Decision to make if an officer pulls you over for a routine traffic violaiton

[Deanimator]

Why arent you hating on the US military?

Seems like you have it in for the military and want to give the police a pass for MUCH worse behavior over MUCH longer periods of time.

I served our country in the military. That's why I'm glad when military men commit crimes they're punished. Of course if somebody kicks in my door and tries to rob me, it won't be the 82nd Airborne Division. If I'm visiting relatives in Illinois, it might be the Chicago PD.

 

[Deserteagle]

Seems like you have it in for the military and want to give the police a pass for MUCH worse behavior.

I served our country in the military. That's why I'm glad when military men commit crimes they're punished. Of course if somebody kicks in my door and tries to rob me, it won't be the 82nd Airborne Division. If I'm visiting relatives in Illinois, it might be the Chicago PD.

So lets get this straight. You dont like police because they have the potential to be dangerous, and they have power. You back up your hate for police with some stories of them breaking laws.

But, you do not hate the military for murdering innocent civilians and torturing people. The military has power and potential to be dangerous just like police, but you dont hate the military for the same reasons you hate the police.

Maybe you didnt get hired as a cop, so you hate them. But you got in the military, so you love them. I love the military, and I love police.

Your logic is flawed. You hate A for reason B. But you dont hate C for reason B. What it shows is that you hate the police for some other reason.

 

[Deanimator]

So lets get this straight. You dont like police because they have the potential to be dangerous, and they have power. You back up your hate for police with some stories of them breaking laws.

"Posse Comitatus", Google it. Oh yeah, another thing for you to not "study".

But, you do not hate the military for murdering innocent civilians and torturing people.

Compared to the Chicago PD torture ring, Abu Ghraib was a sorority hazing. And it went on for longer than the U.S. has been in Iraq. But that's not something you care to "study".

 

[NavyLCDR]

Do me a favor, both of you. Show me where I said anything about police protecting people. Dont change my words and start an argument about things I didnt say. I suggest you two both go back and read what I actually did say.

I clearly stated a problem posed by not having police in the aftermath of a crime. I didnt say anything about protecting you or preventing crime. Work on your reading comprehension before you start arguing with me.

And Deanimator, I love how you even put the word protect in quotes while responding to me. It implies that you are using my word. But for the life of me I just do not see where in my post you pulled the word "protect" from.

Deserteagle,

If more people took the effort to fulfill their responsibility of protecting themselves from violent crime, there would be less for the police to investigate. In reality, our entire justice system does very little to punish criminals or rehabilitate them. Yes, I am thankful when the police efforts and the justice system does some good to take the criminal off the streets and when there is a criminal that is really rehabilitated. But that situation is a very small minority. Ultimately, it is going to come down to my ability to defend myself from the criminal - and even if the police do investigate the aftermath of the crime, I have little comfort in the U.S. correctional system to be able to do anything with that criminal other than keep them off the street - at my tax dollars expense - for a few months, before turning them loose in public again with a few dollars in their pocket.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Navy, Desert and Dean: I am as much a miscreant on this forum as the rest of you but after g-d knows how many replies, and replies to replies, do any of you really think you are getting anywhere anymore? Methinks the topic of this thread has been lost a long time ago by all of you. Trying to find comments by others that add something to this forum thread is like walking further into a swamp looking for dry land.

 

[Pir8fan]

Law requires it in Texas and is connected to your drivers license, they know.

Same for North Carolina. Like you, I find being in a gun friendly Southern state does make dealing with law enforcement much easier.

 

[Deanimator]

Deserteagle,

If more people took the effort to fulfill their responsibility of protecting themselves from violent crime, there would be less for the police to investigate.

Supposing even that the police find, and the criminal "justice" system punishes your murderer, you're still dead. Your insurance carrier (assuming you have one) is going to do FAR more for your family after you're dead than the police ever will or indeed CAN do.

Of course in the cases of Michael Pleasance and the men on the Danziger Bridge, one would have to believe that the police were going to conscientiously investigate THEMSELVES. In neither case did that happen.

Excusing police misconduct and criminal activity on the basis of:

• The police will "protect" you from crime as an individual.
• The police will "investigate" your murder or maiming.
• "Everybody does it." (theft and violent crime)

is destructive of the rule of law, and ultimately ordered liberty.

You just have to ask yourself, "How's that working in Mexico?"

