User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 8:34:44 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there a lot of very reasonable ways this could have been handled and none were exercised. As a cop in MD we rarely (read never) deal with people legally carrying a concealed handgun. I think its BS and always do what I can to restore our rights as citizens in the state. In this case I think the removal of a concealed weapon poses more of a threat than the guy having it. He did the courtesy of saying it in the vehicle, I would have simply asked that he provide proof of permit and keep his hands on the dash. Two people in the vehicle, one of which is armed, would warrant a backup officer, but not forcible removal. This is a complete display of asshattery All of this brought to you by a hated ARFCOM cop who speeds and hates cameras! ETA: the guy does himself no favors with the predictable "your lucky you have your badge" nonsense. I don't pander to peoples constant dick measuring, but there are plenty on the job who will. He was wronged and should complain to the appropriate channels, but stupid statements like that make it easy for him to be written off as an A hole. Not knocking you but I find your comments interesting. In my AO we have a high exposure rate to CCW armed drivers. I don't know of any officers that would make the person put their hands on the dash during the stop nor request a backup officer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 8:36:33 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not uncommon. Nope. It's happened to me too (not by that agency). Even got cuffed once. Whatever. I got my gun back when it was over, and everybody went home safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 10:14:18 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bad guys don't have a concealed weapons permit, tell officers they are armed, and bad guys don't use holsters. Police need to understand who is on THEIR side. Its the good cops responsibility to explain this to their counterparts. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 10:17:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well fuck them. I usually turn my CHL over with my DL, but not for the FHP, not anymore. Never for any agency. I would rather get a ticket than be disarmed again by any LEO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 12:04:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never for any agency. I would rather get a ticket than be disarmed again by any LEO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well fuck them. I usually turn my CHL over with my DL, but not for the FHP, not anymore. Never for any agency. I would rather get a ticket than be disarmed again by any LEO. You have just raised the danger level to LEO's exponentially. Damn outlaw. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 12:38:16 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have just raised the danger level to LEO's exponentially. Damn outlaw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well fuck them. I usually turn my CHL over with my DL, but not for the FHP, not anymore. Never for any agency. I would rather get a ticket than be disarmed again by any LEO. You have just raised the danger level to LEO's exponentially. Damn outlaw. An armed CCW'er doesn't raise the danger level if they are discrete. I'm sure I have stopped many and never knew they were carrying. Same for those without a permit and carrying legally stored in the vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 12:47:24 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An armed CCW'er doesn't raise the danger level if they are discrete. I'm sure I have stopped many and never knew they were carrying. Same for those without a permit and carrying legally stored in the vehicle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well fuck them. I usually turn my CHL over with my DL, but not for the FHP, not anymore. Never for any agency. I would rather get a ticket than be disarmed again by any LEO. You have just raised the danger level to LEO's exponentially. Damn outlaw. An armed CCW'er doesn't raise the danger level if they are discrete. I'm sure I have stopped many and never knew they were carrying. Same for those without a permit and carrying legally stored in the vehicle. Recalibrate that meter, troop. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 12:53:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He said "a lot", not all. How is a driver with CCW going to know if he has a CCW friendly cop or not if he breaks a minor traffic law? Like I related earlier I told a female HP while under a car taping up a hole in a radiator hose I had a firearm in my pocket. She knew I was helping an elderly couple and still told me to come out from under the car and to keep my hands in sight. She over reacted when I told her and I only did so because it is required by OK statutes because she made contact with me in her job. It is more prudent to be wary of LE if you are armed legally than to think they don't care because it could be a huge mistake on your part. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like educators, a lot of LEOs want a "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to weapons in civilian hands anywhere around them. Period. 99% of the cops I know couldn't give less of a fuck. In fact, many of them prefer you to be armed. So if your assertion is true TheKill... why is it that I teach FREE CC classes from time to time to citizens, and tactics classes, etc., as do some other LE firearms instructors I know? TONS of LE Officers teach CC classes on the side as a business. Sort of shoots your assertion all to hell I say. For the record, I don't like the term civilian when discussing LE and Non-LE people...  