JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
One has due process, one does not.
Thought about this some more. Both don't.

If the cop was purposely looking at you (and fishing) for a reason to pull you over to the extent he finally finds a reason to. You did not have any due process.
 
So what is the purpose of police? Are they simply a reactionary force after a crime has been committed? I'd rather them be able to investigate events or issues LEGALLY and hopefully stop the crime before it happens. Just cause you get stopped or talked to doesn't mean you're going to jail. And it's less about profiling and more about noticing something that doesn't belong in the base line.
That's why it's call law enforcement, not law prevention.
 
If the cop was purposely looking at you (and fishing) for a reason to pull you over to the extent he finally finds a reason to. You did not have any due process.
I don't see the reasoning behind that conclusion. Look as he may, if there is no cause, he can't do scratch.

We do have too many laws, but that's a separate issue.
 
That's why it's call law enforcement, not law prevention.
Well I guess we will just have to disagree on what the purpose of policing is. I'd much rather them find the felon before he murders my wife then them show up when she is laying cold with a knife sticking out of her chest. Take finger prints. Find the felon in the data base and realize, yea we saw him driving down that street. It was abnormal and made me think but we just brushed it off. Now someone's dead.
 
Thought about this some more. Both don't.

If the cop was purposely looking at you (and fishing) for a reason to pull you over to the extent he finally finds a reason to. You did not have any due process.
Due process is when it goes to court and you get the opportunity to fight your case.
 
Well I guess we will just have to disagree on what the purpose of policing is. I'd much rather them find the felon before he murders my wife then them show up when she is laying cold with a knife sticking out of her chest. Take finger prints. Find the felon in the data base and realize, yea we saw him driving down that street. It was abnormal and made me think but we just brushed it off. Now someone's dead.
Apply what you said here, but replace yourself with those that want red flag laws.
 
Apply what you said here, but replace yourself with those that want red flag laws.
The difference is they come and just take your guns. It's basically being convicted and found guilty without a trial. There is a huge difference. Like you said. Due process. Just because someone is arrested doesn't mean they are guilty. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
 
The difference is they come and just take your guns. It's basically being convicted and found guilty without a trial. There is a huge difference. Like you said. Due process.
With fishing, if a cop wants to pull you over without visually witnessing a crime per say. It's ok to fish, or find something to do so? This is considered justice? To me, it sounds like I didn't have a factor in it, cop was going to pull me over regardless.
 
I remember a ways back a Portland officer shot some guy with 4 rounds of buckshot, mistakenly thinking it was the orange colored less-lethal shotgun. oopsie

Yup I remember that as well. He loaded buckshot into the less lethal firearm I believe. You would think the less lethal would have a different firing system to counteract that kind of mistake..... but again I would put the blame on the officer in that instance.
 
With fishing, if a cop wants to pull you over without visually witnessing a crime per say. It's ok to fish, or find something to do so? This is considered justice? To me, it sounds like I didn't have a factor in it, cop was going to pull me over regardless.
More than likely you gave that cop a reasonable suspicion to fish. I'm not saying it's always done correctly or ethically. But there is a time and place for it and it is a very efficient tool to prevent crime.
 
More than likely you gave that cop a reasonable suspicion to fish. I'm not saying it's always done correctly or ethically. But there is a time and place for it and it is a very efficient tool to prevent crime.
So how is that different than red flags.

I'm being judged by an officer without any legal backing. So officer finds reason to make stop.

You are being judged by a committee without any legal backing. Committee finds reasons to take guns away.
 
So how is that different than red flags.

I'm being judged by an officer without any legal backing. So officer finds reason to make stop.

You are being judged by a committee without any legal backing. Committee finds reasons to take guns away.
Not true. There is legal backing if there is PC. The difference is if you don't like the citation or charge you can go before a court and plead your case BEFORE being found guilty. With the red flag laws they just come and take your firearms and you can't argue your case before they take them. There is no due process with red flag laws where there is due process with citations or criminal charges. The police aren't the judge, jury and executioner. The government plays all 3 of those rolls without evidence or PC when it comes to red flag laws and you don't get any say about it. Big difference in my eyes.
 
Yup I remember that as well. He loaded buckshot into the less lethal firearm I believe. You would think the less lethal would have a different firing system to counteract that kind of mistake..... but again I would put the blame on the officer in that instance.
Yeah, it wouldn't seem that hard to make the LL in 10ga or 16ga, something the LEOs don't carry in a lethal version.
 
