price.

Any responsible citizen SHOULD respect that but any responsible officer SHOULD also respect the rights & safety of the citizens they took AN OATH to protect.

And what about the fact that the vast majority of people on traffic stops aren't deranged psychopaths hell-bent on murdering a cop. But many (probably the majority) use those incidents to justify (sometimes excessive) actions based on the "worst case scenario" for their safety but when a non-LEO bases their reaction to a LEO on the minority of bad cops (which if it is a bad cop could have far a reaching impact on the non-LEO's life as well) it is unreasonable & somehow an affront to their dignity.

Respect goes both ways.

Telling us that by using our right to remain silent gives a LEO PC or RAS for further investigation doesn't go very far in promoting leo/non-leo mutual respect.

QFT, well said.

 

[Suprtek]

I disagree. The officer took, in some manner, an oath to uphold the Constitution & protect the public. Their duty to protect the public from harm is just as important as them protecting themselves. If they don't like that they may have to give their lives in the defense of the public then don't raise their hands.

Officer safety IS a valid concern but it shouldn't be the foremost concern. That's why most people respect the "jobs" that LEO's perform. It is a noble effort that asks a lot of them. OTOH, the reason a lot of people don't respect individual officers are that even among the "good ones" there is that underlying idea their safety is way more important than our rights.




That's why we have to hold them to higher standards. They have immense power over us. On the side of the road they are the judge & jury & could be the executioner. In the courtroom, the judge & jury almosty unfailingly side with the officer unless there is unmistakable & overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing. Sometimes innocent people pay the price.

Any responsible citizen SHOULD respect that but any responsible officer SHOULD also respect the rights & safety of the citizens they took AN OATH to protect.

And what about the fact that the vast majority of people on traffic stops aren't deranged psychopaths hell-bent on murdering a cop. But many (probably the majority) use those incidents to justify (sometimes excessive) actions based on the "worst case scenario" for their safety but when a non-LEO bases their reaction to a LEO on the minority of bad cops (which if it is a bad cop could have far a reaching impact on the non-LEO's life as well) it is unreasonable & somehow an affront to their dignity.

Respect goes both ways.

Telling us that by using our right to remain silent gives a LEO PC or RAS for further investigation doesn't go very far in promoting leo/non-leo mutual respect.

I can certainly see validity in every one of your points. I am in no way trying to justify any improper behavior by LEO's. My primary point was the fact that I would almost always choose to comply if asked by an officer to surrender my weapon. I didn't say I would like it. In my mind, if I refuse to surrender my weapon to an officer, I must be willing to defend against that officer taking it from me. It would have to be a very extreme situation for me to choose to fight that battle even if the officer is wrong. I don't want to be disarmed any more than you do. I'm just trying to look at the situation from a perspective of protecting MYSELF, not the gun. After all, the reason I carry the the gun is for self protection. Right or wrong, if an LEO (or multiple LEO's) are demanding my weapon, the weapon then becomes a liability to my self preservation instead of an asset. I will fight for my rights just as you will, but I can't do it if I get shot dead for refusal to surrender my weapon. We may look at a few things a little differently, but I really don't think we are that far apart in the big picture.

Your last point where you said "Telling us that by using our right to remain silent gives a LEO PC or RAS for further investigation doesn't go very far in promoting leo/non-leo mutual respect." is exactly right. I'm only pointing this out because the way it was written seems to imply that I said the opposite at some point. No offense, but I don't believe I did.

 

[Bastispah]

i was pulled over in east indy for failure to signal lane change. the officer asked for licence and reg, when i dug out my wallet he saw my LTC and asked if i was carrying. when i told him yes he had me get out of the car and he took my pistol, LTCH and drivers license back to his car. when he came back he had me pop my trunk and he put it in there with instructions not to get it out till he left. WAS THIS LEGAL????

 

[Bill of Rights]

...After all, the reason I carry the the gun is for self protection. Right or wrong, if an LEO (or multiple LEO's) are demanding my weapon, the weapon then becomes a liability to my self preservation instead of an asset. I will fight for my rights just as you will, but I can't do it if I get shot dead for refusal to surrender my weapon. We may look at a few things a little differently, but I really don't think we are that far apart in the big picture.

