Dissarmed by officer upon traffic stop ? Wilson NC. WTF ?

They are obligated to ANSWER every complaint per their availability, priority of calls and if they are in the area as in a traffic complaint. If not, the call is often deferred to a different agency to follow up on. As far as the OP is concerned, I don't know that particular agency's policies so I can't answer for that cop. But The cop was able to stop the suspect vehicle and I would assume that there was detainment due to the operator having a weapon and with investigating a possible erratic vehicle/road rage complaint, it would be a pretty good thing for that person to be disarmed before being questioned per the LEOs safety. That seems like common sense...and also no infringement on anyone's rights. It's a LE investigation....you're making into a rights issue here and I'm not quite sure why you chronically do that.

Because it has NOTHING to do with the firearm or the disarming of the subject. It has to do with the legitimacy of the stop in the first place. I can call 911 and report anything that I want to about anybody that I want to. "Hello, 911? A purple Camero with yellow stripes just tried to run me off the road. He didn't like that I was doing exactly the speed limit, tried to pass me on a double yellow line, almost had a head on collision with oncoming traffic and missed my front bumper by inches and I had to pull onto to the shoulder to avoid him. Then he flipped me off as he sped away. His license number was xyz123."

See how easy that is? Now, 5 miles down the road a purple Camero with yellow stripes, traveling perfectly centered and straight in his lane at 5 mph under the speed limit passes by a state patrol. I must ask you, upon what reasonable suspicion can the officer LEGALLY base stopping (detaining) the driver of the purple Camero? One phone call made by one person? THAT is reasonable suspicion?!? I can tell you, in Washington State it is not. I am not arguing whether or not the officer should have/could have disarmed the subject. If the officer WITNESSED the event, and actually had REAL reasonable suspicion to make the stop, I think the officer was very wise and within his rights to disarm the subject. The problem is, one 911 call does NOT equal reasonable suspicion as a lawful basis to detain the subject, unless the officer develops that reasonable suspicion himself from what he sees or what more than one unrelated person reports.

Now, if the officer follows the purple Camero to Wal Mart, and the driver exits the vehicle and the officer approaches the driver and asks, "Can I speak to you for a moment?" Then it is up to the subject to ask, "Are you detaining me officer?" If the reply is no, and the driver is free to leave....THEN it is a legal encounter. Or if the officer follows the Camero and it crosses the center line, exceeds the speed limit, crosses the fog line, makes an illegal turn..... THEN the officer can legally stop and detain the driver for the traffic infraction and, in the process, ask questions about the 911 call.

A single 911 call, by itself, will almost NEVER provide reasonable suspicion on which to lawfully detain a person.

Here's an article you might want to read:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005#5

And the US Supreme Court case:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/325/

The anonymous tip, as corroborated by independent police work, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop. Pp. 496 U. S. 328-332.

(b) Standing alone, the tip here is completely lacking in the necessary indicia of reliability, since it provides virtually nothing from which one might conclude that the caller is honest or his information reliable, and gives no indication of the basis for his predictions regarding White's criminal activities.

Notice there must be corroboration by independent police work, the 911 call BY ITSELF is NOT sufficient! In our question, 911 caller reports one thing, police establish a visual on the subject and see NO CORROBORATING evidence.....therefore, UNLAWFUL detention based on the 911 call itself. The detention is unlawful because the only piece of information I needed to make the 911 call would be an accurate visual description of the vehicle, which I could obtain by observing the car parked somewhere, not doing anything at all, and make up the rest of the story. Now, if I said the Camero has a scratch on it from my car, and police could verify the damage to my car and matching damage to the other vehicle, it would be completely different set of circumstances.

This is very fundamental 4th Amendment protection and has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Unless the police officer read the OP's original confession to the road rage, the stop and detention itself was illegal based on a 911 call with no corroborating evidence.
 