 

[NavyLCDR]

Hey Navy, Desert and Dean: I am as much a miscreant on this forum as the rest of you but after g-d knows how many replies, and replies to replies, do any of you really think you are getting anywhere anymore? Methinks the topic of this thread has been lost a long time ago by all of you. Trying to find comments by others that add something to this forum thread is like walking further into a swamp looking for dry land.

Simple solution: don't walk into the swamp...

 

[Deserteagle]

"Posse Comitatus", Google it. Oh yeah, another thing for you to not "study".


Compared to the Chicago PD torture ring, Abu Ghraib was a sorority hazing. And it went on for longer than the U.S. has been in Iraq. But that's not something you care to "study".

You continue to go around my point. I have proven you hate the police for other reasons but you still wont admit it. Im also not sure the Chicago torture ring was worse than the murder of innocent people. Murder is typically viewed as being worse than torture... And calling Abu Ghraib a "sorority hazing" is an understatement.

Deserteagle,

If more people took the effort to fulfill their responsibility of protecting themselves from violent crime, there would be less for the police to investigate. In reality, our entire justice system does very little to punish criminals or rehabilitate them. Yes, I am thankful when the police efforts and the justice system does some good to take the criminal off the streets and when there is a criminal that is really rehabilitated. But that situation is a very small minority. Ultimately, it is going to come down to my ability to defend myself from the criminal - and even if the police do investigate the aftermath of the crime, I have little comfort in the U.S. correctional system to be able to do anything with that criminal other than keep them off the street - at my tax dollars expense - for a few months, before turning them loose in public again with a few dollars in their pocket.

Maybe this sounds a little harsh, but it seems like you are advocating taking justice into your own hands by threatening or shooting every criminal regardless of what they do because our justice system does not work great. Obviously prisons do not rehabilitate, they simply remove criminals from society. And yes I agree we need to protect ourselves. But that doesnt mean we can shoot everyone, and if there weren't police around, then that is certainly what would happen.

Police have to serve as a neutral, middle-man that makes sure people are doing what society wants. They will not always be neutral people because they are hired from our human population, and some if not many will make mistakes, abuse their power, or exploit people. But this isn't limited to the law enforcement occupation. And, as I continue to point out to many people, it is also not smart to generalize people based off a small percentage of others' mistakes. There are nearly 700,000 law enforcement in this country.

 

[Deanimator]

You continue to go around my point. I have proven you hate the police for other reasons but you still wont admit it. Im also not sure the Chicago torture ring was worse than the murder of innocent people. Murder is typically viewed as being worse than torture... And calling Abu Ghraib a "sorority hazing" is an understatement.

You don't HAVE a "point". You can't "prove" a nullity.

The FOREIGN activities of the U.S. military are irrelevant to a discussion of misconduct and criminality by DOMESTIC law enforcement agencies. That having been said, if REAL misconduct has been committed against Iraqi or Afghan citizens by the U.S. military, they TOO have reason to be mistrustful of those capable of doing them harm and concealing evidence of same.

If you'd do a bit of the "study" to which you are so averse, you'd KNOW that the Chicago PD has committed both murder AND organized, long term torture. You'd also know that the torture was of a character which makes that alleged at Abu Ghraib look like correction of ones grammar by Mister Rogers. But that would require you to "study" the REAL activities of the Chicago PD, such as sitting people on hot radiators.

The facts are clearly NOT your friends in this discussion. That's why you avoid them with such vigor.

 

[Deserteagle]

You don't HAVE a "point". You can't "prove" a nullity.

The FOREIGN activities of the U.S. military are irrelevant to a discussion of misconduct and criminality by DOMESTIC law enforcement agencies. That having been said, if REAL misconduct has been committed against Iraqi or Afghan citizens by the U.S. military, they TOO have reason to be mistrustful of those capable of doing them harm and concealing evidence of same.

If you'd do a bit of the "study" to which you are so averse, you'd KNOW that the Chicago PD has committed both murder AND organized, long term torture. You'd also know that the torture was of a character which makes that alleged at Abu Ghraib look like correction of ones grammar by Mister Rogers. But that would require you to "study" the REAL activities of the Chicago PD, such as sitting people on hot radiators.

The facts are clearly NOT your friends in this discussion. That's why you avoid them with such vigor.

