OSP - Very PO'd !!! that I did not disclose my CHL

[iusmc2002]

How is it twisted thinking to wonder why someone you just made contact with for committing an offense decided to not let you know they're armed? Especially when doing so would in no way harm them or place them in jeapordy. Maybe if you have ever had to perform dangerous acts you would feel differently. And for the record, cops are citizens...so you might want to drop the attitude and deal with that chip.

Because in this situation, the fact that you're armed or unarmed has bubblegum to do with the reason you were stopped! He has NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO obligation to inform, per state law, statute, whatever. There is IN FACT hipocrisy in this situation because, she is LYING to him, plain and simple. Now, if she asks, and he says NO, then she sees he's LYING, what happens? bubblegum hits the fan, right? So one lie (hers) is ok, but his (carrying when he said he wasn't) isn't ok? <--- hypothetical That makes a WHOLE lotta sense. Just another pretty picture painted by that awesome Blue Line that protects the ones that MURDER civilians and get away with it. Not all of them, very true. But too damn many of these double standards apply with the LEO's. Civilians are NOT guilty until proven innocenct. It's the other way around, in fact. Police can lie to you all day long, about anything they want. But if a civilian were to lie to that same po-po, they're going to get strung up by their huevos. Damn, its good to be a civilian......

 

[Father of four]

I don't recall hearing of a person with a CHL shooting an officer at a traffic/moving violation stop. Ever.

 

[Trlsmn]

I don't recall hearing of a person with a CHL shooting an officer at a traffic/moving violation stop. Ever.

Apparently it happens "often", who knew?

 

[Father of four]

I found 1. From Jul 14, 2008. <broken link removed>

There are very, very, very few of them it seems.

 

[Partsproduction]

I can't believe that people in this forum, whether police officers or not, believe that my telling them I'm legally carrying a firearm when there is NO LAW saying I have to, is courteous behavior, or that not obeying a non law is discourteous. My carrying has absolutely nothing to do with the officer, unless he or she gets into a gunfight and needs some help.
Should I volunteer anything else irrelevant to the stop? Is there a long list of things I should courteously volunteer informing them about that have no bearing? Where does it end?

I make it a point to be courteous because I should assume the officer is doing his/her job, not because they will force my face into the gravel at gunpoint if I don 't. What kind of jack booted thugs am I supposed to think these people are?

If the guy selling me gas doesn't know I'm armed should I tell him? He is also in no danger from me, nor is there any law about telling him either. I think acting courteously has nothing to do with obeying wannabe non laws, and everything to do with how I act. Even then, I'm not perfect, nor are the police, are either of us right in using violence or threatening it if the other isn't acting courteously?

Should the officer tell me that he had a fight with his wife going out the door and has it in for everything with two legs? No, he should go by THE LAW. That's what his job is, right? What part of his job is getting on my case about not doing something that isn't in the law? I can't believe some of you are advocating that cops act like jack booted thugs on a power trip, or that I should cower in front of them as if they were. If it really is like that we are in big big trouble folks.

The OP didn't even have a gun, my my my, what a bad guy for not telling the officer about something absolutely irrelevant to the stop.

 

[fred c. dobbs]

Women do not belong on the street as cops. Yes I am a male chauvinist pig

Here, Here,,,,,,,,,,,OINK, OINK, Who could argue with such Common Sense, any Female is only as strong as the weekest male, and will be the first to fold up under pressure, Any country that permits its women to fight in place of it's men is on it's way down,, Thank you President Zero.
as for cops, they are cowards, they shot Marine, Scott Olsen, two tours of IRAQ, Oakland P.D. shot him, unarmed in the head. During peaceful protest.
A Populace of Sheep, Begetts a GOVERNMENT OF WOLVES.

 

[The B]

I will add something to my previous comments.

Regardless of whether you disagree with a LEO or not, its always best to comply courteously. If you do not like what they had to say or what they may have given you, just smile and nod and take it up with the judge later. There are other avenues that can be taken if you have a problem with a specific officer, arguing/aggravating only tends to make things worse...

pant and wag, in other words.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

If a person cannot see fit to extend this courtesy to an officer (either though oversight or because of other reasons) they have no right to complain when the officer sees no reason to extend them any undue courtesy either. It seems pretty whiny to me.

