What to do during a traffic stop.

[jsharmon7]

Bet it feels good to say that to some scared, smart-mouthed punk, doesn't it? Exercisin' those 'rights' of his...the nerve. Who does he think he is, some big-shot lawyer or something? If you ask him a question, and he doesn't answer, then intimidation and the graphic threat of lethal force is the only option I suppose.

Gee, and I thought Greenfield cops were Nazis. Glad I don't live in Fishers.

I guess I missed the part where fpdshooter stated he would do that to someone for exercising a right. Typical of these conversations though, just resort to calling them Nazis, un-American, thugs, etc. or twisting their words around rather than responding to what they actually said.

 

[Joe Williams]

I guess I missed the part where fpdshooter stated he would do that to someone for exercising a right. Typical of these conversations though, just resort to calling them Nazis, un-American, thugs, etc. or twisting their words around rather than responding to what they actually said.

Now, did you really miss it, or are you just trying to cover up what he clearly typed and redirect the conversation away from it? Nobody was holding a gun to his head, unlike what he says he plans to do to his intended victims.

 

[public servant]

I guess I missed the part where fpdshooter stated he would do that to someone for exercising a right. Typical of these conversations though, just resort to calling them Nazis, un-American, jack-booted thugs, etc. or twisting their words around rather than responding to what they actually said.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[dustjunky2000]

I guess I missed the part where fpdshooter stated he would do that to someone for exercising a right. Typical of these conversations though, just resort to calling them Nazis, un-American, thugs, etc. or twisting their words around rather than responding to what they actually said.

If you missed it, you didn't read it.
He would treat a civilian like that because the person didn't answer a question he was not required to answer? Exercising the right that says they are not required to answer, then being treated like that by a cop, is pretty jackbooted if you ask me.

But I guess a person would only exercise their rights if they were a criminal right?

 

[fpdshooter]

It was referring to finding the gun on someone who when specifically asked did not inform they were carrying, did not inform when they were removed from the car, and did not inform when they were being patted down.

Doesn't seem very Nazi to me.

But do I know? My dad's side of the family is German. My great Grandad faught for the Kaiser in WWI, but my grandfather fought for Uncle Sam in WWII.



Oh jsharmon7, Thanks brother.

 

[fpdshooter]

Jack boots! Man where have they been these last few weeks!? Oh have I missed them!

You boys are just silly! Silly I tell ya!

 

[dustjunky2000]

It was referring to finding the gun on someone who when specifically asked did not inform they were carrying, did not inform when they were removed from the car, and did not inform when they were being patted down.
Doesn't seem very Nazi to me.

Is the person legally obliged to tell you they have a firearm? If so, then your hypothetical actions would indeed be warranted. If not, then your hypothetical actions are indeed abuse of power.

 

[fpdshooter]

Now, did you really miss it, or are you just trying to cover up what he clearly typed and redirect the conversation away from it? Nobody was holding a gun to his head, unlike what he says he plans to do to his intended victims.

What Joe, you can't rationally argue facts, so you try to attck me personally yet again?

Psssst, they are suspects, not victims. Anyone who carries a gun illegally is a suspect. Since, by your own posts, you refuse to say whether you are carrying a gun, and you never once mention that you have a license, then I must assume you are carrying illegally since you have provided no proof that you are carring one legally.

That makes you a suspect. See how easy it really is?

 

[fpdshooter]

Is the person legally obliged to tell you they have a firearm? If so, then your hypothetical actions would indeed be warranted. If not, then your hypothetical actions are indeed abuse of power.

See my post above directed at Joe Williams, it fits here too. And that my friend would make everything completely warranted.

 

[AmericanBob]

i guess i just don't get the whole pissed at the 5-0 routine. anytime i've been pulled over, i put the window down, left my hands on the steering wheel, informed the officer politely that i had a gun (even if it was just a shotgun in a case in the back) as soon as they got to the car. i've gotten off with a warning every time. including once in my younger days when i had a suspended liscense. if i've been pulled over speeding, it's obvious i was in the wrong and they got me. i just don't see the need to be a dick about it. besides, i always figured if i told the officer right away, it might help calm his nerves. i don't want a nervous man with a gun around my truck anymore than he wants to walk up on a nervous/pissed man hiding a gun and being combative about it.

 

[jsharmon7]

He would treat a civilian like that because the person didn't answer a question he was not required to answer? Exercising the right that says they are not required to answer, then being treated like that by a cop, is pretty jackbooted if you ask me.

Did you read his response to Jackson? You don't have to answer their questions, but when you start evading questions you're going to raise some flags and cause reactions that aren't necessary. What violation of your rights have they committed by asking if you had a gun? Either refuse to answer as Jackson stated or be honest, why be cutesy about it and raise suspicions that may be unfounded?

 

[dustjunky2000]

See my post above directed at Joe Williams, it fits here too. And that my friend would make everything completely warranted.