NavyLCDR:300890 said:
They are obligated to ANSWER every complaint per their availability, priority of calls and if they are in the area as in a traffic complaint. If not, the call is often deferred to a different agency to follow up on. As far as the OP is concerned, I don't know that particular agency's policies so I can't answer for that cop. But The cop was able to stop the suspect vehicle and I would assume that there was detainment due to the operator having a weapon and with investigating a possible erratic vehicle/road rage complaint, it would be a pretty good thing for that person to be disarmed before being questioned per the LEOs safety. That seems like common sense...and also no infringement on anyone's rights. It's a LE investigation....you're making into a rights issue here and I'm not quite sure why you chronically do that.

Because it has NOTHING to do with the firearm or the disarming of the subject. It has to do with the legitimacy of the stop in the first place. I can call 911 and report anything that I want to about anybody that I want to. "Hello, 911? A purple Camero with yellow stripes just tried to run me off the road. He didn't like that I was doing exactly the speed limit, tried to pass me on a double yellow line, almost had a head on collision with oncoming traffic and missed my front bumper by inches and I had to pull onto to the shoulder to avoid him. Then he flipped me off as he sped away. His license number was xyz123."

See how easy that is? Now, 5 miles down the road a purple Camero with yellow stripes, traveling perfectly centered and straight in his lane at 5 mph under the speed limit passes by a state patrol. I must ask you, upon what reasonable suspicion can the officer LEGALLY base stopping (detaining) the driver of the purple Camero? One phone call made by one person? THAT is reasonable suspicion?!? I can tell you, in Washington State it is not. I am not arguing whether or not the officer should have/could have disarmed the subject. If the officer WITNESSED the event, and actually had REAL reasonable suspicion to make the stop, I think the officer was very wise and within his rights to disarm the subject. The problem is, one 911 call does NOT equal reasonable suspicion as a lawful basis to detain the subject, unless the officer develops that reasonable suspicion himself from what he sees or what more than one unrelated person reports.

Now, if the officer follows the purple Camero to Wal Mart, and the driver exits the vehicle and the officer approaches the driver and asks, "Can I speak to you for a moment?" Then it is up to the subject to ask, "Are you detaining me officer?" If the reply is no, and the driver is free to leave....THEN it is a legal encounter. Or if the officer follows the Camero and it crosses the center line, exceeds the speed limit, crosses the fog line, makes an illegal turn..... THEN the officer can legally stop and detain the driver for the traffic infraction and, in the process, ask questions about the 911 call.

A single 911 call, by itself, will almost NEVER provide reasonable suspicion on which to lawfully detain a person.

Here's an article you might want to read:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005#5

And the US Supreme Court case:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/325/

The anonymous tip, as corroborated by independent police work, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop. Pp. 496 U. S. 328-332.

(b) Standing alone, the tip here is completely lacking in the necessary indicia of reliability, since it provides virtually nothing from which one might conclude that the caller is honest or his information reliable, and gives no indication of the basis for his predictions regarding White's criminal activities.

Notice there must be corroboration by independent police work, the 911 call BY ITSELF is NOT sufficient! In our question, 911 caller reports one thing, police establish a visual on the subject and see NO CORROBORATING evidence.....therefore, UNLAWFUL detention based on the 911 call itself. The detention is unlawful because the only piece of information I needed to make the 911 call would be an accurate visual description of the vehicle, which I could obtain by observing the car parked somewhere, not doing anything at all, and make up the rest of the story. Now, if I said the Camero has a scratch on it from my car, and police could verify the damage to my car and matching damage to the other vehicle, it would be completely different set of circumstances.

This is very fundamental 4th Amendment protection and has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Unless the police officer read the OP's original confession to the road rage, the stop and detention itself was illegal based on a 911 call with no corroborating evidence.

A: That's why there are laws for false reporting.

B: THE OPs stop may have been for failure to yield or something legitimizing the stop of the suspect vehicle...I don't recall the exact reason for the stop. But the cop has the right to disarm the driver. Prior disarming before interviewing the driver....is that really considered detainment? There could be gray area here but a gun is a gun in any respect.
 
Im going to go out on a limb here and say that an anonymous tip should not be enough evidence to pull somebody over.

When I used to lifeguard, if a person told me somebody was breaking rules, I said thanks and I watched that person until I saw them break a rule myself before I confronted them.
 
