Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/4/2002 2:43:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2002 2:46:14 PM EDT by TheRedGoat]
when [b]plainclothes[/b] federal agents in [b]unmarked[/b] cars pulled them over...snip... [b]Carrying weapons[/b] ...snip.. described as "assault rifles or machine guns," the agents ordered them to put their hands up, (this was quoted from the article about the boyscout who was shot in the face) Imagine yourself in the same situation. Driving along down the road, a suspicious vehicle pulls in close behind you and turns on a flashing light. Knowing that you have done nothing wrong, and seeing that the vehicle behind you is NOT a patrol car do you: a. Pull over immediately b. Continue to a safe place to pull over c. Continue to the local PD d. Accelerate and try to lose them If you decide to do anything but (a.) then the PD/Feds are going to say "Look! He ain't pullin over, run him off the road! Shoot out his tires! He's fleeing, so he must be guilty!" Ok, let's say you pull over immediately. Now you see two or more guys in PLAIN clothes jump out of their vehicle and begin rushing your car. Since they are not dressed as police, do you: a. Sit still b. Leave the scene Option (b) is the wrong answer, again. Even though common sense would seem to dictate fleeing from potential harm (they don't even look like police remember). If you leave they will probably open fire. So you decide to stay. Now you see what are obviously weapons being brought to bear. Keep in mind they are behind you and you are seeing this through your rear view or side mirror. Now, three armed, plain clothes guys, in a suspicious vehicle have just pulled you over. Are you really going to just sit there? Nope. You take action to protect yourself and get blown away, along with whoever else might be in the vehicle with you. Any reasonable person would not pull over in the first place, would not sit still while potential attackers are rushing their vehicle, or while armed strangers are charging your position. If you have gambled that this really might just be the police, and not druggies, car thieves, kidnappers, or rapists then you have just allowed the miscreants to get total control of the tactical situation. The bad guys' weapons are out, your vehicle is stopped, and they have you surrounded. Catch 22... It makes no sense that the police/feds expect us to do nothing. TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:50:05 PM EDT
Their philosophy is probably that they never screw up on a stop, thus the bad guy gets what he deserves. I hope that agent is fucking fried for what he did. Lets not confuse that this was the action of ONE agent.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 3:06:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Minman72: Their philosophy is probably that they never screw up on a stop, thus the bad guy gets what he deserves. I hope that agent is fucking fried for what he did. Lets not confuse that this was the action of ONE agent.
View Quote
i think we're all in agreement that the actions of one dont' necessarily indicate the officially sanctioned actions of the group. however, the scenario that TheRedGoat lays out for us is not indicative of just one person. this could play out just as he described for any civilian/fed combination. i thought the point he was trying to make was that civilians are caught in the catch-22 of trying to make reasonable, sensible decisions in defense of life, liberty, and passengers, and staying within the realm of the law. the current "workings" of the federal alphabet soup agencies make it damn near impossbible to do either one, let alone both.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 3:18:31 PM EDT
Observe, [peep] assess, [thinking] respond. [pistol] [shotgun] [50] [rail] Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 4:01:27 PM EDT
There, there's an easy solution that, according to our state AG anyway, is legal. You turn-on your hazard lights and continue driving until you find a safe place to stop. If the car behind you takes further action, then they are breaking the law. A few years ago, there was an infamous pair of guys that the local media called the "blue light bandits." They got people to stop with a blue light on their dash, and then raped and/or robbed them. That started a rash (well, according to the police) of people that refused to immediately stop for police cars at night. The state highway patrol had a fit that people would dare continue driving until they found a safe place to stop. My wife ended-up with a reckless driving ticket (she later got out of after a letter from the state AG's office), because she kept driving after a local sheriff's deputy tried to pull her over on a dark road at just before midnight. She kept driving until she got to the nearest well-lit place, a gas station. The police got worse with their complaints, and the job for the "blue light bandits" got even simpler the more the police complained that you had to stop immediately for them. It ended when the state AG said the US Supreme Court had ruled you did not have to stop until you found a safe place to do so. Anyone know the particular case? I've been meaning to look it up for years. I don't know the specifics, but it was good enough to stop the whining from the local police.z
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 4:09:43 PM EDT
Post from zoom -
There, there's an easy solution that, according to our state AG anyway, is legal. You turn-on your hazard lights and continue driving until you find a safe place to stop.