He said "a lot", not all. How is a driver with CCW going to know if he has a CCW friendly cop or not if he breaks a minor traffic law? Like I related earlier I told a female HP while under a car taping up a hole in a radiator hose I had a firearm in my pocket. She knew I was helping an elderly couple and still told me to come out from under the car and to keep my hands in sight. She over reacted when I told her and I only did so because it is required by OK statutes because she made contact with me in her job. It is more prudent to be wary of LE if you are armed legally than to think they don't care because it could be a huge mistake on your part. Here is one thing I'm fairly confident of: if the officer is female, you WILL be disarmed because she WILL be scared of the gun and you (if you are a male and bigger than her). All that "women are equal to men" shit goes right out the door when she things it could be armed or unarmed combat at any second. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 12:55:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the lady with the yellow fringed skirt... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seizing a gun during a traffic stop for no other reason than to conclude a traffic violation investigation that in most states cannot lead to an arrest should be a 4th amendment violation. The "for your safety and mine" argument is fucking retarded. Officers have the right to disarm the driver for the course of the stop The driver in the video is ridiculous for arguing and demanding a supervisor. he is ensuring he'll be sitting there for 30 minutes while the supervisor responds Not like we carry them around in our trunk the state has no "rights" it has powers. From the lady with the yellow fringed skirt... He's right, so how does that justify an insult designed to label him as one of those nutcase "sovereign citizen" wackos? Rights are for people....individuals to be exact. The Constitution describes, divides, and in many areas, places limits on the POWERS of the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 1:03:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Got to love "case law," invented law by an egomaniac(s) in a black robe and never passed by a legislature or signed into law by an executive. In NY that is how they came up with restricted permits where nothing exists in statute. A bunch of appointed, not elected, judges just made it up out of whole cloth... And you can't appeal it as it was the state's highest court. There should be no such thing as "case law" that has no root in statute. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Two more dip shits that think they know the law. An officer can order any all passengers in or out of a vehicle at anytime. And at this point in case law an officer can disarm anyone permit or not. Got to love "case law," invented law by an egomaniac(s) in a black robe and never passed by a legislature or signed into law by an executive. In NY that is how they came up with restricted permits where nothing exists in statute. A bunch of appointed, not elected, judges just made it up out of whole cloth... And you can't appeal it as it was the state's highest court. There should be no such thing as "case law" that has no root in statute.  We have a common law legal system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 3:48:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is one thing I'm fairly confident of: if the officer is female, you WILL be disarmed because she WILL be scared of the gun and you (if you are a male and bigger than her). All that "women are equal to men" shit goes right out the door when she things it could be armed or unarmed combat at any second. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like educators, a lot of LEOs want a "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to weapons in civilian hands anywhere around them. Period. 99% of the cops I know couldn't give less of a fuck. In fact, many of them prefer you to be armed. So if your assertion is true TheKill... why is it that I teach FREE CC classes from time to time to citizens, and tactics classes, etc., as do some other LE firearms instructors I know? TONS of LE Officers teach CC classes on the side as a business. Sort of shoots your assertion all to hell I say. For the record, I don't like the term civilian when discussing LE and Non-LE people... He said "a lot", not all. How is a driver with CCW going to know if he has a CCW friendly cop or not if he breaks a minor traffic law? Like I related earlier I told a female HP while under a car taping up a hole in a radiator hose I had a firearm in my pocket. She knew I was helping an elderly couple and still told me to come out from under the car and to keep my hands in sight. She over reacted when I told her and I only did so because it is required by OK statutes because she made contact with me in her job. It is more prudent to be wary of LE if you are armed legally than to think they don't care because it could be a huge mistake on your part. Here is one thing I'm fairly confident of: if the officer is female, you WILL be disarmed because she WILL be scared of the gun and you (if you are a male and bigger than her). All that "women are equal to men" shit goes right out the door when she things it could be armed or unarmed combat at any second. Wow... I'll give you a out of for that...