Thanks to most of you for your comments on my post, I do expect, welcome, and appreciate constructive criticism. I believe everyone has something to offer. However, the personal attacks on my character and fathering abilities/skills that were posted by some are completely unnecessary and extremely disrespectful, that's why I deleted my post, not because of some "Confession of Road Rage", I realize that some of you can't read very well and others only hear what they think they understand.

First to admit I am not a literary scholar or an expert in proper grammar, So maybe writing it out doesnt flow so well, but I am just a guy who wrote about my experience on an early morning Sunday breakfast drive as I was just tooling along minding my own with my daughter,

I talk to my daughter every day about defensive driving, watching out for the other guy, in- attentive / incompetent drivers talking on cellphones,,,, I do not want her or me for that matter to die as a statistic at the hands of some idiot who got their license from a box of cracker jack, I have nothing against making a quick call if necessary, but to engage in extended conversation while operating a motorized vehicle is unacceptable, Lots of kids are dying these days because they have no driving skills, Their parents have no skills to pass on to them, they thinks its ok to talk / text while driving a 3000 lb battering ram, I am really tired of the white knuckle drive, I commute 100 miles back and forth to work , I've been doing this for years and it has only gotten worse, I am a safe conscientious and courteous driver, I don’t speed, I do not tailgate, I give myself and the other drivers plenty of space to react if something goes wrong, I've got nearly 1 million miles under my belt and never caused a wreck although I have been hit two times by other in-attentive / incompetent drivers, one was talking on a cell phone. Do we ban cell phones ,,, No, But the blatant disregard that these people show for the traffic laws and safety of other drivers needs some serious attention, They need to start handing out $1000.00 fines for all moving violations, once the word gets out maybe it will get better,

So what used to be a enjoyable early morning Sunday drive is now no different than a weekday commute, how many times I have been cut off by inattentive / incompetent drivers talking on the phone? Then they see me on their bumper and flip me off cause they think I'm the one tailgating... I just let it go,

If anyone acted out of road rage it was the lady driver, I had the green light and I was already within the intersection, She was talking on her cell phone, when she ran the red light, She wasn’t attentive to the road, She rolled right on red when she should have stopped, She cut me off, She should have let me go by and got in behind me, I was at 30-35 mph’s as she pulled out in front of me, I had to swerve to avoid rear ending her, She never saw me there in the first place so she probably thinks that I was the one being aggressive,,, Dumbass,,,,So I flipped her the bird, and told her to put the phone somewhere dark, I just said it inside my car, I didnt scream at her out the window, My passenger window was up, Could she have read my lips?…Sure, So at that point I moved on,,, She pursued me and continued her pursuit for about 2 more miles after I removed myself from the original incident then speeding passed me re-engaged and cut me off again,,, I flipped her another finger and moved on, Me and my daughter commented back and forth about what just happened, how (My daughter)>"She followed us from way back there" and "That lady scared me when she cut in front of us" and she had the nerve to call it in and report me as a “reckless driver”, I didn’t show my weapon and did not indicate that I had a weapon and had no intention of. Was I pissed that she cut me off, sure, but I was not "enraged", Did I lay on the horn,,, Yep, So Is that so bad? Does that relinquish my right to stand up and be human?, I don’t believe so