View Quote
Now that's a very smart Atty General you folks have in SC! I think that should be standard operating procedure in every jurisdiction! Thanks for that post! Eric The(Edified)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 4:15:14 PM EDT
Well Arizona must be the state where that decision came from zoom. Here the AZ DPS and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department [i]prefer[/i] you to pull over under lights at night and will yell at you over the loudspeeker to keep going if you try to pull up in a dark, remote location. They say they do it for THEIR safety.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 4:21:00 PM EDT
I don't know how much common sense was used in this scenario. The key here is to not put yourself in that situation. That being said, consider this: Odds are that "blue lights" mean stop ASAP. If you cannot safely stop within a hundred yards, then put on your emergency flashers and drive very slow. This will let a LEO know you intend to stop for them. Remember that they are charged with your safety once they turn on the lights. They are trained to recognize an unsafe stopping situation and will respond accordingly. Make sure you don't make any threatening moves. If it's dark outside, then they are on hightened alert. They will run your tags to assess any threat. They have pleanty of time to do just that before you pull over. Sit your a$$ in your vehicle still until otherwise told to do. If you are in a real dark area at night past 10:00 pm then you need to reassess why you are there. The odds of being stopped by an impersonator are very slim. The only exception is if you have a reason to be killed by someone pissed at you. I revert back to the common sense. Treat every stop as it were a real LEO. They are 99.9 percent on the side of a law-abiding citizen with few exceptions. Those being the 1 out of 10,000 jackasses. These hero's deal with all kinds of nuts every day. They know people are agitated when they are about to be ticketed. That's like when you go to the local DMV. You expect to be pissed when you leave there. Think about it. Even if I am in the wrong I still treat them as if they are doing me a favor even if it's going to cost me. It's a job for them just like the greeter at Wal-Mart. I am not or never have been a LEO. Common sense dictates that we should give them room to do thier job. They are human just like you and I and do make mistakes. Most of the time they are appropriately punished for mistakes made. A major mistake could end thier carrer and make it impossible to change careers. The only difference is that a major mistake on thier part usually ends in death. A big responsibility for such low pay. Don't you think?
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 4:35:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 4:42:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DeerSlayer: Make sure you don't make any threatening moves. If it's dark outside, then they are on hightened alert. They will run your tags to assess any threat. They have pleanty of time to do just that before you pull over. Sit your a$$ in your vehicle still until otherwise told to do. [i]If you are in a real dark area at night past 10:00 pm then you need to reassess why you are there.[/i]
View Quote
Yea suh, massuh. Us slaves should not be out afta dark.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 4:50:27 PM EDT
AlClenin, I think you got issues dude. Please, no offense intended. I indicted that common sense is a player in my post. If you have a reason (or job) that keeps you out that late, then take a look at it closely. I take great pains in making sure I am out of harms way. Get the picture?
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 4:56:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:00:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Now that's a very smart Atty General you folks have in SC!
View Quote
Remember, this is the guy that last year said that criminals in your home were fair game--if you had any doubt, open fire, and you would not be prosecuted. Yeah, I think he has a level head on his shoulders, too. [:D]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:02:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AlClenin:
Originally Posted By DeerSlayer: Make sure you don't make any threatening moves. If it's dark outside, then they are on hightened alert. They will run your tags to assess any threat. They have pleanty of time to do just that before you pull over. Sit your a$$ in your vehicle still until otherwise told to do. [i]If you are in a real dark area at night past 10:00 pm then you need to reassess why you are there.[/i]
View Quote
Yea suh, massuh. Us slaves should not be out afta dark.