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 4:38:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's some stats for Florida (they stopped tracking crimes where a firearm was used by a permit holder in 2011. It was last reported at 168) June 2014-June 2015 942 licenses revoked, 2705 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2013-June 2014 1,144 licenses revoked, 3,279 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2012-June 2013 822 licenses revoked, 3,236 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. More years here http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Licensing/Statistical-Reports (Edited to correct 2013-2013 stats) Why did you quote me? Your post has nothing, at all, to do with my post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 4:39:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Post the whole statute... context matters... this statute does not apply. 901.151 Stop and Frisk Law.— (1) This section may be known and cited as the “Florida Stop and Frisk Law.” (2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense. (3) No person shall be temporarily detained under the provisions of subsection (2) longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of that subsection. Such temporary detention shall not extend beyond the place where it was first effected or the immediate vicinity thereof. (4) If at any time after the onset of the temporary detention authorized by subsection (2), probable cause for arrest of person shall appear, the person shall be arrested. If, after an inquiry into the circumstances which prompted the temporary detention, no probable cause for the arrest of the person shall appear, the person shall be released. (5) Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon. If such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense it may be seized. (6) No evidence seized by a law enforcement officer in any search under this section shall be admissible against any person in any court of this state or political subdivision thereof unless the search which disclosed its existence was authorized by and conducted in compliance with the provisions of subsections (2)-(5). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Florida allows for a police officer to disarm a legal ccw during the duration of the stop , the driver was an idiot and doesn't know florida law. Can you point out the statute for us? It's established under federal and state case law, See Terry v Ohio and similar cases, but if you want a specific statute, try this one: 901.151 (5) Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon. If such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense it may be seized. Not that I agree with it, but there it is. Answering yes, to the "Any guns in the car?" question, provide more than enough PC to believe the individual is armed. Post the whole statute... context matters... this statute does not apply. 901.151 Stop and Frisk Law.— (1) This section may be known and cited as the “Florida Stop and Frisk Law.” (2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense. (3) No person shall be temporarily detained under the provisions of subsection (2) longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of that subsection. Such temporary detention shall not extend beyond the place where it was first effected or the immediate vicinity thereof. (4) If at any time after the onset of the temporary detention authorized by subsection (2), probable cause for arrest of person shall appear, the person shall be arrested. If, after an inquiry into the circumstances which prompted the temporary detention, no probable cause for the arrest of the person shall appear, the person shall be released. (5) Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon. If such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense it may be seized. (6) No evidence seized by a law enforcement officer in any search under this section shall be admissible against any person in any court of this state or political subdivision thereof unless the search which disclosed its existence was authorized by and conducted in compliance with the provisions of subsections (2)-(5). So are you suggesting that the referenced statute does not apply to traffic stops? Or are you suggesting it only applies to detentions based on rS of a violation of criminal law as opposed to infractions? In either case you are mistake, based on at least 20 years of case law, both state and federal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 4:50:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why did you quote me? Your post has nothing, at all, to do with my post. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here's some stats for Florida (they stopped tracking crimes where a firearm was used by a permit holder in 2011. It was last reported at 168) June 2014-June 2015 942 licenses revoked, 2705 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2013-June 2014 1,144 licenses revoked, 3,279 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2012-June 2013 822 licenses revoked, 3,236 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. More years here http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Licensing/Statistical-Reports (Edited to correct 2013-2013 stats) Why did you quote me? Your post has nothing, at all, to do with my post. Your post: "Now having said that...there has NEVER been a case in Florida where a license holder has shot (or even pointed a gun at) a LEO, ever! In fact with well over 2.5 million licenses issued in over 25 years, only something like 160 people have lost their licenses due to crimes with firearms. None of these involved LEO. Could it happen? Sure, but LEO are hundreds of thousands of times more likely to be injured in a vehicle crash, or a killed by lightning than to be assaulted by a Florida CWFL holder. In fact they are at far more risk (as is the general public and the individual involved) to be injured by finger fucking with a gun at a traffic stop." Your figure stopped being tracked in 2011 by the state. So it's several years out of date. Obviously the state has a small portion of CCW holders that appear to run into problems based on the revocations and suspensions of licenses for disqualifying arrests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 5:16:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your post: "Now having said that...there has NEVER been a case in Florida where a license holder has shot (or even pointed a gun at) a LEO, ever! In fact with well over 2.5 million licenses issued in over 25 years, only something like 160 people have lost their licenses due to crimes with firearms. None of these involved LEO. Could it happen? Sure, but LEO are hundreds of thousands of times more likely to be injured in a vehicle crash, or a killed by lightning than to be assaulted by a Florida CWFL holder. In fact they are at far more risk (as is the general public and the individual involved) to be injured by finger fucking with a gun at a traffic stop." Your figure stopped being tracked in 2011 by the state. So it's several years out of date. Obviously the state has a small portion of CCW holders that appear to run into problems based on the revocations and suspensions of licenses for disqualifying arrests. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's some stats for Florida (they stopped tracking crimes where a firearm was used by a permit holder in 2011. It was last reported at 168) June 2014-June 2015 942 licenses revoked, 2705 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2013-June 2014 1,144 licenses revoked, 3,279 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2012-June 2013 822 licenses revoked, 3,236 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. More years here http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Licensing/Statistical-Reports (Edited to correct 2013-2013 stats) Why did you quote me? Your post has nothing, at all, to do with my post. Your post: "Now having said that...there has NEVER been a case in Florida where a license holder has shot (or even pointed a gun at) a LEO, ever! In fact with well over 2.5 million licenses issued in over 25 years, only something like 160 people have lost their licenses due to crimes with firearms. None of these involved LEO. Could it happen? Sure, but LEO are hundreds of thousands of times more likely to be injured in a vehicle crash, or a killed by lightning than to be assaulted by a Florida CWFL holder. In fact they are at far more risk (as is the general public and the individual involved) to be injured by finger fucking with a gun at a traffic stop." Your figure stopped being tracked in 2011 by the state. So it's several years out of date. Obviously the state has a small portion of CCW holders that appear to run into problems based on the revocations and suspensions of licenses for disqualifying arrests. I've highlighted the relevant portion of my post to show the reason yours is non-responsive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 5:21:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've highlighted the relevant portion of my post to show the reason yours is non-responsive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's some stats for Florida (they stopped tracking crimes where a firearm was used by a permit holder in 2011. It was last reported at 168) June 2014-June 2015 942 licenses revoked, 2705 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2013-June 2014 1,144 licenses revoked, 3,279 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2012-June 2013 822 licenses revoked, 3,236 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. More years here http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Licensing/Statistical-Reports (Edited to correct 2013-2013 stats) Why did you quote me? Your post has nothing, at all, to do with my post. Your post: "Now having said that...there has NEVER been a case in Florida where a license holder has shot (or even pointed a gun at) a LEO, ever! In fact with well over 2.5 million licenses issued in over 25 years, only something like 160 people have lost their licenses due to crimes with firearms. None of these involved LEO. Could it happen? Sure, but LEO are hundreds of thousands of times more likely to be injured in a vehicle crash, or a killed by lightning than to be assaulted by a Florida CWFL holder. In fact they are at far more risk (as is the general public and the individual involved) to be injured by finger fucking with a gun at a traffic stop." Your figure stopped being tracked in 2011 by the state. So it's several years out of date. Obviously the state has a small portion of CCW holders that appear to run into problems based on the revocations and suspensions of licenses for disqualifying arrests. I've highlighted the relevant portion of my post to show the reason yours is non-responsive. Ok, but your stat of 168 is frozen in time as it isn't tracked or reported anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 6:17:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Post the video? If he truly was and idot, file a complaint. Depending on other factors like location and laws, one might be able to articulate how the officer endangered your life and you should be compensated accordingly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Meh, I had a FHP trooper FF my pistol during a stop back in the Early 90's. I thought it was BS, especially since every time they do this your SN gets run through the system. Decided not to be a dick, and got a warning. My biggest issue was the guy exhibited sheer carelessness and an obvious lack of experience with firearms. So what's the play if Trooper Fife negligently shoots himself with my CCW? Post the video? If he truly was and idot, file a complaint. Depending on other factors like location and laws, one might be able to articulate how the officer endangered your life and you should be compensated accordingly. 