Yes, they do have a right to complain. The officer is supposed to be a professional...a detached professional. Whether the person he/she stops is courteous or not, there is no excuse for the officer being non-professional and going off on them. Further, the USSC has held in several cases that by not objecting strenuously enough to a search or other violation of their rights, the defendant constructively waived those rights. What if I volunteer that I'm licensed and carrying and then open my wallet and find that I somehow left my CHL at home? What if it's there, but expired the day before? I just waived my right to refuse a search and admitted to a probable violation of a statute.

Additionally, I've had several jobs where I was expected to know a multitude of complicated statutes and rules. A violation of many of those rules would have meant severe civil and criminal penalties. If I was unsure of a law or rule I'd darned well better look it up before going off half cocked. I expect the same from a LEO. Give the public the benefit of the doubt if you don't know the statute, don't make up law as you go. LEOs are paid well for work that is not generally physically strenuous. They are paid mainly for using their heads. It just doesn't fly to plead ignorance as a justification for being unprofessional and creating a bad situation and poor public relations.

 

[Karma]

Amazing. People form opinions based on their experiences on life. My experiences have taught me that things go more smoothly if I don't volunteer that I have my chl. Apparently pbp, your experiences have given you a different perspective. The difference is that you seem to believe that your direction is the only correct one. You act much like the misguided officer. Acting as if the law is on your side, or that it is part of being a "responsible gun owner". If you can show me a law that supports your opinion, then maybe I will stand corrected.

 

[fred c. dobbs]

only a fool believes he has any Rights, in 2005 during hurricane Katrina, Cops where taking guns away from people left and right. You have NO RIGHTS, only privledges, and the Cop on the street has the power to take those privledges any time IT wants too. Go ahead and argue all you want, when IT, decides IT , has had enough, IT will pick up the Radio, and IT will call for more. Thats all there is too IT. before you know IT, you are on the ground HOG TIED, and IT and the rest will be laughing and talking about how they took you down. and What a great bust, IT made. Sure you will get your day in Court, IT will be there , Remember IT and the JUDGE work for the same employer, they are on the SAME TEAM. The two most VIOLENT times of a nations existence, are it's beginning and its END. The FUTURE is Un - CERTAIN, the END is Always Near. The more laws they make the more Corrupt the Government.

 

[Grunwald]

No it wouldn't have. Even if I was aware he did not have to notify me, the fact that he did not would have made me suspicious as an officer. Why did he want to hide the fact he is armed? Licensed CHL holders are often involved in shootings, so the fact that he has a license DOES NOT make him a good guy. It just means he hasn't committed any crimes yet.

See, right there is your problem with this whole discussion.
Try paying attention and stick to facts as they are being presented.
He was NOT armed.

 

[Riot]

Here is what happened...this is my two cents from being in the officer's shoes.

Officer pulls over individual, makes contact and returns back to vehicle to the write ticket. In the process, they're told by dispatch that the individual that they just talked to has a CHL. She's angry...mostly at the fact that she wasn't told this information before she made contact. Maybe because she didn't run the plates until after the initial contact? Either way she's mad because she didn't know before the stop (or other underlying factors).

So off she goes, thinking that the person she pulled over has a firearm...mad at the mistake either dispatch or she made. Then comes the part where the guy actually knows the law more than her...but she's convinced that she's right (or at least should be right). She may have thought that showing lack of confidence or knowledge of the law shows weakness or just let her own personal prejudices get the better of her (not wanting Joe Blow to own guns). Either way, she's as wrong as two boys kissing on a Friday night and needs to get knocked down from her high horse. At a minimum, I would have written a complaint to her supervisor...this kind of behavior needs to be addressed. If it is not in law then a peace officer is not allowed to just "make up the rules as they go along".

I've read and re-read a lot of posts in this thread. I'm very pro-LEO but this behavior only leads to one road. It is a road that leads to someone abusing their power. I'm sorry Playboy Penguin, although your intentions of defending LEO are good natured- they are misguided. You can't scold people for simply having a CHL. It's unethical. If it is not law then she can't enforce it...regardless of her personal feelings or beliefs.

