Another deranged cop attacks

[Humble2drive]

. . . he avoids the question completely and gives an answer from an entirely different conversation, a conversation that is only taking place inside his head..

Actually it was from his checklist:

1) Provoke some mundanes to call the police.
2) Pull over with gun on side away from cops.
3) Don't volunteer that I have a gun.
4) *Make sure to turn on recorder**Important**
5) If he asks if I have a gun, don't answer.
6) Blurt out consent to search statement (note: finish memorizing beforehand)
7) Be obstinate and try to provoke him to hand cuff me.
8) Post story to my blog and you tube.
9) This is gonna be awesome!! I hate those bas$&@ds!!

 

[AMonger]

Actually it was from his checklist:
2) Pull over with gun on side away from cops.

Or, gee, maybe he was just wearing it on the proper side. Think of that?

3) Don't volunteer that I have a gun.

He's not required to, as has been covered. And aren't cops trained to assume everyone is armed anyway?

4) *Make sure to turn on recorder**Important**

An important step for everyone, considering how out-of-control cops are now.

5) If he asks if I have a gun, don't answer.

Again, not required to, legally, ethically, or morally.

6) Blurt out consent to search statement (note: finish memorizing beforehand)

Everyone should memorize it. The videos promoting that have been posted here, and there was general, if not unanimous, agreement, that it was a good thing.
Now, there was probably a better answer to the question, and even better reactions to it by the cop, but the cop still over-reacted.

 

[Turtle]

"Do you have any weapons?"

"I do not consent to a search."

"It's like talking to dispatch at Panther."

 

[skyraider]

I was a victim of coicumstance!

lmaorof,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this was great, I needed this. I remember from childhood watching it.


that said,,would not this be fun at the J in Laredo when u all are bored, what a blast.

 

[skyraider]

AS long as they are not asking for my papers. They also cannot stop me and question why I am carrying my side arm OR long arm, loaded or otherwise, without them being concealed. In other words, open carry, which, at least for the time being, is STILL legal under the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions.

IF I am carrying concealed, which I often do, and am stopped by an officer I will, as required by Michigan law, inform the officer that I am carrying.

I am carrying my backup helper at much as possible again. No, I'm not a macho, cowboy nut, just for my own mental comfort in Chattanooga . It's like your cell phone, feel awkward without it. You try going on the road without your cell phone, how do u feel without it?

 

[layoutshooter]

I am carrying my backup helper at much as possible again. No, I'm not a macho, cowboy nut, just for my own mental comfort in Chattanooga . It's like your cell phone, feel awkward without it. You try going on the road without your cell phone, how do u feel without it?

I feel naked when on the road, not being able to carry. Nothing quite like being a second class citizen. The cell, just a tool. I would have it if I were not on the road, another safety item, just like the sidearm is.

 

[bobwg]

So according to Amonger your not required to answer the officers question "do you have a weapon? gun? " So which states is this legal in? In Missouri you do not have to voluntarily tell the officer you are carrying, but you are required to answer the question if you lie or refuse to answer you will be charged with interfering with officer investigation/duties. this was stressed by instructor at ccw training

 

[layoutshooter]

Michigan's CCW law requires a person who is carrying concealed to inform the officer who stops them of that fact. Michigan's gun laws also make it VERY clear that IF one is carrying open that they cannot be stopped or questioned about their carrying. Some police departments have been stopping people who carry open and some have gone as far as to charge the person with disturbing the peace. That too has been outlawed. There are, however, some departments that still harass citizens to choose to carry a non-concealed firearm.

 

[bobwg]

In Missouri your car is an extension of your home and you are allowed to have a gun in your car. Places like churches, schools,universities where guns are not allowed, you can have the gun in your car in the parking lot/driveways as long as the gun remains in the car at all times. The second you take the gun out of the car your breaking the law. again if asked if you have a weapon you are required to tell the officer.

 

[bobwg]

By the way in Missouri you must carry proof of ownership for any gun you have on your person or in your car. I carry a copy of the purchase reciept which has the type of gun, gun serial number , my info, store info , also shows approval by the FBI NICS.