View Quote
Why I am there is irrelevant to the issue. Change the scenario, and figure out your response. You are at HOME. Sitting on your couch watching TV, the door crashes inward, and someone begins screaming GET ON THE GROUND!! Do you immediately assume it is the Police, surrender tactical control, and get facedown on the floor, or do you calculate that this may be a home invader (or gang of them) impersonating the police in their attempt to subdue you, and your wife, family? Afterall, you have done no wrong, you are not selling drugs, you are not in possesion of narcotics, illegal firearms and you have not broken any laws. So the obvious answer is you are innocent, you are being invaded, and you should fight back, right? "Make sure you don't make any threatening moves." HUH? The THREATENING MOVES are being made by two or more strangers in a strange vehicle, with weapons drawn, rushing toward my vehicle! My argument is the Police have muddied too much with "No Knock Warrants" "Always obey the Police" "Police are always right" "If you were not doing SOMETHING wrong then you would not have been here anyways" They further add to the problem by picking and choosing when they want to 'look' like a policeman, and when they want to blend in with the peasants. TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:12:52 PM EDT
Hey, I wasn't advocating a "police state". The key here was....... COMMON SENSE.. COMMON SENSE...COMMON SENSE Get it?
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:13:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: in the situation laid out by RG my response would be this. slow down and continue to a well populated or crowded area. pull over. If 3 non uniformed guys rush my car i leave quickly. if i can't leave and they brandish then i will likely brandish as well. Yep i'll commit suicide by cop. But if they have no appropriate id and act in this manner then i have no choice but to assume they are not LEO and are a threat to my life. Now if they show me a badge prior to approching and act appropreitly then likely i would have a different response.
View Quote
Good plan. Falls in line with exactly what I would do, except for the brandish as well part. If three guys come at my car with weapons drawn, it is time to MOVE down the road, in a hurry! TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:22:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2002 5:23:15 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Maybe you should be asking something like If a LEA plans to stop a dangersous felony subject, why would they do it in unamrked cars with plain clothes officers? Sometimes a plain clothes officer, chief, detective etc. will witness a situation that they feel they need to take action in. But to plan a warrant service or high risk traffic stop with nothing but plain clothes officer is something different. And for the record if the officers are wearing "ninja suits" that are lettered police, sheriff etc. in large letters in multiple places, those are "uniformed police officers" in my view.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:30:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: And for the record if the officers are wearing "ninja suits" that are lettered police, sheriff etc. in large letters in multiple places, those are "uniformed police officers" in my view.
View Quote
Yea, right, you mean like the ones any wannabe can by at ninja mart ??? Hey Pa !!! lookee what I got at da ninja store !! lets get da da blue flashin light un go play like we was cops. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:35:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: And for the record if the officers are wearing "ninja suits" that are lettered police, sheriff etc. in large letters in multiple places, those are "uniformed police officers" in my view.
View Quote
Yea, right, you mean like the ones any wannabe can by at ninja mart ??? Hey Pa !!! lookee what I got at da ninja store !! lets get da da blue flashin light un go play like we was cops. [rolleyes]
View Quote
Yeah when there are 10 of them with a bunch of tactical gear and such and they all look alike.............and they are yelling "police search warrant don't move" or something similar.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:41:49 PM EDT
What I got from the original account was that this didn't rise to any of this. The officer walked up and as soon as he was even with the door- BLAM. I dont think that the officer has any defense.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:46:08 PM EDT
[img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/SPECTRE%2F5Z21572%2Ejpg[/img] Ya mean like this fella ??? BTW, how can you aquire a target when you can't even get your cowards mask on so you can see through the eyeholes ???