Ok so to the title of my post,,, “DISSARMED”,,,,

The officer was dispatched because the lady who cut me off while talking on her cellphone called me in as “reckless driver” He followed me from a distance for about a mile or so? He then closed in and turned the blue lights on, This is about +-5 miles down the road on 42E from the initial incident, So I pull over, Roll down the window, both hands on the wheel, As he approaches my car, he asks me for license and registration, First Thing I inform him “ I am in possession of a concealed handgun, and I will have to reach for my wallet to get my license, it’s on the same side as my weapon”, “How would you like me to proceed”,,, He asks if I have my permit on me I say “Yes Sir” he then ask me to step out of the car and to the rear of my vehicle so we can talk, I asked why he pulled me, he didn’t like that, It was out of his sequence, He ask for my Id, I hand him my DL and CCW, When I tried to tell my side of the story to the cop, He seemed uninterested, The cop,,, (Police Officer)... He told me to put my hands on the vehicle, and then proceeded to disarm me… I complied with his requests / commands, I was not aggressive at all, I was calm, I was truthful and I spoke to him with respect as an officer, Yes Sir,,, Yes Sir I Understand, Yes Sir... So I think it would have been appropriate / tactful for him to inform me that "Mr.Cxxxx, for my safety and yours I would like to remove your firearm and secure it while I conduct my interview with you”,,,would you be Ok with that?” “Yes sir, I would be fine with that” and I would have complied, But to feel his hand up under my shirt(s) and just grabbing at my weapon was a little / lot uneasy for me, I don’t care if he was a cop,,,,you guys talk about this all the time when unfamiliar hands handle another persons weapon bad things could happen, Anyway, If I would have resisted he would have never gotten my weapon away from me,,, poor / insufficient training? Maybe so,,, I wear an IWB retention holster, so with the forward tilt and the retention and him being behind me he could not remove the gun from the holster , and the holster does not come off my belt so easy either,, he became frustrated, he had to really work at it to get it off, took the better part of say 15 seconds (life / death) to actually remove the Holstered Handgun from my belt, He was like a teenage boy trying to undo his first bra, He was extremely un-familiar / fumbling heavily,,, and then he could not remove the handgun from it’s holster to actually “Secure It”, So I guess my holster performed exactly as it should have though, it retained my weapon,,, He didn't frisk me,,,, He didn’t cuff me, He didn’t ask me if I had or check me for any other additional weapons,,, EPIC FAIL??? So while this was happening I asked him, “Why are you dissarming me?” I’ve never been disarmed before” and his reply was “I make the rules” Of course he didn't need my permission... But could he have been more tactful? Certainly, there was no perceived threat,,, he was just asserting his perceived authority over me, He even overly stated his concern that my permit might not be valid and could in fact have been forged and he didn’t / wouldn’t know that until he checked me out,,,, I’m thinking,,,forged ??? Probably never seen one before, I mean its still in the original laminate from the JoCo Sherriffs office,

There was no threat, He knew that I was being truthful by my demeanor, He only went directly for the One Weapon “I Told Him I Had” . I could have easily had a second weapon on me as I sometimes and often do, If I were desperate criminal or this was some kind of training exercise He could have been easily shot, Then After he “SECURED” my weapon he lectured me on the woes and dangers that police officers face when conducting traffic stops, drugs , alcohol,,,yawn,,, I said “Yes Sir I Understand” then he said something about “I can tell you haven’t been drinking”… and informed me that he would run my docs and if everything was in order he would return my weapon to me and I would be “FREE TO GO”,,, Ya’ think,

So feeling the need to disarm me and the possibility of a “Forged permit”, He took the word of desperate criminal (not known at the time) as having only one weapon on my right hip” ??? He didn't frisk me,,,, He didn’t cuff me, He didn’t ask me if I had or check me for any other additional weapons,,, EPIC FAIL???
I'll just chalk that up to his youth and inexperience.

I understand the dangers that police officers face, And I highly respect them for their sometimes thankless job, But There was no threat, He knew that, and he never even addressed by my name…very un-professional

I am 48 years old, I have never ever been arrested, I've held my CT carry permit for 25 years and still have it because I do go back home every now and again, and NC since 2008, I am not a criminal and have no intention of listing "shooting a police officer as my first offense”, I am a single dad, I've had my custody of my daughter since she was 2 years old, she is 14 now, she is ADHD an algebra wiz kid and an Honor student quite an accomplishment for her and I have done one hell of a good job with raising her, She depends on me to make it home safely,,, everyday,
I don't smoke , I don't drink, and I am not a Hothead
"How dare you people judge me"!!!!!!!!!