 

[layoutshooter]

In Michigan you no longer have to carry proof of ownership. That law has been repealed.

 

[AMonger]

For a long time, Nebraska was an open carry state. Then there were some problems with gangs, so the City of Omaha instituted a carry permit. You still couldn't carry concealed, but now needed a permit inside the city limits to open carry.
...and then it gets weird...
Omaha actually started dispatching their SWAT team, whatever it's called there, to take down anyone doing so, even permit holders. What had been ignored for years became a permitted thing on paper that became verboten in practice, unless you like getting taken down by the SWAT team. Yet, those that didn't qualify for the waivers still had to pay for the classroom portion, the background check, get fingerprinted, etc. Funny how that worked.
Also, the story said that the state the victim of the false arrest was in at the time was a non-report state. I'm not saying it's like that in other states. We all know how the Suckeye State is. Like any other questioning, it angers me that you can't just decline to answer the cop's question as to whether you're armed.

 

[cheri1122]

It "angers" you that people can't decline to answer a reasonable question, because you don't think they're morally or ethically obliged to inform a LEO that they have a weapon concealed on their person?
And you're on which side of the argument? The side that says reasonable and law abiding people have a right to carry, or the side that says gun owners are antisocial psychos?

 

[AMonger]

It "angers" you that people can't decline to answer a reasonable question, because you don't think they're morally or ethically obliged to inform a LEO that they have a weapon concealed on their person?
And you're on which side of the argument? The side that says reasonable and law abiding people have a right to carry, or the side that says gun owners are antisocial psychos?

It's not that the question itself is unreasonable; if I were a cop, stopping someone on a deserted road, maybe I'd want to know if they had a gun. But what I want doesn't trump the Bill of Rights. My insecurity doesn't trump the Bill of Rights. If I'm insecure, I'll get my wife to give me a hug, which is what that cop should've done if he was that big of a (rhymes with wussy). I mean, there are things we want that we don't necessarily have the right to, and a lot of information falls into that category for government and their agents. We limit lawmen in what information they demand. We've enshrined it in what we call the right to remain silent.

If that cop doesn't like not knowing if people he encounters are armed, he can arrange his life so he stops having those encounters i.e. quit and go find honest work. He also could have handled it differently, rather than aggravated assault and false arrest. He could have said, "Ok, we're going to sit tight until my backup arrives, so just have a seat on your bike." Then when his backup arrives, he can write his ticket or whatever while his partner watches his back.

Another poster above said he was handcuffed coming home from a double shift as a medic, for no apparent reason. What's psychotic about wanting to avoid that?

 

[layoutshooter]

It "angers" you that people can't decline to answer a reasonable question, because you don't think they're morally or ethically obliged to inform a LEO that they have a weapon concealed on their person?
And you're on which side of the argument? The side that says reasonable and law abiding people have a right to carry, or the side that says gun owners are antisocial psychos?

You are incorrect on part of this. The American People have a RIGHT to own AND carry a firearm. ALL laws that restrict that right are unconstitutional. ANY law that INFRINGES on that RIGHT should be repealed. There is NO ethical or moral obligation to inform ANYONE that one is carrying. NO one should have to inform a public servant that they are exercising their RIGHT to carry.

Now, I have NO problem informing an officer that I am carrying concealed. I would do so even if there were not an illegal law requiring me to do so. Doing so is safer for both the officer and myself. I DO have a problem if an officer stops and questions me if I choose to carry open.

 

[Moot]

If I'm insecure, I'll get my wife to give me a hug, which is what that cop should've done if he was that big of a (rhymes with wussy).

Oooh, oooh, I've got it; hussy! The cop was a hussy. A big hussy. So, the cop was really a woman dressed like a man. Sounds like a clear cut case of the cop being a transvestite. Possibly the cop was a transsexual or transgender or had an intersex condition. He was a she or she was a he. It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world and I see no reason to introduce this cop's loose morals into this thread about, about, uh; what was this thread about?

