Another reason not to get involved....

PureHybrid

Isuzu Shakes IT
Feb 15, 2012
3,554
536
113
Central OH
That red light one really bothers me. I'm lefty and in NJ I have a duty to inform if I am stopped. So there's a chance that some idiot will be using their non-dominant hand if they deem it necessary to disarm me. But... why should he be disarmed when wasn't acting in a way to make the police fear for their safety? Hmm. I did have 1 occasion to interact with a LEO, while concealed carrying, as a witness to an accident. I immediately informed him, while holding in my hand my sunglasses, d/l and permit to carry card. Fortunately he quickly thanked me and then went straight to interviewing me about the accident.

I haven't read too much in detail lately, but a few years ago Ohio got rid of the duty to inform, around the same time as constitutional carry came around. But what we learned in the ccw class was that during a traffic stop the officer has the right to sieze your firearm for the duration of the stop.

Whether people like to admit it or not, the courts have ruled that individuals should not expect the same amount of privacy in a vehicle as their homes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N2BRK

Dozerboy

Well-known member
Jun 23, 2009
4,934
512
113
TX of course
The short.
Guy "runs a red light" declares he has a legal firearm, cops go fishing guy gets shot by another cop trying to disarm him. She's fired, no word on any charges that would be brought if she was a civilian.
No news on the male cop.

Lavrentiy Beria would be proud of the fishing exploits cops do
There are some good videos out there from her bodycam. She put 2 fingers in the guard while removing the pistol. Then after shooting him switched hands and put her finger on the trigger again…. I’d lose my mind on that department. My feeling is she was new and being trained. The cops using that opportunity to run through the process of disarming to train her and she ended up shooting him. Every person involved in her training should be investigated and retrained.

Makes me sick that you can do everything right and still get shot. This just feeds into the defund the police movement. I’d love to see the dashcam footage to see if he really ran a red light. Could you imagine if he “didn’t”….
 

Cougar281

Well-known member
Sep 11, 2006
1,834
276
83
St Louis, MO
There are some good videos out there from her bodycam. She put 2 fingers in the guard while removing the pistol. Then after shooting him switched hands and put her finger on the trigger again…. I’d lose my mind on that department. My feeling is she was new and being trained. The cops using that opportunity to run through the process of disarming to train her and she ended up shooting him. Every person involved in her training should be investigated and retrained.

Makes me sick that you can do everything right and still get shot. This just feeds into the defund the police movement. I’d love to see the dashcam footage to see if he really ran a red light. Could you imagine if he “didn’t”….
Yeah, I saw that one. Incompetence on every level. Although I don't ENTIRELY agree with removing a firearm 'for officer safety', in some cases I kind of get it. If a person has a CCW, odds are better than average that this person is NOT a threat. In this case, while compliant, the person did not have a CCW (Constitutional carry), so in reality, he was a complete unknown. There are a few ways that the firearm could have safely been removed without shooting him with his own firearm. One being simply remove it from the holster with YOUR BOOGER HOOK OFF THE BANG SWITCH! Another being, left hand on the butt, right hand thumb or palm on the back of the slide to keep it in the holster, and right fingers used to manipulate the clip of the clip on IWB holster to remove the whole thing in one motion (harder to describe than do). Bottom line is it was utter Incompetence and this is one where I do hope he gets a nice payday out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N2BRK

JoshH

Daggum farm truck
Staff member
Vendor/Sponsor
Feb 14, 2007
13,765
831
113
Texas!!!
It's a fishing/Terry stop tactic and illegal.
As the USSC has ruled just because you have a firearm on your person isn't reasonable articulatable suspicions to stop someone
They didn't stop him for having a firearm. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this being a fishing tactic.
 

JoshH

Daggum farm truck
Staff member
Vendor/Sponsor
Feb 14, 2007
13,765
831
113
Texas!!!
That's fine, good thing you didn't get shot for following directions, and have to pay restitution
Your logic is flawed. According to you, he could have said, "I have a dead body in the trunk." in response to their question, and they should have just ignored it.
 

malibu795

misspeelleerr
Apr 28, 2007
8,454
705
113
42
in the buckeye state
Your logic is flawed. According to you, he could have said, "I have a dead body in the trunk." in response to their question, and they should have just ignored it.
Having a gun on one's person, is not enough reasonable articulatable suspicion to pull a person out of a vehicle, frisky them, and search the car, that is a violation of 4th amendment per multiple federal and state court rulings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2004LB7

malibu795

misspeelleerr
Apr 28, 2007
8,454
705
113
42
in the buckeye state
Im familiar with PA v mimms.