Treatment like that simply because the person did not do something they were not required to do. This is why even the good cops have a hard time and get a bad rap.

I'll bet if you're asked for a warrant before you search a home, when you come back with one, you're going to really tear up the joint to let them know who's boss, huh?

 

[dustjunky2000]

i just don't see the need to be a dick about it.

why be cutesy about it and raise suspicions that may be unfounded?

Not answering questions that you don't have to answer is not being a dick/ cutesy. Same with the right to remain silent and asking for a lawyer before an interrogation. Sadly, it seems some LEOs feel that this makes it okay to intimidate, threaten, and harass. Makes me sad.

 

[fpdshooter]

i guess i just don't get the whole pissed at the 5-0 routine. anytime i've been pulled over, i put the window down, left my hands on the steering wheel, informed the officer politely that i had a gun (even if it was just a shotgun in a case in the back) as soon as they got to the car. i've gotten off with a warning every time. including once in my younger days when i had a suspended liscense. if i've been pulled over speeding, it's obvious i was in the wrong and they got me. i just don't see the need to be a dick about it. besides, i always figured if i told the officer right away, it might help calm his nerves. i don't want a nervous man with a gun around my truck anymore than he wants to walk up on a nervous/pissed man hiding a gun and being combative about it.

In my opinion it all comes down to this. They are upset that someone, anyone has power over them. Trust me, it makes my day some much more enjoyable not to have to deal with people like this. However you the taxpayer, expect me to.

These types of people don't think anyone can tell them what to do. They lash out at the most visible target, LE. Why? Cause it is the erroenet and they can hide behind a computer screen. Would they actually do it face to face, hardly!

Let me give you an example. One night we had a fatal crash on S/B I69. Guy was walking home from Verizon (the Skynard concert two years ago). Anyway he gets hit by a car going 70 mph as he is walking. He is dead. I have 69 shut down because there are body parts all over 69. I lady comes up screaming that I am violating her rights because she can't get south on the highway. She yells at me for 3-4 minutes.

I tell her she can go south once we pick up all the brains and skull matter. She just looks at me. I explain to her that there is a dead human body down there and that if she drove threw it, there would be blood, gore, vrains splattered all over her car. That is why the interstate is shut down.

Morale of the story...just because you feel that your rights are violated, they probably really aren't.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Question - if you notify an officer of your LTCH, does it represent consent to anything?

 

[fpdshooter]

Treatment like that simply because the person did not do something they were not required to do. This is why even the good cops have a hard time and get a bad rap.

I'll bet if you're asked for a warrant before you search a home, when you come back with one, you're going to really tear up the joint to let them know who's boss, huh?

Oh hells yea! I go after that house like a spider monkey on crack!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Can't argue with facts so this is all you have? Please keep insulting me instead of providing facts or case law to support your position. Really, it makes you look small.

 

[fpdshooter]

Question - if you notify an officer of your LTCH, does it represent consent to anything?

Absolutely not!

Let me expand, all it does is let the officer know (assuming that you are armed) is that you are legally carrying a gun. He may ask to search your vehicle for what ever odd reason, but you do not have to consent. Unless he has developed Probable Cause, say the odor of marijuana, not at you per say! If PC exists, then you really can't object to the search.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Absolutely not!

Let me expand, all it does is let the officer know (assuming that you are armed) is that you are legally carrying a gun. He may ask to search your vehicle for what ever odd reason, but you do not have to consent. Unless he has developed Probable Cause, say the odor of marijuana, not at you per say! If PC exists, then you really can't object to the search.

That being the case, I don't see what the big deal is with disclosing your LTCH to an officer not out of law or fear of reprisal but out of just plain old politeness. Though open carry is legal in Indiana, the gun culture I've found here is we carry concealed out of sheer politeness. Why can't gun owners be just as polite about disclosing carry status to an officer? It's not like the officers are going to be the underwear bombers here....

 

[infidel]

Question - if you notify an officer of your LTCH, does it represent consent to anything?

Depends if you get a badge heavy cop or not. I would not volunteer the information of having a LTCH, unless your weapon has been discovered for whatever reason.

Its not hard to see the situation: "Oh you have a LTCH? Sir I need you to step out of the vehicle because I have reason to believe there may be weapons inside. I am going to search your vehicle based on this probable cause."

Likely? No. Possible? Yeah.

Don't volunteer information of you and your law abiding self that may lead cops to:

1. Make your encounter longer than necessary
2. Violate your rights
3. As fpd likes to say "screw a gun in your ear"

Tell them all your required. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[fpdshooter]

There is only one problem with that scenario: The officer would not have PC to search the car! Why would he? You have a LTCH, so that means that you can legally carry a weapon or two or five or one hundred. There is no criminal violation, therefore no PC for a search.

Your logic is flawed, sir.