I could have went into finer detail for those of you who pick apart at the periods, and a tighter sequence of events as they occurred for the legal issues, I didn’t intend on giving you a 4 hour deposition,,,

Again, Thanks for your input , and your time,,, Greatly Appreciated,,, DC
 
So, again, I must ask, what was his inital LAWFUL basis for stopping (detaining) you in the first place? It does not sound like he had any. Since he stopped you without LAWFUL reason, then he also disarmed you without LAWFUL authority or right to.

Also, something to consider.... it could be quite possible that before he even stopped you he could have obtained the registered owner's name and address from your license plates, and then using that information determined if the registered owner possessed a CCW permit. Which again, provides no legal basis, by itself, to stop (detain) you nor to disarm you.

And before Flanmedic51 jumps in with a comment about "a gun is a gun in any respect"; without a lawful basis for a legal detainment, a gun is personal property protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the 4th Amendment. The US Supreme Court has ruled in Terry v. Ohio that without reasonable suspicion of a crime committed a police officer ONLY has the right to separate himself from a weapon, not to seize the weapon. There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime committed in this case, given your description of events.
 
Thanks for the explanation. As I posted before, there are things that we all can learn from your encounter. I appreciate your willingness to come back into the conversation with candor and honesty.

May I ask if you've evaluated the incident and come up with any "lessons learned?" Thanks again...
 
So, again, I must ask, what was his inital LAWFUL basis for stopping (detaining) you in the first place? It does not sound like he had any. Since he stopped you without LAWFUL reason, then he also disarmed you without LAWFUL authority or right to.

Also, something to consider.... it could be quite possible that before he even stopped you he could have obtained the registered owner's name and address from your license plates, and then using that information determined if the registered owner possessed a CCW permit. Which again, provides no legal basis, by itself, to stop (detain) you nor to disarm you.

And before Flanmedic51 jumps in with a comment about "a gun is a gun in any respect"; without a lawful basis for a legal detainment, a gun is personal property protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the 4th Amendment. The US Supreme Court has ruled in Terry v. Ohio that without reasonable suspicion of a crime committed a police officer ONLY has the right to separate himself from a weapon, not to seize the weapon. There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime committed in this case, given your description of events.

Holy cow Navy. You certainly are persistant. I don't know why you can't settle for what it is. I can't answer for NC motor vehicle laws, but in Maine, a report of erratic opertaion, driving to endanger, etc. is PC for pulling you over to ensue an investigation...however brief it may be...to find out what the deal is. AND further more, since LEOs enforce motor vehicle laws, they have the right to disarm an individual during their investigation of why someone may be operating dangerously. I suppose it's the one of the inconveniences of a must inform State. So since most motor vehicle laws are the same or very similar State to State, the PC in this particular incident was most likely soley based on the report of the operation from the complaintant. The LEO located the suspect vehicle and pulled it over. Dc1263 got a warning for operation, most likely since he didn't display erratic op in front of the LEO and had only received a single complaint about it. Thats how it works...no need to keep pasting court cases that have no bearing.
 
Lesson Learned : Shoot First then Flip the Finger?,,, Just Kidding,,,

I read on these forums a lot, way more than I post, many post about cops who do not understand the laws, I think this was a case of that, He was young probably mid-late 20's but 30 tops , Rookie with little experience, and that's OK, And I am not judging him, that was just my perception of our encounter, I am not a control freak by no means but I do tend to lead / take charge of things, at home and at work that's my job..., so when I started asking the questions maybe he felt vulnerable and he was losing / needed to take control? I dont know?

Look aside from they way it sounds written out I am not an aggressive person, I am extremely patient and kind to others. Among my circle of friends / family / co-workers I am the voice of reason, I can step back from a situation and look at both sides and evaluate with out emotion, ei.(Car A - Car B) Whether its a dumbass driver or a loss for Patriots, They will always say things like, "Why don't you get mad?" my answer is almost always "No reason to, It won't get you nowhere else", So while I am not one to fly off the handle, I will tell you what I am thinking, in an easy kind of "Well bless Your Heart" way, Learn't that one here in NC.