I'm assuming you meant if it happened these days.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 6:25:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bad guys don't have a concealed weapons permit, tell officers they are armed, and bad guys don't use holsters. Police need to understand who is on THEIR side. Its the good cops responsibility to explain this to their counterparts. Use your words, MOD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 6:25:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not knocking you but I find your comments interesting. In my AO we have a high exposure rate to CCW armed drivers. I don't know of any officers that would make the person put their hands on the dash during the stop nor request a backup officer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
there a lot of very reasonable ways this could have been handled and none were exercised. As a cop in MD we rarely (read never) deal with people legally carrying a concealed handgun. I think its BS and always do what I can to restore our rights as citizens in the state. In this case I think the removal of a concealed weapon poses more of a threat than the guy having it. He did the courtesy of saying it in the vehicle, I would have simply asked that he provide proof of permit and keep his hands on the dash. Two people in the vehicle, one of which is armed, would warrant a backup officer, but not forcible removal. This is a complete display of asshattery All of this brought to you by a hated ARFCOM cop who speeds and hates cameras! ETA: the guy does himself no favors with the predictable "your lucky you have your badge" nonsense. I don't pander to peoples constant dick measuring, but there are plenty on the job who will. He was wronged and should complain to the appropriate channels, but stupid statements like that make it easy for him to be written off as an A hole. Not knocking you but I find your comments interesting. In my AO we have a high exposure rate to CCW armed drivers. I don't know of any officers that would make the person put their hands on the dash during the stop nor request a backup officer. It's been years since I was pulled over, but I find that having your ducks in a row, lights on, keys on the dash, and both hands on the wheel makes the stop much more pleasant for the driver..... In my experience. Never been asked to keep my hands on the wheel or even if I had a weapon. I volunteered the info to the trooper in FL. Come to think of it.... I've been pulled more times than I can count driving all over the US with my industry, and working odd hours, and I've NEVER had a request to search my vehicle, even in TN and LA. Could it be the way you present yourself matters? Crazy talk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 6:29:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Bama
Chalk it up to ignorance. Again in 3 years I have never seen MD CCW permit. I can imagine the response by most in my department would mirror this response or worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 6:31:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While it will be lost on most here, there are such things as best practices even in law enforcement. If you go to see the doctor chances are the staff will put on gloves. Is it because you have HIV, TB, Hep C or ebola? No, it's because it is a reasonable best practice as a standard measure offering a degree of initial protection while the medical situation is assessed. The safest way to handle any medical patient with an unknown condition would be full PPE until their health status could be ascertained. But it is impractical and off putting to the patient. The same thing could be said about police work. But instead of approaching everyone at gunpoint until their actions and intentions could be vetted is impractical and dangerous. However, a contact under enforcement actions or where RS/PC exists is a detention and a seizure of a person. With that comes reasonable measures for the safety of the officer and while a seizure exists, the officer may issue reasonable lawful commands to facilitate this. Courts have looked at this in a multitude of cases over the years and across the country. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thugs with badges. It really irks them that they aren't the only special snowflakes that get to carry a gun. Officer safety... That is so stupid it's offensive. Concealed carriers are among the most vetted people in the civilian realm. ETA: Although I believe everything I said above, it appears the police are well within their right to legally disarm this guy. If the law is on their side, the discussion is over. That guy is lucky he wasn't arrested or worse, shot. So what were YOU arrested for? Not irked by people with CCWs. In fact, my agency offers handling and CCW classes to the public for free. Plenty of people out there who are "good" until they go "bad", and bad people don't have a stamp on their foreheads for easy id. Safety issue, and part of the hassle for breaking the law. Suck it up, cupcake. You ain't special. While it will be lost on most here, there are such things as best practices even in law enforcement. If you go to see the doctor chances are the staff will put on gloves. Is it because you have HIV, TB, Hep C or ebola? No, it's because it is a