 

[Turtle]

uh; what was this thread about?

It was about a deranged, deranged, I tell you, cop who attacked, attacked, I tell you, an armed motorist when he assaulted the motorist, aggravatedly, by allowing the motorist to willingly accept being handcuffed so that others reading about it can thoroughly confuse the terms "arrest" and "legal detainment".

 

[AMonger]

It was about a deranged, deranged, I tell you, cop who attacked, attacked, I tell you, an armed motorist when he assaulted the motorist, aggravatedly,

It was aggravated because the actor committing the crime was armed, same standard as other crimes.

by allowing the motorist to willingly accept being handcuffed so that others reading about it can thoroughly confuse the terms "arrest" and "legal detainment".

From findlaw.com: An "arrest" occurs when a person has been taken into police custody and is no longer free to leave or move about. That's why those videos about talking to the police recommended axing "Am I free to go or am I under arrest?" When the handcuffs went on, the victim was under arrest.
The victim accepted being handcuffed because he knew the violence that would be perpetrated upon his person had he not done so. Do we excuse rapists who use little to no violence because their victim knows a greater violence will be committed on her so she doesn't fight back? It doesn't negate the fact that a crime has been committed, much like it was against this innocent citizen.
The only thing he could have done better is answer the cop's question with "I'm under no obligation to tell you that" instead of "I don't consent to any search." There's a time for "I don't consent..." but that wasn't it.
We have no way of knowing now, but anyone want to give odds on whether the situation would have turned out the same had the victim/biker replied, "Yes, I do have a gun?" I bet the cop still would have illegally arrested him had he done so, "for the (rhymes with wussy)'s safety." Maybe, like the guy above, he would have included "...and for his safety" in his report. Yeah, Officer Obie, I'm so much safer with these handcuffs on. Can't pick up the garbage, either."
(That's from a song, for those who don't know: "Obie, I don't think I can pick up the garbage with these handcuffs on." )
Bottom line: cops have no constitutional right to be safe from their imaginary fears; we do have the constitutional right to be armed in public, and this victim/biker was penalized for it.

 

[Turtle]

You think the cop's fears were imaginary, yet you know with a high degree of certainty that the biker "accepted being handcuffed because he knew the violence that would be perpetrated upon his person had he not done so." That's impressive, to say the least.

Incidentally, I have a fear that every wasp on the planet wants to sting me. It might be imaginary, but it's very real, nonetheless.

 

[AMonger]

You think the cop's fears were imaginary,

Imaginary for a couple reasons. No action had been taken to give cause for him to suspect he was in danger. He stated something to the effect of, "I don't like people being armed." Don't remember the exact words. That's typical of modern cops; they think they're the only ones in their jurisdiction who should be armed. They also seem to, like this cop, believe they're in control of any situation and may disregard the Bill of Rights. But back to being in danger...
Second, if the biker had had malevolent intent, do you think he would have even allowed the cop to see his gun, except for the business end when he went to use it? That's the whole point of open carry; people with good intentions don't care if you see it while people with ill intent hide them.

yet you know with a high degree of certainty that the biker "accepted being handcuffed because he knew the violence that would be perpetrated upon his person had he not done so." That's impressive, to say the least.

That's a pretty reasonable and likely universal conclusion. What other reason do you propose?

Incidentally, I have a fear that every wasp on the planet wants to sting me. It might be imaginary, but it's very real, nonetheless.

Yet, wasps of the insect variety have no rights, while people do. So imaginary or real, you can act on your fear of wasps of the insect variety without waiting to see if your fears are justified. People, otoh, have rights that can't be violated absent cause, and if this cop is too much of a (rhymes with wussy) that he can't do that, maybe he should look into barber college. Society needs brave cops, not wussies who can't calm their imaginary fears without violating people's rights.
Again, the cop has no right to not be afraid; the biker does have a right to carry a gun. As has been pointed out by others, perhaps people like the biker, with his background, ought to be legally required to carry a gun, and maybe this deputy is too big of a candy-@$$ to be allowed to.