You guys are great, very valuable information, especially with regard to the Unlawful SS / 4th stuff I will consider it carefully, I've got to answer a call, but I'll be back, Thanks Again,,, DC

To quote Charlie Daniels:

I'm the kind of man that would not harm a mouse, but if I catch somebody breakin in my house I got a 12 ga shotgun awaitin' on the other side,,,, So don't go pushin' me against my will I don't want to have to fight ya but I darn sure will if you don't want trouble then you better just pass me on by,,,
 
Holy cow Navy. You certainly are persistant. I don't know why you can't settle for what it is. I can't answer for NC motor vehicle laws, but in Maine, a report of erratic opertaion, driving to endanger, etc. is PC for pulling you over to ensue an investigation...however brief it may be...to find out what the deal is. AND further more, since LEOs enforce motor vehicle laws, they have the right to disarm an individual during their investigation of why someone may be operating dangerously. I suppose it's the one of the inconveniences of a must inform State. So since most motor vehicle laws are the same or very similar State to State, the PC in this particular incident was most likely soley based on the report of the operation from the complaintant. The LEO located the suspect vehicle and pulled it over. Dc1263 got a warning for operation, most likely since he didn't display erratic op in front of the LEO and had only received a single complaint about it. Thats how it works...no need to keep pasting court cases that have no bearing.

You are correct. You can't answer for NC motor vehicle laws. North Carolina and most other states have limitations in their laws which limit a police officer's authority to stop a vehicle to only when the infraction is committed in the officer's presence:

North Carolina statute:
§ 20‑49. Police authority of Division.
The Commissioner and such officers and inspectors of the Division as he shall designate and all members of the Highway Patrol and law enforcement officers of the Department of Public Safety shall have the power:
(1) Of peace officers for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Article and of any other law regulating the operation of vehicles or the use of the highways.
(2) To make arrests upon view and without warrant for any violation committed in their presence of any of the provisions of this Article or other laws regulating the operation of vehicles or the use of the highways.
(3) At all time to direct all traffic in conformance with law, and in the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite traffic or to insure safety, to direct traffic as conditions may require, notwithstanding the provisions of law.
(4) When on duty, upon reasonable belief that any vehicle is being operated in violation of any provision of this Article or of any other law regulating the operation of vehicles to require the driver thereof to stop and exhibit his driver's license and the registration card issued for the vehicle, and submit to an inspection of such vehicle, the registration plates and registration card thereon or to an inspection and test of the equipment of such vehicle.

There is NO AUTHORITY in North Carolina law for an officer to stop a vehicle based on a single 911 report.

Washington is the same way:

RCW 46.64.015
Citation and notice to appear in court — Issuance — Contents — Arrest — Detention.
Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of the traffic laws or regulations which is punishable as a misdemeanor or by imposition of a fine, the arresting officer may serve upon him or her a traffic citation and notice to appear in court. Such citation and notice shall conform to the requirements of RCW 46.64.010, and in addition, shall include spaces for the name and address of the person arrested, the license number of the vehicle involved, the driver's license number of such person, if any, the offense or violation charged, and the time and place where such person shall appear in court. Such spaces shall be filled with the appropriate information by the arresting officer. An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offense or violation except either when the offense or violation is committed in his or her presence or when a person may be arrested pursuant to RCW 10.31.100, as now or hereafter amended. The detention arising from an arrest under this section may not be for a period of time longer than is reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice, except that the time limitation does not apply under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the arrested person has committed any of the offenses enumerated in RCW 10.31.100(3);
(2) When the arrested person is a nonresident and is being detained for a hearing under RCW 46.64.035.

So, while your standards in MAINE are different for an officer's ability to stop vehicles based solely upon a 911 call, thankfully they apply ONLY in Maine and are completely non-applicable to our discussion of what happened in North Carolina.

However, this does highlight the need for people to know what their OWN state's laws are and to know what the LIMITS are to police officer authority in their state....if they value their rights.