reasonable best practice as a standard measure offering a degree of initial protection while the medical situation is assessed. The safest way to handle any medical patient with an unknown condition would be full PPE until their health status could be ascertained. But it is impractical and off putting to the patient. The same thing could be said about police work. But instead of approaching everyone at gunpoint until their actions and intentions could be vetted is impractical and dangerous. However, a contact under enforcement actions or where RS/PC exists is a detention and a seizure of a person. With that comes reasonable measures for the safety of the officer and while a seizure exists, the officer may issue reasonable lawful commands to facilitate this. Courts have looked at this in a multitude of cases over the years and across the country. Six Sigma FTW..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 6:34:13 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never for any agency. I would rather get a ticket than be disarmed again by any LEO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well fuck them. I usually turn my CHL over with my DL, but not for the FHP, not anymore. Never for any agency. I would rather get a ticket than be disarmed again by any LEO. Carry more than one gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 6:46:46 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, but your stat of 168 is frozen in time as it isn't tracked or reported anymore. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's some stats for Florida (they stopped tracking crimes where a firearm was used by a permit holder in 2011. It was last reported at 168) June 2014-June 2015 942 licenses revoked, 2705 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2013-June 2014 1,144 licenses revoked, 3,279 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. June 2012-June 2013 822 licenses revoked, 3,236 licenses suspended for disqualifying arrest. More years here http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Licensing/Statistical-Reports (Edited to correct 2013-2013 stats) Why did you quote me? Your post has nothing, at all, to do with my post. Your post: "Now having said that...there has NEVER been a case in Florida where a license holder has shot (or even pointed a gun at) a LEO, ever! In fact with well over 2.5 million licenses issued in over 25 years, only something like 160 people have lost their licenses due to crimes with firearms. None of these involved LEO. Could it happen? Sure, but LEO are hundreds of thousands of times more likely to be injured in a vehicle crash, or a killed by lightning than to be assaulted by a Florida CWFL holder. In fact they are at far more risk (as is the general public and the individual involved) to be injured by finger fucking with a gun at a traffic stop." Your figure stopped being tracked in 2011 by the state. So it's several years out of date. Obviously the state has a small portion of CCW holders that appear to run into problems based on the revocations and suspensions of licenses for disqualifying arrests. I've highlighted the relevant portion of my post to show the reason yours is non-responsive. Ok, but your stat of 168 is frozen in time as it isn't tracked or reported anymore. Does that change the odds? Doubtful. It is a huge waste of everybody's time to disarm CWFL in Florida. As a group, they commit fewer crimes than any other group, including LEO. The process is not "For your safety and mine." Just the opposite, it places everyone in far more danger. It is nothing more than a method of control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 12:27:17 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The drivers own actions were criminal. He refused to follow lawful commands. He should be served with a warrant and appear before a judge. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I was Mr. Trooper I would take a copy of that video and report of the incident down to the magistrates office and get a warrant for the drivers arrest. So you would make a criminal out of an average american citizen who is concerned about his rights being trampled?...rather then go after the hard core criminals who really are hurting society...funny..considering the constitution should be the final answer on the 4th...not what some grey haired guys in bathrobes think or what some PD policy is.... It really is all about RESPECT my AUTHORITY after all isn't it...... The drivers own actions were criminal. He refused to follow lawful commands. He should be served with a warrant and appear before a judge. 'Cause the justice system isn't overloaded enough? Don't we have bigger fish to fry? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 12:31:12 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bama Chalk it up to ignorance. Again in 3 years I have never seen MD CCW permit. I can imagine the response by most in my department would mirror this response or worse. Wow. I bet I see 10 permits a month. I made four traffic stops yesterday and one of them showed me her permit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 12:34:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
'Cause the justice system isn't overloaded enough? Don't we have bigger fish to fry? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The drivers own actions were criminal. He refused to follow lawful commands. He should be served with a warrant and appear before a judge. 'Cause the justice system isn't overloaded enough? Don't we have bigger fish to fry? He needs to appear in court, let the video play and explain to a judge his unlawful actions. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
