Carry permit. Would traffic stop make police be more cautious? yea or nay?

[Sigarms]

Most people are also smart enough to know that, since police officers are humans, there are both good and bad, and even good ones can make mistakes at times just like the rest of the humans.

+1

Our local LEO's will hang out at the gas station and actually talk with people. You don't see that everywhere. The same guys will also bust you for doing 20 miles over the posted speed limit, which they should do IMO.

Did have to laugh a couple years ago. When we had the local sheriffs office do a bike training day for our cub scouts (every year, either the sheriffs office or local PD will work with both the Boy and Cub scouts) my one boy asked the sheriff if his AR had a Mr. Happy switch when he saw it in his cruiser.

 

[Garandman]

And that is EXACTLY why one should understand and know their rights when dealing with ANY LEO.

 

[Garandman]

Our local LEO's will hang out at the gas station and actually talk with people. You don't see that everywhere. The same guys will also bust you for doing 20 miles over the posted speed limit, which they should do IMO.

Boston Police try to be “Community Police.” There are recreational facilities run by the Police Athletic League, and they sponsor all kinds of programs.

The BPF got a grant for bicycles and the bicycle officers are very popular. Much easier to engage in conversation, highly mobile, highly visible, and stealthy when they need to be. Great program.

 

[ovrszd]

Yup.... That's the attitude I expected.

It's "societies" fault & problem.
Police officers are not & never have been at fault for anything.

No use talking to you, nothing will convince you of anything other then the heroic value of anyone that wears or ever wore a uniform.

The LEO, you and I are all members of society. It's our responsibility to look for improvement.

I Back the Blue.

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

Or must've ?

That'll work. :laughing:

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

Most people are also smart enough to know that, since police officers are humans, there are both good and bad, and even good ones can make mistakes at times just like the rest of the humans.

Hmmm. Not sure about "most".

True, though. And there are differences between departments. Some departments have a bad attitude, and it filters down from the top. Some are great. Some places are pretty corrupt. Others are pretty clean. Oddly enough, it varies. One size does not fit all.

In my Army Reserve outfit many moons ago, most of our unit were LEOs of one form or another in their civilian life. Everything from a rookie at the L.A. County jail to a Deputy Federal Marshall, and you did not ask him about his work. I think we even had an FBI guy in one section. Vice cops, beat cops, detectives. They ran the gamut.

None of these guys were sissies. Most were combat vets (Viet Nam), and they maybe didn't mind a combative prisoner falling down the stairs at the station once in a while. Not a bunch of limp-wristed goody-two-shoes.


To a man, they despised the L.A.P.D. for their unnecessary brutality. (This was pre-Rodney King days.) It wasn't every cop, but it did characterize the department in those days.

I Back the Blue.

If you back it blindly, you are part of the problem.

 

[Deere Dude]

Good video.

Just say one word; lawyer
and don't sway from that conviction. Cops are not your friend when they are clocked in, generally. Although I had one come out when someone shot my dog that was very sympathetic.

 

[ovrszd]

If you back it blindly, you are part of the problem.

I don't recall saying anything that would indicate blindness. I also don't recall blaming anyone specifically for the problem. If my memory serves me right I've always said it's a society issue.

So to your statement, I am truly part of the problem. So are you. As well as everyone else that's posted on this thread. We all share in this.

I choose to Back the Blue.

 

[Sigarms]

I choose to Back the Blue.

I choose to back those who show that they are right in thier actions and not assume that the actions taken are "just" only for the fact that they wear a police uniform.

Look at the guy who arrested the nurse in Utah for refusing to take a blood draw. The reality is that there were multiple officers wearing "blue" in that room when the "arrest" was made, yet not ONE man in uniform spoke out warning the arresting detective that he may be overstepping his authority.

 

[ovrszd]

I choose to back those who show that they are right in thier actions and not assume that the actions taken are "just" only for the fact that they wear a police uniform.

And who decides righteousness in their actions? You the perpetrator?

Upon initial contact someone must be in charge. Who should that be?

Your story of being stopped late at night and the LEO shining his light throughout your vehicle is a classic example. If roles were reversed you would have done the same thing. But you turned it into a story of you having to put the LEO in his place by questioning his actions and because of that he let you go.

My story of the LEO getting shot 6 times happened because he did not do that. He respected the man's privacy and didn't take a good look in the vehicle. He simply told the man he couldn't sleep there and then allowed him the privacy to get out of his sleeping bag and drive away by walking back to his patrol car. The first round hit him in his left arm shattering the elbow as he was walking back to his car. If he had acted in the manner you found so distasteful in your example he wouldn't be a cripple today.

I Back the Blue.

 

[Soundguy]

Good video.

Just say one word; lawyer
and don't sway from that conviction. Cops are not your friend when they are clocked in, generally. Although I had one come out when someone shot my dog that was very sympathetic.

But make sure you are in Louisiana when you say lawyer.