Not true. There is legal backing if there is PC. The difference is if you don't like the citation or charge you can go before a court and plead your case BEFORE being found guilty. With the red flag laws they just come and take your firearms and you can't argue your case before they take them. There is no due process with red flag laws where there is due process with citations or criminal charges. The police aren't the judge, jury and executioner. The government plays all 3 of those rolls without evidence or PC when it comes to red flag laws and you don't get any say about it. Big difference in my eyes.
You make some good points.

Those that favor red flag laws could argue that you can have your say and if you don't like your charges, you can take them to court and fight it.

I do believe these are similar. You have not completely sold me they are not.

Speeding, duh. Fishing till you find something because the officer believes you to be a criminal (sounds like a few steps were slipped or a judgement was made), I can't call that the exact same as having officers showing up at your house to take your guns, but it sure is similar.

From a rights perspective, it certainly puts the 4th amendment into question.

I should have the right to not be looked at and judged to be a criminal, so that a cop fishes to find legal, or not, reasons to pull me over.
 
Pulling plates is done usually before you come to a stop. That can and can not be helpful as cars can be driven by someone other than it is registered to.

I keep up bringing up fishing. I've briefly brought up profiling.

It is my opinion that this was likely an unlawful stop, either by means of fishing or profiling (black kid driving nice car). Until I am proven this is false, I'm going with it. It's definitely an opinion, I hope folks read that and understand I'm not trying to state that as fact.

I am highly against this practice, and having a LEO member (possibly LEO he didn't state he was but it read as if he was) here call it "good policing" kind of shocked me. I've also learned it is extremely common and part of some departments training. This is, in my opinion tyrannical, and as bad as red flag laws.

We will likely never know what the actual reason was to pull him over. The department is sticking with tags, which is good on their part as they better have something to tell the public. Only the police had video recordings, so there isn't any other footage to go off of. We all know that law enforcement likes to be very particular about what footage they share with the public in regards to their footage. I'm not one that goes along with being told to believe the official narrative.

Obviously we can't get the kids perspective...
Not at all an unlawful stop. I've been pulled over three times in my driving life solely for expired tags, as stated by the officer. I am a white male driving a late model luxury car. I was also lawfully armed on two of those occasions. On one stop (AZ), the officer secured my loaded firearm in his vehicle while we conducted our business. On the second lawfully armed stop (OR), the officer asked me if I was carrying as I presented my CHL with my DL. I responded in the affirmative and his words were "don't reach for it, ok?" In all three encounters, the officer was professional and respectful, as was I. Not a heated word or even a raised voice on the part of either party. My uncle just last month -- retired military, retired game warden, white as they come... pulled over in AZ solely for expired tags (he was actually legal, DMV failed to send his new tags timely). He was armed. He was not killed, harrassed, or otherwise put upon by the deputy. At the end he thanked the deputy for his service and was responded to in kind.
 
That's the thing I keep coming back to.

Expired tags.

Having expired registration and getting pulled over for expired tags are two very different things.

I want to see the body cam footage of the initial stop. My bet the officer doesn't mention anything in that regards. Gets ID and finds warrant.

Why else would the kid try calling his mom during the interaction to attempt figuring it out.

The warrant wasn't known, until after the stop. Warrants require back up before making arrest. So this stop wasn't nearly as short as the available footage makes you believe it is.

I think the department is using the fact that the tags weren't up to date to validate the stop. I wouldn't be surprised if that detail was discovered after the stop was initiated and used as legal reason to detain and get identification.

Departments manipulate the footage they make all the time, the footage they released is on purpose. By only showing the guy not cooperating, it makes them look good and the perp bad.

This is an extremely good opportunity to state how important it is to have a dash camera in your vehicle. As well as ALWAYS record any police interaction.
Thousands if motorists are lawfully pulled over every month solely for expired tags. 99.999999999% of them are not killed by police. Why is that?
 
as stated by the officer.
I have zero arguments if pulled over and this is takes place.

Ive seen stops where the officer doesn't state the reason for the stop. This should be the first thing out of their mouths in my opinion. To %100 clarify the stop was legal.

If they can't articulate the reason for the stop, it's legality is questionable.

I've seen plenty of footage where a cop pulls someone over, does not give driver reason for stop. Immediately asked for license and registration. If at any moment a person knows or shows they know their right to have the cop state the legal reason for doing so, god forbid they question the legality of the reason, the cops tend to escalate.

Again, not saying it's what happened to Mr Wright, just illustrating that it happens, and is being privately documented more and more. Which likely means it happens a lot to a lot of people and they just "go along" with it.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top