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:52:55 PM EDT
And for the record if the officers are wearing "ninja suits" that are lettered police, sheriff etc. in large letters in multiple places, those are "uniformed police officers" in my view. I see neither large letters saying police or sheriff on that "uniform" nor is it in multiple places. Then again post a "regular" uniformed officer and show me how big, or where it says police on that uniform.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:54:54 PM EDT
well, i live near and drive through detroit all the time. no way i'd stop for plainclothes/unmarked in the city. i'd call 911 on the cell phone, but that takes four hours in detroit, so i'd call the michigan state police. they do answer the the phone. i called in a suspicious median-scraping van (circa september 20) that i was near on the freeway and they had the guy pulled over within five minutes. and they were cool and appreciative. so i'd call the state police, inform them, and drive to the nearest police station. i'd never get into part B of the hypothetical.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 5:57:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: I dont think that the officer has any defense.
View Quote
Wrong...He is an LEO, LEO's don't make mistakes...remember? My question is that if these people were suspected bank robbers why didn't the officers use a load speaker or other means to have the people exit the vehicle while the officers were a safe distance away...like behind their car doors or something? Kind of like a tactical stop type thing. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:22:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DeerSlayer: AlClenin, I think you got issues dude. Please, no offense intended. I indicted that common sense is a player in my post. If you have a reason (or job) that keeps you out that late, then take a look at it closely. I take great pains in making sure I am out of harms way. Get the picture?
View Quote
I just don't see 10:00 as very late, but that is relative. The point is, I don't want to change where I go and what I do just to make LE more comfortable with their jobs. No, this does not mean that when getting pulled over on a dark road I am going to hop out of the car and run up to the cruiser to give the cop my ID. That would be stupid. I just don't think "obey the police at all times, no questions asked" is "common sense". As the original topic of this thread shows, this sort of commen sense can get your face blown off.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:30:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DeerSlayer: Odds are that "blue lights" mean stop ASAP. ... The odds of being stopped by an impersonator are very slim. ... Treat every stop as it were a real LEO
View Quote
This seems to be far from common sense. The odds are slim, but the stuff does happen, may as well be wary. I'm not saying we should be suspicious of all LEOs. Just make sure you are safe before submitting to an unmarked car. I don't think any reasonable cop would have problems with you asking for a marked car to come out, or with you calling the station to verify that things are what they appear to be.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:30:59 PM EDT
[img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/SPECTRE%2F575219%2Ejpg[/img] Well, I can't be sure, but it must say cop on their uniforms somewhere.......just so hard to tell when they are in their APC !!! WAIT !!! I found one that says sheriff !!! [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/SPECTRE%2F574609%2Ejpg[/img]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:35:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2002 6:36:49 PM EDT by djk]
Is that a friggin M60 on top of that sheriff APC (edited to say APC instead of car)? What the hell are they going to do with that???!!! I wouldn't want to be an eagle scout in that county...
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:40:14 PM EDT
How is the weather in ND? I gotta move back there.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:41:41 PM EDT
"is that an M-60 ???" Why yes it is !!! did'nt you know LEO's need those ?? A closer look. BTW, this is LA county sheriffs. [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/SPECTRE%2F575304%2Ejpg[/img]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:48:47 PM EDT
You know Spectre you took a post asking legitimate questions down to a bash session. You didn't even attempt to answer the original question or the question that I posted about the apropriateness of using un-marked cars/officers to execute a planned arrest. I don't know anything about you other than what you post on AR15.com. Based on that you must be about 15 and have severe cognitive and behavioral problems. Because you certainly haven't added anything thoughtful to this post or any of the others that you have chosen to get yourself involved with.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:49:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AlClenin: How is the weather in ND? I gotta move back there.
View Quote
It's 15 degrees F. This winter has been very mild, so I can't complain about a little colder weather. This last week has been about as cold as it has been all winter. I think low temp was -15 F or so this last weekend.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 6:53:08 PM EDT
OLY-M4gery or anyone else, Why does LA county need M60's mounted on APC's? Is this the newest development in urban pacification? Scenes of RoboCop and RoboCop II going through my mind right now....
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:01:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By djk: OLY-M4gery or anyone else, Why does LA county need M60's mounted on APC's? Is this the newest development in urban pacification? Scenes of RoboCop and RoboCop II going through my mind right now....