If anyone is interested, it appears as if Flanmedic51's opinion regarding Maine's traffic laws is correct, assuming there is no case law that says that a single 911 call cannot provide reasonable suspicion:

§105. Enforcement
1. Authority to stop motor vehicle. If a law enforcement officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that a violation of law has taken or is taking place, that officer, if the officer is in uniform, may stop a motor vehicle for the purpose of:
A. Arresting the operator for a criminal violation; [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1993, c. 683, Pt. B, §5 (AFF).]
B. Issuing the appropriate written process for a criminal or civil violation or a traffic infraction; or [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1993, c. 683, Pt. B, §5 (AFF).]
C. Questioning the operator or occupants.

Thank goodness most states have more respect for Joe Citizens' rights in this area than Maine does!
 
NavyLCDR:301160 said:

Again, you turn it into a rights thing when it only gives the LEO more ability to enforce laws and provide public safety.
 
Any form of extremism isn't healthy Navy. And its interesting to see what you think your rights should be regardless of how that affects 1st world civility and law.
 
I know I am going to get accused of cop bashing for posting this but the type of mindset that is willing to submit to this type of authoritarianism concerns me.

Statistically, it is far more likely that I will have a crime committed against me by a cop than cop will have a crime committed against him by a permit holder. You may not like it but that is a statistical fact. Yet when I interact w/ a cop he gets to stack the deck in his favor.

Recently a Wyoming state trooper was arrested for trying to steal a Wal-Mart truck which he intended to use to stage an accident he intended to murder the driver

http://www.truckstopusa.com/forums/s...-state-trooper.

In other news a Colorado trooper was recently arrested for DUI in his patrol car

Link Removed

So how does that work when I get pulled over and the cop uses his authority to disarm me and then shoots me?

I interact w/ armed people all the time I’ve had arguments w/ armed people and it’s never once occurred to me to tell them to keep their hands away from their weapon. Yet if the police find out I’m armed they either disarm me or feel the need to tell me to keep my hands away from it.
 
Any form of extremism isn't healthy Navy. And its interesting to see what you think your rights should be regardless of how that affects 1st world civility and law.

I find it interesting that you think it is "1st world civility and law" to give the police force of the state the ability to detain and question citizens based upon the pure hearsay of one person making a phone call.... to me that is 3rd world police state thinking.
 
I find it interesting that you think it is "1st world civility and law" to give the police force of the state the ability to detain and question citizens based upon the pure hearsay of one person making a phone call.... to me that is 3rd world police state thinking.
It is completely reasonable for someone to pick up the phone and call the police to report any number of things. It is completely reasonable for a cop to start asking questions because of it.

I'm one of those kinds of folk that doesn't dread an encounter with a cop, except of course when I'm on the receiving end of a ticket. But you have to consider the dynamics involved in any encounter with a cop. First and foremost, any cop that lets their guard down is a dead cop. The fact that they pay attention to that is understandable. An on-duty cop is no different that a soldier on patrol in Afghanistan. It's dangerous. That a cop swoops in and takes charge of a situation is normal and reasonable. If you're the subject of his questions, well you might not like it, but to bad. If you've done nothing wrong you probably will go your way none the worse for wear. That's the way it works and I'm fine with it. We charge the police with enforcing the law, then pick apart every encounter and then tie their hands behind their back to regulate every conceivable method they use to do their job.

Why do you think cops would rather I shoot a bad guy than them? It's a running joke that it's less paperwork, but the reality is, any cop that fires his weapon will be investigated to the n'th degree. Everything better be perfect or all the armchair quarterbacks are going to shred his life.

If you or I pull the trigger, the only question is, were we legitimately defending ourselves or not?
 
If NavyLCDR is exhibitting extremism, it must be the least extreme form of extremism on the scale. You know, the kind of extremism that is not extreme at all. Every scale has a zero point. I haven't seen the extremism needle so much as twitch from my readings of Navy's posts.
 
It is completely reasonable for someone to pick up the phone and call the police to report any number of things. It is completely reasonable for a cop to start asking questions because of it.