From videos released, the officers over step their authority unlawfully and will try to cover their blunder claiming " I feared for my safety" crap.
Short clip related to aforementioned case

Source: https://youtu.be/1MYeZoEIq_g?feature=shared


I'll have to look later .there's a fed circuit court ruling that says having a firearm on one's person or in possession of, does not Constitute RAS to conduct a stop n frisk/Terry stop or allow PAv mins to be employed. Came out~20 years ago iirc
 

malibu795

misspeelleerr
Apr 28, 2007
8,454
705
113
42
in the buckeye state
Rough Terry stop explained.

police will try and finesse "Terry v. Ohio". If they see a handgun in plain view, it meets Terry's first prong (sort of) that there's a "reasonable articulable belief that you're presently armed and dangerous." It's that last word that trips them up: just because someone is armed at a traffic stop does not, without other facts, make someone dangerous.

The second prong of Terry tends to be a problem for LE as well. They have to have a "reasonable articulable belief that criminal activity is afoot". A traffic stop, generally, does not give rise to anything meeting the second prong. However, the traffic violations that ooze into criminal offenses, lime DUI and reckless driving, can meet the second prong test.



Like I said the JSO tried to turn a traffic stop into a fishing/Terry stop and failed
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2004LB7

JoshH

Daggum farm truck
Staff member
Vendor/Sponsor
Feb 14, 2007
13,765
831
113
Texas!!!
Having a gun on one's person, is not enough reasonable articulatable suspicion to pull a person out of a vehicle, frisky them, and search the car, that is a violation of 4th amendment per multiple federal and state court rulings.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. The video I saw never showed them search his car or frisk the man. I also never saw him raise any objection to being questioned about anything, he freely provided info about the firearm, and I never saw him raise any objection about exiting the vehicle or being disarmed. He allowed them to disarm him and got shot. That is unfortunate for the citizen and for sure gross negligence on the part of the officer. For sure worthy of punitive damages for the citizen in a civil court, but I'm not sure how it could rise to the level of criminal charges. I also don't see how it violates his constitutional rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2004LB7

PureHybrid

Isuzu Shakes IT
Feb 15, 2012
3,554
536
113
Central OH
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. The video I saw never showed them search his car or frisk the man. I also never saw him raise any objection to being questioned about anything, he freely provided info about the firearm, and I never saw him raise any objection about exiting the vehicle or being disarmed. He allowed them to disarm him and got shot. That is unfortunate for the citizen and for sure gross negligence on the part of the officer. For sure worthy of punitive damages for the citizen in a civil court, but I'm not sure how it could rise to the level of criminal charges. I also don't see how it violates his constitutional rights.

I see where you're going, but I'm going to say he didn't disagree with anything because he's smart. Even if what the cops are doing is against common law / practice it's best to comply then hash it out later in court, unless you like to argue and get your face shoved in the ground. JMHO
 

Cougar281

Well-known member
Sep 11, 2006
1,834
276
83
St Louis, MO
Even if what the cops are doing is against common law / practice it's best to comply then hash it out later in court, unless you like to argue and get your face shoved in the ground. JMHO

This, 100%. Even if you KNOW 100% the cop is dead wrong, just comply. Complying will ALWAYS have a better outcome than if you get belligerent. On the side of the road is NOT the place to fight anything. That's what the courts and lawsuits are for.
 

NC-smokinlmm

<<<Future tuna killer
May 29, 2011
5,254
396
83
At Da Beach
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. The video I saw never showed them search his car or frisk the man. I also never saw him raise any objection to being questioned about anything, he freely provided info about the firearm, and I never saw him raise any objection about exiting the vehicle or being disarmed. He allowed them to disarm him and got shot. That is unfortunate for the citizen and for sure gross negligence on the part of the officer. For sure worthy of punitive damages for the citizen in a civil court, but I'm not sure how it could rise to the level of criminal charges. I also don't see how it violates his constitutional rights.

If he argued who knows he might be dead. Cops are people and they make mistakes especially under pressure and evidently the officer felt pressure, or this never would have happened. Had he resisted who knows what she would have done.

Do you go around questioning officers when you get pulled over? I did once, it got me arrested for tinted windows in front of my 5 year old. Stupid cop fucked up with that one…
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: malibu795

JoshH

Daggum farm truck
Staff member
Vendor/Sponsor
Feb 14, 2007
13,765
831
113
Texas!!!
You guys are not understanding what I was saying; I never suggested anyone physically fight or disregard a direct order from an officer. You guys can do what you want, but if a cop is doing something I disagree with or feel is a violation of my rights, I will at a minimum request a supervisor. I agree that you don't fight the cops or disobey a direct order, but compliance without raising a dispute means he is complicit and condones the action. I never once heard him assert his rights which means he is either ignorant of them or doesn't feel they are being violated. My disagreement with Adam is I do not believe his rights were violated.
 

Dozerboy

Well-known member
Jun 23, 2009
4,934
512
113
TX of course
I’m going to venture a guess that none of us are constitutional law experts. Even though many of us have probably attended the YouTube university about it. I’m not going to fight that battle most of the time.

I’ve had my chance at that lucky I backed down and so did the cop. It saved us both a big headache.

An interesting video I have seen lately that makes me question the common sense of constitutional law.

Source: https://youtu.be/5P9Hy6BpBe4
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2004LB7