View Quote
When the US Army went to M-249/M-240's they surplused a lot of M-60's and would basically GIVE them to any LEA that wanted them. Apparently some agencies, NYPD, LASO thought a free MG was ok to get. It also may have something to do with the N. Hollywood shoot out, or one of the pursuits with suspects firing auto weapons at pursuing police in the LA area that the LASO felt their was a need for a mounted MG on an armored vehicle. Armored vehicles are often most talked about as being usable to rescue injured persons from an active "kill zone". Most are "armored" up to .30-06 (non AP) rounds.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:07:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:10:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By djk: OLY-M4gery or anyone else, Why does LA county need M60's mounted on APC's? Is this the newest development in urban pacification? Scenes of RoboCop and RoboCop II going through my mind right now....
View Quote
When the US Army went to M-249/M-240's they surplused a lot of M-60's and would basically GIVE them to any LEA that wanted them. Apparently some agencies, NYPD, LASO thought a free MG was ok to get. It also may have something to do with the N. Hollywood shoot out, or one of the pursuits with suspects firing auto weapons at pursuing police in the LA area that the LASO felt their was a need for a mounted MG on an armored vehicle. Armored vehicles are often most talked about as being usable to rescue injured persons from an active "kill zone". Most are "armored" up to .30-06 (non AP) rounds.
View Quote
Can you say firing wildly and over penetration? I can not think of one situation where the police would be justified in using such a weapon....not one. North Hollywood could have been taken care of (and I think was taken care of) with AR15's and 30-06 hunting rifles. A sniper with a barrett would have stopped it quickly also. 30-06 being sprayed all over a neighborhood is not my idea of law enforcement. Also, how often can an APC keep up with a car in a running gun fight, even if the BG's have auto weapons? ok, an APC in a running gunfight spraying 30-06 in lots of neighborhoods.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:19:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: You know Spectre you took a post asking legitimate questions down to a bash session. You didn't even attempt to answer the original question or the question that I posted about the apropriateness of using un-marked cars/officers to execute a planned arrest. I don't know anything about you other than what you post on AR15.com. Based on that you must be about 15 and have severe cognitive and behavioral problems. Because you certainly haven't added anything thoughtful to this post or any of the others that you have chosen to get yourself involved with.
View Quote
OLY, I guess sometimes I just let my smartass side take over[img]www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/nogood.gif[/img], and I'm not 15, but my oldest boy is ! lol anyway, I was not aware that there was a rule regarding when it is appropriate to be a smartass or not, but I also don't feel what I have done is "bashing" either. I agree that tac teams and swat have their place, but I don't think they need 60's either. My father in law is a retired FBI agent and he is worse than me when it comes to these incidents. He says "whatever happened to protect and serve?" As to unmarked cars, yes, there is a place for them, but the LEO's need to understand that the people they are pulling over may be skeptical about whether or not they are legit, and should follow a standard procedure to inform the people of who they are.(bullhorn, car loudspeaker etc.) I, like others, feel that LEO's at all levels are becoming too militaristic and like it or not, when you wear the hat, you act the part. No matter what I post to the contrary, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for all the good LEO's who serve us, but when stories like this become all to frequent, I tend to dive right in.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:20:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/SPECTRE%2F575219%2Ejpg[/img] Well, I can't be sure, but it must say cop on their uniforms somewhere.......just so hard to tell when they are in their APC !!! WAIT !!! I found one that says sheriff !!! [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/SPECTRE%2F574609%2Ejpg[/img]
View Quote
The guy on the left in the top picture has a huge boner goin. [:I] You can see it through the window above the left headlight.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:28:36 PM EDT