The foreign activities of the US military are not irrelevant. You hate police because a couple of them in Chicago did bad things. So you need to also hate the US military for doing worse things. Or you can finally admit you hate police for some other reason. Maybe you didnt get hired, maybe they arrested you, maybe you even spent some time in prison. If you were really that concerned with what a couple police officers did, you should also be concerned about what some of the US military did as well.

The facts are not your friends which is why you are avoiding them.

Nice try but you cant justify murder of innocent civilians when it happens somewhere else, and only condemn it when it happens here. You cannot say its bad for Chicago police to "murder" people, and say its okay or "irrelevant" when the US military to murdered people.

You are arguing that all police are bad because a few of them have done bad things. But you dont seem concerned about what the bad things are because you only speak out against these bad things when certain people do them, aka police. If you were really that concerned about innocent people being murdered, you would speak out against it no matter who did it, rather than play it off as irrelevant because it didnt happen in your back yard.

 

[Deanimator]

The foreign activities of the US military are not irrelevant.

They're UTTERLY irrelevant to a discussion of how to conduct oneself in a police stop in the United States.

When I move to Iraq or Afghanistan and carry concealed there it will be relevant.

Trying to change the subject doesn't help your "argument".

Ineffectually trying to change the subject torpedoes it like the U.S.S. Indianapolis.

 

[Deserteagle]

They're UTTERLY irrelevant to a discussion of how to conduct oneself in a police stop in the United States.

When I move to Iraq or Afghanistan and carry concealed there it will be relevant.

Trying to change the subject doesn't help your "argument".

Ineffectually trying to change the subject torpedoes it like the U.S.S. Indianapolis.

Not changing the subject, just pointing out that your distaste for the police is not because of the bad things some of the have made the news for, it is because of something else. But you can have your opinion, Ill have mine, and we'll stop arguing. If you want the last word, go for it, but Im not going to engage in this thread anymore.

 

[Deanimator]

Not changing the subject, just pointing out that your distaste for the police is not because of the bad things some of the have made the news for, it is because of something else. But you can have your opinion, Ill have mine, and we'll stop arguing. If you want the last word, go for it, but Im not going to engage in this thread anymore.

TRYING to change the subject, and by this, admitting that you've failed... badly.

Americans IN AMERICA have good reason to be wary of the police and I've provided numerous documented examples of why.

If U.S. troops have committed crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have or had some measure of authority over those people, those people have reason to be wary of U.S. troops.

The idea that x group are "the good guys", and therefore you have to blindly trust them and throw away whatever rights you have is utter nonsense. It's nonsense if you're in Richmond. It's nonsense if you're in Ramadi.

But of course, I'm NOT in Baghdad. I'm in Ohio. I haven't the slightest reason to pretend that Daniel Harless never existed or that there aren't other cops like him... including the other cops currently contributing sick time to him as part of his "PTSD" scam. His videotaped SERIES of Frank Booth impressions are more than enough reason for me to avail myself of every protection against the power of the police I have.

 

[flagguy]

I live in AZ. There is no statutory mandate to notify an officer but I would. The one time I have been pulled over since I got my CCW I just gave the officer my CCW along with my license. He asked me where the weapon was and said "Thanks". No ticket and a pleasant encounter.

 

[Tucker's Mom]

I live in AZ. There is no statutory mandate to notify an officer but I would. The one time I have been pulled over since I got my CCW I just gave the officer my CCW along with my license. He asked me where the weapon was and said "Thanks". No ticket and a pleasant encounter.

Welcome from Missouri...and Merry Christmas to you and yours.

 

[JSDinTexas]

I shouldn't nitpick but the poll is incomplete - another choice should be to show the officer your handgun license. In TX it is a requirement to show the license along with a form of ID if asked to identify yourself, AND you have a gun "on or about the license holder's person".
I doubt I would hand a LEO my DL and then say, "I have a gun." Might be an interesting day. :biggrin:

 

[BlueMR2]

In Ohio, I would as it's the law.

My understanding is that it's not required in PA. Therefore, I wouldn't normally. The exception being if he requested me to do something that would involve me having a hand near the gun for any reason. I'd prefer the gun to NOT be a surprise to him AND me be reaching in the general direction of it at the same time. There's been a lot of LEOs killed in the line of duty recently, they're all pretty nervous right now. Nervous people w/guns, even highly trained, will make me take extra precautions!

 

[SR40c]

It's an option in Iowa. Unless he asks me to get out of the car, he doesn't need to know.

 

[SGB]

Not required in Florida, so I opted no.