What to do during a traffic stop.

[dustjunky2000]

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.

This is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. A lady whining about not going down the interstate is not the same as refusal to answer a question.

So if I feel I have a right not to answer, I probably really don't? And exercising the right to not answer questions is justification to treat someone that way?

Besides, I never said the rights were violated. I said that the exercising of rights does not justify treatment such as you have displayed. Just because a civilian has little/no recourse, doesn't mean it's not wrong.

 

[lacroixdp]

Dumb questions for you LEOs, it's not firearm related though.

I have 5% tint all around (yes I know it's illegal, esp. the state I'm in at the moment). Does this provide justification for removal from the vehicle, being that the vehicle is illegally tinted? I've had it on all my cars for years and never had an issue, but I'm interested in hearing a LEO's opinion on the matter.

 

[fpdshooter]

That most was direct to AmericanBob, which is why I quoted his post in my reply. It has to do with why some people like to verbally attack police officers.

It is very relevant to thsi discussion. Why you ask? Well as I pointed out, just beacuse you think your rights are being violated does not mean that they truely are.

See how that fits?

Oh and regarding your statement about treatment not being justified? I believe I have already explained in great detail not only why it is justified, but how it can be avoided. But I'll do it again: I specifically ask you directly about guns, you give no or evasive response, I ask you to exit the vehicle, still nothing about guns, I start to pat you down, still you say nothig about guns or LTCH, when I find your guns during a Terry pat down, how do you think it is going to go?

Since I specificaly and directly asked you about guns and you made mo mention of having them or a LTCH, why are you surprised that when one is found during a pat down that you will get taken down at gunpoint? How is that unreasonable? If I have asked repeatedly and you give no answer or proof that you are legally carrying, then I must assume that you are illegally carrying a gun.

I treat everyone who is illegally carrying a gun the same way...they get taken down at gunpoint! How is that remotely unreasonable?

All you would have had to do at any point during the encounter is produce your LTCH, which you are going to have to do anyway once I find your gun, and the whole situation would have been avoided.

By giving false or evasive answers you escalated the situation, not the cop! Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[fpdshooter]

Dumb questions for you LEOs, it's not firearm related though.

I have 5% tint all around (yes I know it's illegal, esp. the state I'm in at the moment). Does this provide justification for removal from the vehicle, being that the vehicle is illegally tinted? I've had it on all my cars for years and never had an issue, but I'm interested in hearing a LEO's opinion on the matter.

Ok, here is the deal. SCOTUS has long held that LE can ask the driver and passengers to exit the vehicle. There is nothing wrong with that. Despite what some peope want to claim, it is not a detention. You are already stopped for the window tint. Having you exit the car is not intrustive. So short answer is yes, however strictly legally speaking, the removal has nothing to do with the window tint. Tactically speaking, it would be a prudent move on an officer's part. So don't be surprised if that happens.

 

[Bill of Rights]

We're done here.

Again.

Guys, this is getting REALLY old. Minuteman32 was trying to be helpful and yet again, no good deed goes unpunished.