*Riot Out*

 

[Misterbill]

Here is what happened...this is my two cents from being in the officer's shoes.

Officer pulls over individual, makes contact and returns back to vehicle to the write ticket. In the process, they're told by dispatch that the individual that they just talked to has a CHL. She's angry...mostly at the fact that she wasn't told this information before she made contact. Maybe because she didn't run the plates until after the initial contact? Either way she's mad because she didn't know before the stop (or other underlying factors).

So off she goes, thinking that the person she pulled over has a firearm...mad at the mistake either dispatch or she made. Then comes the part where the guy actually knows the law more than her...but she's convinced that she's right (or at least should be right). She may have thought that showing lack of confidence or knowledge of the law shows weakness or just let her own personal prejudices get the better of her (not wanting Joe Blow to own guns). Either way, she's as wrong as two boys kissing on a Friday night and needs to get knocked down from her high horse. At a minimum, I would have written a complaint to her supervisor...this kind of behavior needs to be addressed. If it is not in law then a peace officer is not allowed to just "make up the rules as they go along".

I've read and re-read a lot of posts in this thread. I'm very pro-LEO but this behavior only leads to one road. It is a road that leads to someone abusing their power. I'm sorry Playboy Penguin, although your intentions of defending LEO are good natured- they are misguided. You can't scold people for simply having a CHL. It's unethical. If it is not law then she can't enforce it...regardless of her personal feelings or beliefs.



Riot Out*

This really nails it.

The involved officer had no idea that the person she had pulled over had a weapon on their person.

On confirmation she knew only that the person had a CHL.

She THEN proceeded, based solely upon her knowledge that the person merely POSSESSED a CHL to ASSUME that he was a felon, etc.

It's not bout being proned out by a OSP officer, which, MIGHT have been justified.

It' about a lawful citizen being treated like a criminal and told of a law that exists only in an officer's head that is the problem.

There is NO problem or statute which justified the officer's response. THIS is the problem. Fail to grasp that and you fail to grasp the problem.

 

[Stomper]

Well when it comes to women its a simple matter... you take a man, strip away all reason and acountability, and PRESTO.... you have a woman!! (JUST KIDDING... sorta)


Well said Riot, and Misterbill. (BTW- I'm very pro-LEO, I know a good portion of the Woodburn Po-Po by their first names)

 

[Buddhalux]

Well when it comes to women its a simple matter... you take a man, strip away all reason and acountability, and PRESTO.... you have a woman!! (JUST KIDDING... sorta)

Or PBP apparently.....

 

[Redcap]

Or PBP apparently.....

 

[Grunwald]

Or PBP apparently.....

Shania Twain - Man! I Feel Like A Woman - HD Video Live - YouTube

 

[fry]

"Willingly and Intentionally"

Really, sounds a lot like your opinion stated as a fact. OP was not armed iirc. I'm not saying the OP didn't give off a dou-che' vibe to the Trooper.

Thanks for your opinion.

The OP nows he is in possession of a CHL. The OP knows law enforcement is a dangerous profession. The OP knows he willingly and intentionally withheld information from the officer that could have easily been shared.

An officer has every right to take precautions against harm. They also have every right to be concerned why someone would not divulge that they are likely armed.

All I am seeing is an officer that was mistaken about whether or not the OP was required to provide the information and a situation that could have been avoided by a little courtesy. At least according to the OP. I did not read where he was falsely charged with anything. I also do not see a denial that he was breaking the law when stopped.

In the end the officer could have been more courteous, but so could have the OP If the OP had been more courteous he could have avoided the situation entirely. of course the blatant anti-authority issues that run so rampant among certain elements on gun forums usually clouds that reality.

 

[Nwcid]

Well here is another one for the people that want to always share that they have a permit and/or gun when pulled over. You say to make the LEO more comfortable/to be courteous. Do you do the same EVERY time you see an LEO? If you are in the store (or any other place) and see a LEO do you run up and say "I am carrying a pistol concealed on my strong side"? Why not it seems like the courteous thing to do so they can feel better about who may be armed........

Again the firearm has NOTHING to do with the stop or the situation. It is not a matter of hiding anything it is a matter of sticking to the situation at hand.

 

[fry]

I always wondered about people who start threads like this.