New Mexico Traffic Stop

[Mr Weebles]

Mr Weebles, You did not post all of my statement, Thus what you did was spin what I had to say.
In the circumstances as I articulated it, becomes thier business.

Relax, Gladys.

I was only pointing out that I refuse to answer those types of questions.

In fact the "where are you coming from?" and "where are you going?" questions absolutely frost my ass. What do they care?

 

[joeendris]

...

 

[Boston_Shooter]

I don't see anything wrong with what the guy in the video did. I, personally, out of common courtesy wouldn't creep up on a cop during a traffic stop while open carrying. But then again, I'm still in the early stages of the de-brainwashing phase... 33 years in MA can do a number on ya.

 

[qmmo]

You know Mr Weebles, If you talk to a LEO who may have the lawfull authority to ask the questions that were being asked, the way you say you would(which I doubt, Computer Bravado) You would be what is called, JOB SECURITY. Guys like you who are beligerent and then become disorderley, when the LEO has the lawful reason for asking the questions.

Nah....kinda my fault. I don't post well and tend to leave out details. I wanted to make a point about misguided adventures (with a little humor). For a bunch of folks it came across that way....for someone else, it didn't. If we all thought the same way, would life be terribly boring?

Things I don't miss about that job was having to go to a family at 2AM to tell them their kid was killed in a car wreck. The way we did it back then was if you knew the family, you were asked to be there. If no one knew the family then the PO who had that patrol sector got the nod (we NEVER did a phone call...). I grew up in the town and knew a lot of folks. No joy in that. Went off-thread here a little....sorry about that...

 

[Mr Weebles]

You know Mr Weebles, If you talk to a LEO who may have the lawfull authority to ask the questions that were being asked, the way you say you would(which I doubt, Computer Bravado) You would be what is called, JOB SECURITY. Guys like you who are beligerent and then become disorderley, when the LEO has the lawful reason for asking the questions.

What's beligerent about saying "I'd prefer to not answer any questions, thanks"?

On the few occasions I've interacted with the police I've said that and nothing came of it. If they decided to press the matter, it wouldn't be me who was beligerent.

The bottom line is that absent reasonable suspicion, what I do is nobody's damned business.

 

[Tater]

This is very true. Fact is, I once arrested a smarta$$ punk for "Gaping with intent to gawk"....or at least that's what I told his buddies when they asked me what I was arresting him for. At the time I didn't know what I was arresting the dipshtick for, all I knew was he was going to the can. Period. Complaint I wrote up was Idle and Disorderly. When it went to court, Daddy's little boy had Daddy's hot shot lawyer represent him.

I miss those days sometimes.......

I HEARBY CROWN YOU KING ASSHAT FOR ADMITTING YOU FALSELY ARRESTED A MAN.... and I hope someday your child is falsely arrested and forced to go to jail and you have to fork out your hard earned money to get an attorney. I can't believe you are either so arrogant you are actually bragging about this or too stupid to know that you were the criminal that day and not some punk that challenged your "authority" guess what he won the exchange in my mind and you sir (and I use that term loosely) and you look like an ass in my book....

Fine and dandy, but kindly don't express moral outrage when a perp in Washington State in pre-trail confinement gets to look at kiddie porn, or when a mother beats a murder charge in Fl. That's the system too.

I hear a lot of rumblings on the forum about all the bad ass punks that get away with s**t and what should be done to them. Now I don't have the particulars of this case, but one plausible scenario was that the gmmo was dealing with an a**hat, knew that the charges couldn't stick but wanted to make sure the person got the message. That's old fashioned community policing IMO, not too different from when the beat cop used to kick some little punks ass and then turn them over to their parents. I've heard many people on this forum express a desire that we return to that kind of policing.

There have been several threads posted recently about how people want to "get even" with asshats and plenty of suggestions to do it. qmmo had the resources.

So, the bottom line is that you can't have your coffee both ways (I am not saying that you have ever articulated a viewpoint that advocates 'street justice" or payback BTW) and I see where you are coming from, and I fully understand intellectually your position...still a part of me is saying some little jerk-off got what he deserved for being a jerk-off. I fully realize the dangers inherent in a police state and deplore many of the actions by the police today. Police officers are human too, and no one carrying a badge has never made a mistake. A statement such as "You're unfit for the job"...is a sweeping generalization IMO, we do not know qmmo's police service record, for instance. Nobody is 100 percent perfect on any job.

I was told once that I was unfit to collect my military pension and a disgrace to the Army because I did not advocate the invasion of Iraq by G.W. Bush. Those words hurt me today, as much as they did when they were first uttered to me, maybe I am hypersensitive, but when anyone gets in public service gets a searing indictment of why they are unfit or a disgrace, or whatever, I tend to react a bit emotionally. Maybe qmmo was out of line, but I wouldn't condemn his whole career or his ability to be a police officer based on one incident. If he was bounced from the Job for being a jerk-off, then it is a different story.

showing discontent for a stupid jury who lets off a killer or anger towards punk kids doing stupid things is totally different then falsely arresting someone. I agree it is ok to try to use your position of authority to scare a good kid who did something stupid into not doing it again.

 

[ScottS]

This is very true. Fact is, I once arrested a smarta$$ punk for "Gaping with intent to gawk"....or at least that's what I told his buddies when they asked me what I was arresting him for. At the time I didn't know what I was arresting the dipshtick for, all I knew was he was going to the can. Period. Complaint I wrote up was Idle and Disorderly. When it went to court, Daddy's little boy had Daddy's hot shot lawyer represent him. When the kid told the court what I had said to his buddies, the bailiff had to turn around and look out the window. The judge was laughing so hard he started to cry. All you could see was his clenched jaw and the tears running down his cheek. After the judge regained his composure he asked me if Junior had been embarassed enough....I nodded....he gave me a wink, a smile and dismissed the case.