A sad happening... Its plainly clear the guy was speaking in slang, and was asking for council:


An accused child rapist wasn’t necessarily asking for legal representation when he told cops “just give me a lawyer dog” — because the phrase was too ambiguous, a court has ruled.

“In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel,” wrote Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott Crichton following the decision last month.

Warren Demesme is accused of raping a preteen girl and sexually assaulting another underage victim, but wanted his confession of the crime suppressed because it came after invoking his constitutional right to counsel, the Times-Picayune reports.

“This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up,” he told police.

But the Louisiana Supreme Court on Oct. 27 ruled 6-1 to deny his claim. In explaining his vote, Crichton said cops don’t have to stop questioning a suspect if the request for an attorney is “ambiguous or equivocal.”

Demesme faces mandatory life in prison if convicted.
Page not found | New York Post

 

[Sigarms]

And who decides righteousness in their actions? You the perpetrator?

Upon initial contact someone must be in charge. Who should that be?

Your story of being stopped late at night and the LEO shining his light throughout your vehicle is a classic example. If roles were reversed you would have done the same thing. But you turned it into a story of you having to put the LEO in his place by questioning his actions and because of that he let you go.

My story of the LEO getting shot 6 times happened because he did not do that. He respected the man's privacy and didn't take a good look in the vehicle. He simply told the man he couldn't sleep there and then allowed him the privacy to get out of his sleeping bag and drive away by walking back to his patrol car. The first round hit him in his left arm shattering the elbow as he was walking back to his car. If he had acted in the manner you found so distasteful in your example he wouldn't be a cripple today.

I Back the Blue.

Standard procedure, when you get pulled over at night, interior lights on, hand on the steering column where the LEO can see them. The state cop in my story was looking for alcohol or anything else he could find that perhaps he might deem "illegal". I get the fact that you should always do a quick scan of the vehical to ensure you know who is in the vehicle, but the cop in my story was looking "intently" around inside the car. It'd be kind of stupid of me to try to jump in the back to grab something to harm the officer with

I'd like a link to your story if you don't mind of the LEO being shot.

 

[ovrszd]

Standard procedure, when you get pulled over at night, interior lights on, hand on the steering column where the LEO can see them. The state cop in my story was looking for alcohol or anything else he could find that perhaps he might deem "illegal". I get the fact that you should always do a quick scan of the vehical to ensure you know who is in the vehicle, but the cop in my story was looking "intently" around inside the car. It'd be kind of stupid of me to try to jump in the back to grab something to harm the officer with

I'd like a link to your story if you don't mind of the LEO being shot.

I understand your description of procedure. I would also deem the officer to be in charge of when he feels he has adequately filled that procedure, not the driver of the vehicle.

I tried to find this story but can't. I listened to the account on Iowa Public Radio a month or so ago. If I find it I'll certainly link it here if possible. It's bone chilling. The officer tells the account calmly and without malice to the point that you feel like you are there. Even to the detail point of him learning in the middle of the gunfight how to change magazines with one hand.

 

[Sigarms]

I understand your description of procedure. I would also deem the officer to be in charge of when he feels he has adequately filled that procedure, not the driver of the vehicle.

I told the officer that he should either arrest me or stop looking around in my vehicle because he was wasting both our time. He wasn't looking out for his safety, but looking to see if he could nail me for having something illegal in vehicle. I was driving a VW golf with a kayak rack on the roof up past the Boone area. Boone being a college town, he just figured I was a boater out partying or something and I have no doubt he was looking to bust me for drugs.

The officer is in charge, but the officer also has legal limitations that they generally surpass because IMO they (LEO) feels that they can not be questioned per their actions because they are the law. This is why it should be SOP for any driver of a vehicle to start recording the interaction for their own records as well.

The reason why I asked for the link to the story is because some things just don't add up per your description of the story.

 

[ovrszd]

I told the officer that he should either arrest me or stop looking around in my vehicle because he was wasting both our time. He wasn't looking out for his safety, but looking to see if he could nail me for having something illegal in vehicle. I was driving a VW golf with a kayak rack on the roof up past the Boone area. Boone being a college town, he just figured I was a boater out partying or something and I have no doubt he was looking to bust me for drugs.

The officer is in charge, but the officer also has legal limitations that they generally surpass because IMO they (LEO) feels that they can not be questioned per their actions because they are the law. This is why it should be SOP for any driver of a vehicle to start recording the interaction for their own records as well.

The reason why I asked for the link to the story is because some things just don't add up per your description of the story.

As outlined above, we both agree the Officer is in charge.

Well, at least you weren't as rude as Mark and accuse me of lying about the story. I can't help your perception about it. I can only reflect on what I heard. Are you indicating the LEO was lying about what happened to him? Which part? Getting shot six times? Shattered left arm? Reloading with one hand? Shooting 24 rounds? Remembering seeing the shooter's face standing over him as he passed out? Which part?

