That's funny ... I was just wondering the same thing about you.
That's funny ... I was just wondering the same thing about you.
Please explain what you see as my red herring.
If I am pulled over, for any reason, be it a good reason or not, why should I be required to surrender my weapon? For the LEO's feeling of safety? What about my feeling of safety?
The fact that I am pulled over has no bearing on my guilt or innocence. Or do you assume that any time a person is pulled over they are obviously guilty?
Who mentioned that I thought I was above the law? Who mentioned donut shops? Your red herring threw many things into the discussion that were only parts and pieces of your own active imagination.
Back on topic: do we follow the SDA as written by the State of OK or the Terry v. Ohio decision? This is not cop-bashing. It's a serious discussion. If you can't discuss it on those merits, please leave it to those of us that can.
If I am pulled over, for any reason, be it a good reason or not, why should I be required to surrender my weapon? For the LEO's feeling of safety? What about my feeling of safety?
The fact that I am pulled over has no bearing on my guilt or innocence. Or do you assume that any time a person is pulled over they are obviously guilty?
Who mentioned that I thought I was above the law? Who mentioned donut shops? Your red herring threw many things into the discussion that were only parts and pieces of your own active imagination.
Back on topic: do we follow the SDA as written by the State of OK or the Terry v. Ohio decision? This is not cop-bashing. It's a serious discussion. If you can't discuss it on those merits, please leave it to those of us that can.
You cannot be law-abiding and speeding and/or running a red light at the same time ...
Actually, the fact that someone is being pulled over is, much more often than not, a direct result of a driver's guilt. Running red lights and speeding are unlawful and two very valid reasons for a stop. So is having burned out tail lights (more a safety issue than guilty of anything IMHO but I didn't write the rules).
I tend to lean toward following the SDA, simply because I try to conduct myself in such a manner as to cause the least amount of grief for myself as possible.
is a separate sentence and thought from
If I disobeyed a law, either on purpose or accidentally (because I wasn't paying attention to my driving or maintenance records) it does not make me a 'criminal' nor does it make me dangerous to LEOs.
If I am pulled over it's because the officer 'thinks' I am guilty, not that I am guilty. Most of the time he may be correct, but not always.
I also lean toward the SDA as passed by the state of OK.
But it does not make you a good guy either. Plenty of really bad guys have been caught because of traffic infractions witnessed by a cop who had no clue who they were. Nikki Green was shot DRT doing a welfare check on what he thought was a stranded motorist. He made the mistake of assuming the person he was checking on what a decent, law-abiding citizen and it cost him his life.
Personally, I have no problem with an officer doing whatever he or she needs to do to be comfortable on a stop with me.
If I do have an issue (and it has happened a couple of times since I married the old JBT) I will simply take notes and have a chat with his or her commanding officer later. I'd rather be irritated as hell and in the comfort of my own home than irritated as hell and sitting in the county jail.
I would venture to say that in those instances the LEO had no chance to disarm the perp. If I sit there calmly while he checks out my license it ought to tell him something.
Citizens should be afforded the benefit of te doubt.
Citizens should be afforded the benefit of te doubt.
I will be the first to admit that my leanings here are somewhat biased. I don't think anybody should be given the benefit of the doubt. GC disagrees with me. I would rather inconvenience a 1000 good citizens of this state than have one more officer's family receive a knock on the door. Guess it's a good thing he is the JBT and I am not, huh?
Definitely. Thankfully the Founders and most legal opinion gives that benefit of the doubt to the citizen.
My wish is that no family ever hears that knock at the door, but that is the nature if the job.
My wish is that no family ever hears that knock at the door, but that is the nature if the job.
I know I'm new here and all, but I had to chime in on this, no ill intent meant, just stating my observations/opinion.
I just want to make the point that cops frequently do not follow any of the routine traffic ordinances. Some do, but the majority that I have seen do not. At least 15 cops live in my neighborhood, and probably 10-12 of them run the stop sign into the neighborhood daily, on average, in their patrol cars as well as private vehicles. I drive for my work all day, and I see the same thing all day long pertaining to cops not following traffic laws. I'm not saying I am perfect by ANY MEANS, and don't expect the cops to be either, but just don't want to agree with the assumption that cops never commit the same traffic violations that they use as an excuse to pull people over for "breaking the law". As you mention if you commit the examples you give you are not technically a law abiding citizen at that time, the same goes for the cops that do this on a daily basis. In my opinion, it doesn't speak one way or the other as to the person's true character based on minor traffic violations and cops should not automatically take away a persons weapon during a traffic stop because he broke the law of going 5MPH over or had a broken tail light and was "not a law abiding citizen."
I have been stopped only once since I started carrying, for no seat belt. Showed my CCL and no mention was made of my weapon. We were both friendly and cordial and it was a good encounter. Yes, I got a ticket.
My daughter was stopped a month or so prior to getting her CCL. She was traveling at night, 1:00am to a wedding in KC. She told the MHP Officer that she had a gun in the door of her car because her dad told her to take one while on the trip. He asked if it was loaded. She told him that it was magazine loaded but not chambered. He told her that if she was comfortable with the pistol that she should chamber one, just in case. I would love to meet this guy and buy him dinner.
She was recently stopped at 10:00pm in Tahlequah for an intermittent taillight. She handed him her DL, CCL and insurance. He asked where the gun was. She told him in her carry purse. He had her remove it and hand it to him where he placed it on the roof of her car during the stop. She had 2 sorority sisters with her who didnt know she carried nor needed to know. After the warning, he had her pop the trunk where he placed the gun and told her not to retrieve it until she got to where she was going. Then she had to retrieve the gun at the dorms when there were others who could witness it. Thats BS. I guess if he was afraid of a 120lb, 21-year-old girl who had a taillight going out, then yes he had a right to out her. But to deny her protection until she got to the dorms is way out of line. How is 2 people handling a gun twice each, safe. How is that officer safer by my daughter traveling without protection readily available? I would also like to meet this officer, but dinner wouldnt be involved.
My daughter was stopped a month or so prior to getting her CCL. She was traveling at night, 1:00am to a wedding in KC. She told the MHP Officer that she had a gun in the door of her car because her dad told her to take one while on the trip. He asked if it was loaded. She told him that it was magazine loaded but not chambered. He told her that if she was comfortable with the pistol that she should chamber one, just in case. I would love to meet this guy and buy him dinner.
She was recently stopped at 10:00pm in Tahlequah for an intermittent taillight. She handed him her DL, CCL and insurance. He asked where the gun was. She told him in her carry purse. He had her remove it and hand it to him where he placed it on the roof of her car during the stop. She had 2 sorority sisters with her who didnt know she carried nor needed to know. After the warning, he had her pop the trunk where he placed the gun and told her not to retrieve it until she got to where she was going. Then she had to retrieve the gun at the dorms when there were others who could witness it. Thats BS. I guess if he was afraid of a 120lb, 21-year-old girl who had a taillight going out, then yes he had a right to out her. But to deny her protection until she got to the dorms is way out of line. How is 2 people handling a gun twice each, safe. How is that officer safer by my daughter traveling without protection readily available? I would also like to meet this officer, but dinner wouldnt be involved.
Similar threads