If I may offer a thought... When the local (and other) LE went to private homes during Katrina and disarmed (sometimes by force) the people who wanted only to defend themselves against gators/crocs, poisonous snakes, and two-legged predators, it was only the people who fought back with unrestrained force and a willingness to protect what they had or die trying that were not disarmed.

This is where the classic image of the internet warrior falls apart. So, so many will utter phrases like "From my cold, dead hands!" or "Molon Labe!", and many, I think, may be willing to do that. Many more, I think are willing to do it now, but faced with real officers or soldiers painting them with laser dots, they would do as you say here: allow themselves to be disarmed and herded like cattle wherever someone with the willingness to use whatever force necessary wanted them to go.

I do not cast aspersions on them. It's a very scary thing, I would imagine, to have guns pointed at you and to face your own mortality right the F*** NOW.

It's for that reason that I don't use phrases like those above, speaking of my own commitment to that principle. Honestly, I don't know what my reaction will be. I don't know that I won't cave and hand over my pistol/rifle/whatever. I think much will depend on the circumstances... the color of the helmets, the language of the marching orders, the atrocities, if any, that those people will have committed.

Now... there's a big difference between that SHTF scenario I just painted vs. a cop or two on the side of the road asking for my pistol. Or is there? I've told the story on here before about the rich young man and the woman at the party... asked if she would sleep with him that night for a million dollars, she replied that of course she would, but for ten bucks, her reply was, "Of course NOT! What kind of girl do you think I am?"

And the man answered, "We've already determined that. Now we're just quibbling about price."

The point is that if you're willing to allow one or two cops at the roadside to disarm you, why would you not be willing to allow thirty cops (or soldiers) with lasers on your chest to do so? Both are encroachments... infringements... upon the right; the right that "shall not be infringed", according to our Founders.

Understand, I'm not advocating force against LEOs or soldiers, far from it. What I'm saying is that we each, for ourselves alone, need to draw that mental line in the sand, that point beyond which we will refuse to be pushed. Maybe it's "I won't be disarmed ever", in which case, the rest of us will likely read about you (rest your soul) in the paper. Maybe you have no line, in which case we won't read about you at all... you'll just disappear. Maybe you're somewhere in the middle... but only you can decide where.

How do you fight for your rights when you have nothing with which to fight, or when your opponent has horribly outmatched you? Tough questions.

I have no answers. I need to do some serious thinking myself... but I'd much prefer my thinking to be on ways of turning this situation back into the America our Founders envisioned 234 years ago-- WITHIN the law.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

i was pulled over in east indy for failure to signal lane change. the officer asked for licence and reg, when i dug out my wallet he saw my LTC and asked if i was carrying. when i told him yes he had me get out of the car and he took my pistol, LTCH and drivers license back to his car. when he came back he had me pop my trunk and he put it in there with instructions not to get it out till he left. WAS THIS LEGAL????

Probably, but if you want a definitive answer, you're going to have to pony up some cash to a good lawyer, licensed to practice law in the state of Indiana. We'll tell you the best we can, but none of us on here speak with any authority on YOUR situation in re: the law unless you've paid for the privilege.

My opinion: Ordering you to pop the trunk was where he overstepped. I would think if anything was in there that should not have been, he would have been hard-pressed to justify finding it, especially without consent.

The usual disclaimers apply: IANAL, TINLA

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bastispah]

thanks Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

thanks Bill

 

[chubbs]

This in no way is a rant about police, its just a question about human nature. Lets say you hand the trooper a 1911 or something like a hi power, and all he knows is his "so easy a monkey can shoot it" glock. So he goes back to his car and has a accidental disscharge unloading it. Who do you think he will say shot him in the leg

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I do not cast aspersions on them. It's a very scary thing, I would imagine, to have guns pointed at you and to face your own mortality right the F*** NOW.

That's a very, very valid point that I would like to back up with a little story of my own.

A friend and I were out in the woods in the Hoosier National Forest just doing a little shooting. We were primarily shooting at some bottles we'd filled with water and the like. It was legal by all accounts, far enough away from the road, from any residences, and shooting down into the dirt and downhill where there was nothing behind it. However, two Conservation Officers received a call from some folks that they could 'hear bullets whizzing over their heads.' The COs go out to verify the claim, and pull up to where we were parked. We see their flashing lights and go out to investigate. As I had my pistol on my person in the holster, because I didn't imagine anything was going to happen, I was armed. I did, however, have it completely unloaded. We walk out of the brush to find their lovely issues M4s trained on us. Let me tell you, it is not a comfortable feeling to have one of those things pointed at you with intent to use. They started yelling commands, and by God if I did not comply. I ate pavement, although relatively gently, sat for a while cuffed with my friend while they scoped out everything else, disarmed us of everything, knives and pens included.