I miss those days sometimes.......

Stories like this are why I will always vote against indemnifying police officers against civil suits. Dismissed bullshit charge or not, when that kid comes up for a Security Clearance some day (or an LTC), and gets to answer the question "Have you ever been arrested?", he's still got problems he doesn't need because of your a**h*** move.

This move was a real credit to your profession.

 

[mark056]

If the kid is a jerk-off then we don't need him having a security clearance. If the charges were dismissed, then applying for a LTC may or may not be problematical.

I just love it when moral indignation comes out of the woodwork

 

[ScottS]

If the kid is a jerk-off then we don't need him having a security clearance. If the charges were dismissed, then applying for a LTC may or may not be problematical.

I just love it when moral indignation comes out of the woodwork

Really? That for you to decide? Interesting.

 

[mark056]

Really? That for you to decide? Interesting.

Really, the first part of my sentence IS FOR ME TO DECIDE, because you don't know what my particular job is. So yes, it is interesting, actually it is absolutely fascinating to tell you the truth. PM sent for further clarification

 

[qmmo]

Geez....like I said, I don't post well and don't know if follow up posts were read before the hate came out. Anyways, as I recall there was a laundry list of things this individual could have been charged/arrested for (I went with the "smallest"). It was like 35+ years ago. Things are a lot different today....I doubt I'd have been allowed as much discretion these days and would likely get a good reaming for not bringing all the charges to bear. As I reflect on the thing I see I may have misspoke. I think he was found guilty and paid the $50 fine. At the time I gave the kid a huge break by not jamming him up with the other more serious stuff. Had I not known the family from previous "incidents", I don't know how it would have gone. I left the job in the late '70s (not that it matters...I just didn't have the stones to deal with people I knew/grew up with when things went bad in their lives...). After this, there were no more "incidents" in that household. I'm done with this one.

 

[In God We Trust]

 

[jarhead66]

My ass used to be on a first name basis with the neighborhood cop's foot growing up in the inner city. He was "Joe the cop" and could find out who did what in a matter of minutes. To tell the truth, I miss those days. You knew if you did something wrong, you would get "Joe the Cop's" foot square in your ass. Then he would take you home and your father would thank him and then dad would put his foot in your ass. Things were so much simpler then. Now it would take a bevy of lawyers and plea bargains just to ask who did what.

Thanks for the memories Mark!

"That's old fashioned community policing IMO, not too different from when the beat cop used to kick some little punks ass and then turn them over to their parents. I've heard many people on this forum express a desire that we return to that kind of policing. "

 

[In God We Trust]

Keep in mind that charges like disorderly person, disturbing the peace, inciting a riot, etc are written very broadly and can be applied to almost anyone that is "acting up" in the presence of an officer. If any of you were on the street and some guy walked up and called your wife a foul name in front of you, would you do something about it? Why should cops be held to a different standard?

Everyone here is always complaining that cops get special treatment with LEOSA and the thin blue line, but when they act like a normal person would in a situation, everyone freaks out. Which way do you want it? Im not choosing sides or excusing bad behaivior, just playing devil's advocate.

 

[je25ff]

I'm pretty sure I've asked this before, but either I keep forgetting the answer or have never gotten one:
Is there any MA statute stating whether or not you need to produce ID when asked (outside of traffic stops)?

Better yet, is there a statute that says you need to inform an officer, during a traffic stop, that you are carrying or have weapons in the car?

 

[In God We Trust]

No to both questions. If asked for id you are only required to give your name and address.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Jose]

because you don't know what my particular job is.

Some of us do know.

 

[MassMark]

Better yet, is there a statute that says you need to inform an officer, during a traffic stop, that you are carrying or have weapons in the car?

Oh boy...

 

[je25ff]

Oh boy...

Oh boy what? I'm still relatively new to firearms and it's a legitimate question considering the state of Massachusetts.

 

[MassMark]

Oh boy what? I'm still relatively new to firearms and it's a legitimate question considering the state of Massachusetts.

Sorry Jeff - it's early and to say this subject has been hashed, rehashed and over hashed here is an understatement. I think 'rep point' and 'carrying while driving' are the two most locked threads at NES - like the .40, nothing good ever comes of it. Most LEO's I know, don't care if you're carrying a gun - it's not why they pulled you over. What they care about is giving you a warning, writing you a ticket, or letting you know your license plate light it out. If they ask, tell - if not, don't...

 

[je25ff]

Sorry Jeff - it's early and to say this subject has been hashed, rehashed and over hashed here is an understatement. I think 'rep point' and 'carrying while driving' are the two most locked threads at NES - like the .40, nothing good ever comes of it. Most LEO's I know, don't care if you're carrying a gun - it's not why they pulled you over. What they care about is giving you a warning, writing you a ticket, or letting you know your license plate light it out. If they ask, tell - if not, don't...

Understood. I was actually asked this question by someone who is newer to firearms than I am and who I sort of turned on to the gun thing. I couldn't answer with 100% confidence until now

 

[MassMark]

Understood. I was actually asked this question by someone who is newer to firearms than I am and who I sort of turned on to the gun thing. I couldn't answer with 100% confidence until now

We were all new at one time and some of us forget that, (myself included). You will still find some who insist that the officer be told - hell, someone suggested recently in a deleted thread that putting a sticker on your car, or putting your gun on the dash was a plan..., but that does not jive with what the officers I know actually want/need/expect. In most cases, the officer pulling you over already knows you have an LTC before he even gets out of his car. You are not legally obligated to inform the officer of your state of weaponhood. If the officer asks, or directs you to get out of the car, I think at that point, it's a good idea to inform.