I'm one of those kinds of folk that doesn't dread an encounter with a cop, except of course when I'm on the receiving end of a ticket. But you have to consider the dynamics involved in any encounter with a cop. First and foremost, any cop that lets their guard down is a dead cop. The fact that they pay attention to that is understandable. An on-duty cop is no different that a soldier on patrol in Afghanistan. It's dangerous. That a cop swoops in and takes charge of a situation is normal and reasonable. If you're the subject of his questions, well you might not like it, but to bad. If you've done nothing wrong you probably will go your way none the worse for wear. That's the way it works and I'm fine with it. We charge the police with enforcing the law, then pick apart every encounter and then tie their hands behind their back to regulate every conceivable method they use to do their job.

I call 911 and report that I saw you purchase a baggie of white powder for cash, put the baggie in your car and walk into Wal Mart. So you won't mind if the officer waits for you to come out of Wal Mart, detains you, frisks you and searches your car, right? After all, you've done nothing wrong and you will go your way none worse for wear, right?

We have laws that define and protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Why is it too much to expect police officers to follow those laws and to hold them accountable when they don't?
 
This one is off the topic of Disarmed but still interesting, I'd like to here some opinions.

2 weeks ago on Monday April 2, my dad (Car- A) was involved in a fender bender, He was stopped in the left turn lane,
that is controlled by a Left Turn Arrow, Rather that just a round light, So the Arrow light is Red and he is Stopped, He waits, the light turns to Green Arrow, He looks then begin to turn and then while half way through the turning (still in the right most lane of 2 lane road way) another car (Car-B) hits him in the front passenger side, Crushed Fender, Tire Rub, Demolished Headlight, Broken Signal light, Split Bumper Shroud, and long drags down both passenger doors,,, Both driver get out " Are you OK? Yep, You? Yep... Driver of Car-B calls it in, My dad said at least 4 maybe 5 or 6 patrol cars show up within a minute or so he said there were cops everywhere, Both cars were still drivable so they cleared the intersection into the parking lot that he was turning into. Cops interview,,, investigate,,, Make sure my dad is Ok and tells my dad that no citations will be issued because "they cant determine who had the right of way or who was at fault",,, and did he want the to call a wrecker, he said no he would drive it home, In my experience, And please correct me if I'm wrong,,, The Left Green Arrow gives the Right of Way to the Left turn while all other traffic is Stopped with Red Lights,,, and the only other lane that may move is the opposite left green arrow,,, So the other guy (Car-B) didn't get a ticket??? Oh well,

Now what I find interesting and is relevant to me here, is the driver of Car-B (ran a red light) ? who is an OFF DUTY WILSON COP!!!! didnt get a citation???

I GUESS THE COPS DO MAKE THEIR OWN RULES IN WILSON !!!!

Really didn't have a problem with this at First,,,, Cause I know Cops Cover for Eachother

So working the damages with my dads insurance company, They decide to total the car, 2000 Model Chrysler Concorde, The Car is great shape well maintained 94,000 miles, Were are going to keep the car as salvaged he gets $3281.00 and I will do the repairs myself, Basically bang out dented fender to clear the tire rub, replace the broken headlight and forego the paint and body work,

Just got off the phone with my dads agent and what they failed to tell him but tell me is that because they the insurance co is writting a check for the "owner retained total value" that he will have>>>>>>>>>>>>>

3 POINTS APPLIED TO HIS LICENSE AND HIS INSURANCE RATE WILL INCREASE BY 25% > 30%

So this a two encounters with the LEO's of the Wilson NC Police Dept in 2 weeks

Losing respect for you guys, THE CROOKED COPS THAT MAKE THEIR OWN RULES IN WILSON NORTH CAROLINA !!!!

My dad in lives on a pension and SS he already pays to much for his insurance,

The car a 2000 so 12 years @ +- $900 year = pert'near $12,000 he has paid in, the pay $3000.00 + 3 Points out,,, WTF?

Between this and the cop that pulled me has really gotten under my skin, two red light runners, two wilson cops, were batting athousand

I want to / Should I ? file a complaint, Or just suck it up and keep my mouth shut ?

Any Advise,,, Yes or No,,, What do you's guys think?
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,524
Messages
610,665
Members
74,995
Latest member
Solve4X
Back
Top