I believe quite firmly that they were in the right, with a few minor discrepancies on having to pay fines for doing something entirely legal, but that's besides the point. They knew there were people in the woods with guns and were actually shooting them. Knowing people to be armed and potentially dangerous, as an LEO, I believe I would take all necessary precautions that I do not die at that time. Even if it does mean that I may be trampling on a few liberties of innocent people. When all is said and done, if they're not doing anything illegal, then they'll go home with nothing more than an interesting story.

If I were them, I would have done very similarly. There is definitely something to be said for trying to stay alive, officer or not.

 

[R3ydium]

This in no way is a rant about police, its just a question about human nature. Lets say you hand the trooper a 1911 or something like a hi power, and all he knows is his "so easy a monkey can shoot it" glock. So he goes back to his car and has a accidental disscharge unloading it. Who do you think he will say shot him in the leg

Well assuming no one monkeys with his dash cam, clear evidence would point to himself.

 

[chubbs]

i agree, but like in any line of work with a little bit of brother hood things sometimes get covered up. We had a local sheriff run through the side of a house when he was drunk, but some how he didn't go to jail that night. About two months later after all of his affairs were in order his blood test came back and he was arrested. He was over twice the legal limit, had no insurrance on the vehicle and his "brother" officer let him go home that night. Like i said, not trying to rant about police, i've had very good experiences with the officer mentioned. I'm not bad mouthing him, just making a point.

 

[GlockRock]

This in no way is a rant about police, its just a question about human nature. Lets say you hand the trooper a 1911 or something like a hi power, and all he knows is his "so easy a monkey can shoot it" glock. So he goes back to his car and has a accidental disscharge unloading it. Who do you think he will say shot him in the leg

I would hope that he would say he shot himself. I can't imagine any LEO saying that someone else shot him. I know you said it's not a rant about police, but I'm still amazed you asked that question...

 

[GlockRock]

i agree, but like in any line of work with a little bit of brother hood things sometimes get covered up. We had a local sheriff run through the side of a house when he was drunk, but some how he didn't go to jail that night. About two months later after all of his affairs were in order his blood test came back and he was arrested. He was over twice the legal limit, had no insurrance on the vehicle and his "brother" officer let him go home that night. Like i said, not trying to rant about police, i've had very good experiences with the officer mentioned. I'm not bad mouthing him, just making a point.

What point are you making?

 

[chubbs]

i've got a lot of respect for the officers that keep the area safer. But at the same time, i've got alot of respect for people i work with, execpt for that couple bad apples that give us all a bad name. i'd say 80% of us are good people, but that still leaves 20% you got to watch. And from what i've seen that seems to be the way the world works. So i just assume(yes i know, *** of you and me B.S.) thats how our police force is to.

 

[R3ydium]

I need my waders on in here

 

[thompal]

You should be careful and check out what he is carrying first.

Very true!! You might hand him a perfectly reasonable handgun, and have him hand you a Glock in return.

(ducking and running)

 

[Captain Bligh]

I think the OP makes too much of the question. BEFORE I got my LTCH, I got pulled over and asked by LEO if I had any guns, missles, or bazookas in my car or on my person. Sure wasn't triggered by an LTCH or any profiling. I think he was just trolling for a reaction.

 

[chubbs]

glock rock, my point is, it's a bunch of bull **** to hand them a firearm that they don't know. Read the first line in any gun manual, Read and understand instructions before use. I know you will say that they are trained and all that crap, but i've shot with cops that didn't know how to work anything other than their issued sidearm. I'm no expert, so i leave guns i don't know alone.

 

[thompal]

Myself and any good officer would look farther into a stop where the driver says nothing compared to someone who actually talks. Saying nothing tells me you have something to hide.

I was with you up until this. Isn't this the same thing as those people who say "sure, the cops can search (me|my car|my house). I have nothing to hide. ??

That would seem to be saying that the only people who want to exercise their rights are criminals, and THAT is an attitude with which I take umbrage!