I think the responsibility on how the weapon is employed is with tha agency/officer that is using it. Officers have weapons. Spray and pray is wrong with a pistol too. But officers have those. Aimed fire may be apropriate in certain circumstances. What difference does it make what type of weapon that aimed fire comes from? M-60's are 7.62 same caliber as many "sniper" rifles. I would like to see a Barrett in the hands of police......... yeah right it won't happen becuase of many issues including PC stuff. Pursuits often circle around, U-turn or take predictable paths. The APC would have to make a guess to get in front of the pursuit. Also pursuits often slow for traffic, or becuase of spike strips or other damage to the suspect vehicle. Often if BG's realize they can not effectively resist, they don't. So if the APC is able to get close to the BG's they may surrender since they realize further ristance is futile. FYI some of those armored cars advertise 80+ mph speed. Smartass is OK, as long as it isn't the only thing you have. TRG was asking an earnest question and you shot poop all over the thread. I'm sure you can come up with intersting observations and points that help further alon a productive exchange. That was what I was attmepting to do with my "undercover" question but you totally drowned that out with hyperbole. I think that is a signifigant question by the way.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:40:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: I think the responsibility on how the weapon is employed is with tha agency/officer that is using it. Officers have weapons. Spray and pray is wrong with a pistol too. But officers have those. Aimed fire may be apropriate in certain circumstances. What difference does it make what type of weapon that aimed fire comes from? M-60's are 7.62 same caliber as many "sniper" rifles. I would like to see a Barrett in the hands of police......... yeah right it won't happen becuase of many issues including PC stuff. Pursuits often circle around, U-turn or take predictable paths. The APC would have to make a guess to get in front of the pursuit. Also pursuits often slow for traffic, or becuase of spike strips or other damage to the suspect vehicle. Often if BG's realize they can not effectively resist, they don't. So if the APC is able to get close to the BG's they may surrender since they realize further ristance is futile. FYI some of those armored cars advertise 80+ mph speed. Smartass is OK, as long as it isn't the only thing you have. TRG was asking an earnest question and you shot poop all over the thread. I'm sure you can come up with intersting observations and points that help further alon a productive exchange. That was what I was attmepting to do with my "undercover" question but you totally drowned that out with hyperbole. I think that is a signifigant question by the way.
View Quote
We will have to disagree on the M60. If you are assuming the M60 would be used in semi-auto, then maybe. Full auto, no way. Whats the cycling rate on those babies?? That's a lot of rounds going into the neighborhood. I do think the Barrett is a good idea too. I never used the word sniper....I said "hunting" rifles :) If you can't have fun on the internet while exchanging ideas, what good is it?
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:47:54 PM EDT
A few years ago I bought a copy of the CA vehicle code and would skim through it. I found a section that dealt with this and if memory serves, there were four requirements which must be met for a vehicle stop. 1) Must be a marked car. 2) Must show lights to front. 3) Officer must be in uniform. 4) Sounding a siren as necesary. Lacking one or more, you couldn't be cited for fts. I happened to be stopped at a light a few years back. A pickup was in front, a white taurus was next, then me. Pickup driver looks around, drives through red light. Lights come on in taurus, I get to see how the gods work. Still get a chuckle out of that one.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:52:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/SPECTRE%2F575219%2Ejpg[/img] Well, I can't be sure, but it must say cop on their uniforms somewhere.......just so hard to tell when they are in their APC !!! WAIT !!! I found one that says sheriff !!! [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/SPECTRE%2F574609%2Ejpg[/img]
View Quote
I worked at the Main Press Center during the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. The Army donated several APC's to LAPD and LASD during the Olympics. Some of there were left over from then. Security was a bit of a concern as no one wanted a repeat of the 1972 Olympics in Munich.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:57:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2002 7:58:38 PM EDT by sr15]
Originally Posted By Axel: A few years ago I bought a copy of the CA vehicle code and would skim through it. I found a section that dealt with this and if memory serves, there were four requirements which must be met for a vehicle stop. 1) Must be a marked car. 2) Must show lights to front. 3) Officer must be in uniform. 4) Sounding a siren as necesary. Lacking one or more, you couldn't be cited for fts.
View Quote
I didn't know the FBI has the authority to make traffic stops. Can CIA, ATF, DEA, and NSA agents make traffic stops too?