I just spent a few more minutes perusing their website with no luck. Maybe if I send them an email with a description of the show they can find it for me. I'll certainly post what I find. Then you and others here can explain how the LEO was out of line in telling the shooter he couldn't sleep there. Or maybe that he offended the shooter in some way which led up him shooting the LEO six times to defend himself.

 

[Industrial Toys]

This reminds me of something a friend of mine and I witnessed back in the 70s. We were out quite late at night with our bicycles and saw some Young Peel Regional Police Officers pull over a couple of young men. It was quite obvious that they were just returning from camping.

The officers were searching the vehicle and one of the young men attempted to light a cigarette. An officer slapped the cigarettes out of his hand (ours are in small boxes not soft packs) spilling them onto the roadway. I will never forget that, and how I felt sorry for the young man, and how that was so uncalled for. The officers found nothing and sent them on their way.

I wonder if the Cop was just showing off his authority to us.

 

[Sigarms]

As outlined above, we both agree the Officer is in charge.

Well, at least you weren't as rude as Mark and accuse me of lying about the story. I can't help your perception about it. I can only reflect on what I heard. Are you indicating the LEO was lying about what happened to him? Which part? Getting shot six times? Shattered left arm? Reloading with one hand? Shooting 24 rounds? Remembering seeing the shooter's face standing over him as he passed out? Which part?

I just spent a few more minutes perusing their website with no luck. Maybe if I send them an email with a description of the show they can find it for me. I'll certainly post what I find. Then you and others here can explain how the LEO was out of line in telling the shooter he couldn't sleep there. Or maybe that he offended the shooter in some way which led up him shooting the LEO six times to defend himself.

The officer is in charge, however, I also realize and understand that sometimes the officer exceeds his bounds as far as what he's legally allowed to do.

I asked about the story in question because per the facts you've given, there seem to be some key points missing in the story for it to add up to the officer actually being shot. Do I think anyone is lying? No.

Was the guy in the car and the officer asked him to get out to sleep elsewhere? That's the impression I got, and that doesn't add up for me. I would think ANYTIME a person who is pulled over by an officer and is OUTSIDE of their car with the officer per the officers request, if the person was allowed to retrieve ANYTHING from the vehicle, the officer in charge would clear the vehicle to ensure the vehicle was "clean". I understand it's easy to monday morning armchair quarterback, but the added reality is sometimes officers do make grave mistakes that can cost them their lives.

That said, per your comment about the officer in my story looking to see if their was anything in the vehicle per weapons that could cause harm to their life, kind of an apples to oranges story at this point per your using your story as to why officers need to ensure all vehicles had no weapons in them.

I believe, and I could be wrong, that the supreme court has ruled that officers can no longer go on fishing expeditions to search vehicles for minor traffic violations.

Personally, I don't think I hit the yellow line when the state trooper pulled me over. I think he was on a fishing expedition and used that as an excuse to pull me over to see if he could get anywhere. That of course is only my opinion. HOWEVER, ANYTIME I am pulled over or at anytime dealing with a LEO, I am ALWAYS polite and respectful. Dosen't accomplish you anything by being a dick to a LEO (common sense).

 

[ovrszd]

I've sent them an email. If I get the story I'll most certainly post it. You obviously need to hear the first hand account. I'm curious to see how some of spin it into the LEO being a bad cop.

 

[Sigarms]

I've sent them an email. If I get the story I'll most certainly post it. You obviously need to hear the first hand account. I'm curious to see how some of spin it into the LEO being a bad cop.

I don't think its a question of being a bad cop, but again, from the info you gave, the story makes little sense.

How about this, instead of trying to find the story, give a detailed account of exactly what happened?

Was the guy in his car and the cop asked him to move out of his car to camp? I'm also trying to understand how the cop got shot and or why they guy would even want to shoot him if the cop was letting him go and the cop walking back to his car. Hopefully you can see per what info you've given, it really does not make any sense.

Don't get me wrong, at night, I expect ANY decent LEO to shine a light in my car and scan the interior to ensure they can see everything in plain sight, that's just common sense.

In my story, the state trooper was looking for something, taking his time. That is what I had an issue with due to the fact that it was really late at night and I had to hit a hotel and be up by 0630 for work.

He pulled me over apparently because he wasn't certain if I was drinking because my tire hit the yellow line (in his opinion), yet he didn't give me any type of sobriety test because I told him outright I hadn't had anything to drink in the last couple of months LMAO, my speech sure wasn't slurred, and I was stone sober. It was then AFTER I told him I hadn't been drinking that he went snooping with his light in my car. What the prick D) should of done is check my vehicle BEFORE he told me why he pulled me over. Yeah, a prick. He went fishing because he had me sterotyped as a college kid boater coming back from a late night party and needed an excuse to pull me over. When he was surprised I was stone sober, he went looking for drugs. I get it.

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

And who decides righteousness in their actions?

Here's a really weird idea: We could start with the Constitution.