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:00:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DeerSlayer: If you are in a real dark area at night past 10:00 pm then you need to reassess why you are there.
View Quote
WTF is that supposed to mean? That's like the a cop telling someone driving through a drug neighborhood that they don't have any business there even if they haven't broken any laws. I guess this isn't a free country after all. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:11:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By djk: Is that a friggin M60 on top of that sheriff APC (edited to say APC instead of car)? What the hell are they going to do with that???!!! I wouldn't want to be an eagle scout in that county...
View Quote
You know what the disturbing thing is? On the rear quarter panel of that...whatever the hell that jeeplike vehicle is, it says "Rescue." Rescue, my ass! They should paint over Rescue and replace it with, "We're from the government, and we're here to help," but I guess that just won't fit.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:21:19 PM EDT
I'm sure the M-60 is most likely for barricaded suspect-type situations. Remember the SLA shootout in L.A.?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 12:58:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: ...Aimed fire may be apropriate in certain circumstances. What difference does it make what type of weapon that aimed fire comes from? ...
View Quote
Somehow, I have trouble seeing the phrases "Aimed fire" and the "full-auto M60" used together.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 1:37:35 AM EDT
I am kind of a young one (21), but am aspiring to a career in LE, and have trouble seeing how any plainclothes officer in an unmarked car could get it into his head that a traffic stop was a good idea. Honest citizens are armed, and fearful of this exact scenario among others, thugs are armed,and fearful of other thugs. Both parties are likely to shoot at an unidentifiable person rushing their vehicle, weapons drawn. This seems like a piss poor series of decisions on behalf of the officers involved. The only time I could justify an unmarked car making a stop is if the officer has just, or is witnessing an immediate threat to the life of himself or a third party. Otherwise it seems like a far better choice to maintain visual of the suspect vehicle and radio a regular patrol unit to initiate the stop. Then there is no question as to the identity of the individual pulling you over. The LEO in the original scenario would never have made it to my window, and would have been very troubled indeed at what greeted him if he had. As for the feds making traffic stops, don't they have somthing more important to do?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 4:39:59 AM EDT
I grew up in the area involved in the original scenario. This is one fud that should be fried. The GF was driving and likely scared out of her wits. If it had been me, i would have slowed and tried to ascertain who it was playing cop. If ANY doubt remained, I wouldn't stop, and if they attempeted to force me off the road, I would open fire. Besides, I'll put my 3 tons of diesel truck up against any 2000 lb. POS on wheels. They may be faster, but sometimes bigger IS better.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:09:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:08:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ikor: If this LEO screwed up as badly as it appears from the article, then he should be criminally charged, at the least with "aggravated assult" when he pointed the gun at an innocent person, and "manslaughter" due to "culpable negligence" in mishandling his weapon, possibly with murder. However...everyone here old enough to pull their own weight knows just how full of SHIT the press is when it comes to getting all the "facts" of an incident. I think that even if we suspect strongly that the LEO is to blame, we should grant him the same thing we would ask in a situation involving ourselves, namely, to consider him innocent until proven guilty.
View Quote
I have to say, I agree with you on this--to a point. If a non-LEO was involved in such a situation, he WOULD BE IN JAIL NOW, while the investigation was under way. He wouldn't be sent home on a paid vacation (ironically, partially funded by his victim) until the investigation was complete--he'd have to obtain a lawyer, have a bail hearing (and the bail in a case like this would be six or seven figures, if it were even allowed) and have all of his firearms taken from his home. Police would issue statements to the press impeaching his characte. Any defense based on a "furtive movement" would be laughed out of court. Instead, the police are issuing statements about how traumatic it is FOR THE AGENT. It's likely he'll never even be charged with a crime, much less be convicted. Fellow officers nod sagely about "furtive movements" and how they "would have done the same thing in his position." Innocent until proven guilty is great--I just wish the citizenry would have the same right to it that law enforcement does.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top