JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I dunno. I agree there are a lot more "questionables" in LE these days, and we certainly get inundated by media propagating the "police are evil" agenda.

I kinda look at the numbers though. In the U.S. over 50million LE encounters occur each year. That works out to about 137k encounters each and every day. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if the majority of LEO's were corrupt... news outlets couldn't possibly keep up with all the murders and civil rights violations committed by LE occurring even if they broadcast only that... 24/7.

Even at a rate of only 5% could you imagine them trying to keep up with 7,000 occurrences each and every day?? šŸ¤£

I liken it more to the same thing we see with gun control. Only "criminals" use firearms against others and they make up only a tiny fraction of gun owners, yet the media would lead you to believe that every single one of the 80-124 million firearm owners in the US pose an imminent threat against public safety. Plenty of people believe that, too.
Clear example of availability bias. Just like how so many members have to have a bear/cougar gun anytime they step off the pavement, even though you have a higher chance to win the Powerball than be attacked by either.
 
Here's Bill Kirk's (Washington Gun Law) take on disclosing to an officer during a traffic stop that there's firearm(s) in your vehicle (in Washington state).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=534&v=TJhuyGmxY4M&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_titletime_continue=534&v=TJhuyGmxY4M&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

"Some bad eggs" has become the norm with hiring practices that will take any high school dropout who can fog a mirror.
Sometimes I wonder what planet some of you all live on. I can't speak for say, Mississippi, Louisiana or West Virginia, but up here in the PNW, nothing could be further from the truth.

I also have to wonder about some folks' driving habits, that get them pulled over regularly. Not to mention those who want to stand on "asking me if I have a firearm in my car infringes on my rights" and seem to want to turn a routine traffic stop into an adversarial confrontation.

I swear, some of you probably demand to talk to the manager if a Starbucks barista spells your name wrong on your coffee cup.
 
Sometimes I wonder what planet some of you all live on.
Most of us are from Earth. You?

I can't speak for say, Mississippi, Louisiana or West Virginia, but up here in the PNW, nothing could be further from the truth.
It's weird how different people can have different experience in the same geographical region.

I also have to wonder about some folks' driving habits, that get them pulled over regularly.
Who said anything about being pulled over regularly? It only takes one encounter for your whole world to change.

Not to mention those who want to stand on "asking me if I have a firearm in my car infringes on my rights" and seem to want to turn a routine traffic stop into an adversarial confrontation.
Kinda like those "from my cold, dead hands" types, eh?

I swear, some of you probably demand to talk to the manager if a Starbucks barista spells your name wrong on your coffee cup.
The Guns & Coffee thing is over, learn to make your addictive tooth-decaying liquid at home. It's easy.
 
but up here in the PNW, nothing could be further from the truth.
You haven't lived there long enough. The Seattle police were under a DOJ directive and oversight for several years due to overzealous policing, of which I got to experience first hand. The report is on the DOJ website. That wasn't just a Seattle issue.

Don't worry, you can soon be a lawyer without taking the bar exam.
 
That's contradictory.
How do you figure that?? šŸ¤£

Just like in a court of law... you are legally compelled to answer questions and to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... but that doesn't mean you can't claim the 5th.

They are not mutually exclusive.... or.... "contradictory".
 
How do you figure that?? šŸ¤£

Just like in a court of law... you are legally compelled to answer questions and to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... but that doesn't mean you can't claim the 5th.

They are not mutually exclusive.... or.... "contradictory".
Questioning from the Police is not anywhere near the same as being under oath in court.
 
How do you figure that?? šŸ¤£

Just like in a court of law... you are legally compelled to answer questions and to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... but that doesn't mean you can't claim the 5th.

They are not mutually exclusive.... or.... "contradictory".
Did you actually read the 5th amendment?

"...nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
 
Questioning from the Police is not anywhere near the same as being under oath in court.
I never claimed it was the exact same scenario, but in principle it is. A legal requirement doesn't nullify your right to not self incriminate and invoke the 5th, or your right to remain silent. Exercising your rights is not contradictory to there being a legal requirement. It's a pretty simple concept.

With a LEO (a legal officer of the courts) you are indeed legally required to truthfully respond to questioning, and to comply with their orders. So long as the questions and orders are lawful and within the scope of the suspected crime/offense. That doesn't mean though that all questions you might be asked are within that scope.

For one, if that were not true then there would be no such charge on the books for providing false information to a LEO. :s0155:

Are you going to be arrested solely for failing to verbally invoke your rights, refuse to even speak or for lying? Not hardly. Half the population having an encounter with LE would be up on charges.:D

If you're around LE much you might notice that when a person is refusing to speak officers might ask something along the lines of, "I'm going to assume you are exercising your right to remain silent?" or some such to try to at least get an acknowledgement from you... so they can fill out their report to include that you invoked your right to remain silent during questioning.


Did you actually read the 5th amendment?
Did you bother reading my post, that you also quoted, that clearly said "that doesn't mean you can't claim the 5th"??:s0140:

Maybe if I rephrase it more simply. In court, claiming the 5th is a perfectly legal response/answer that fulfills the legal requirement to respond to questioning. If you stopped and thought about it... there wouldn't even be any need to invoke the 5th if you were not required to respond. You could just sit there like a bump on a log, but as most people know... if you did that... you would be charged with contempt.

Call it "splitting hairs" if you want, but that's kinda how it works when you're talking legal principles.

That's all I have to say on it, though. Enjoy!
 
That's contradictory.


I'm not willing to bet my freedom on the hope that I get one of the good ones on that particular day.
Me either. There are and have always been a few morons who should never have the job of LEO. So while I VERY much support the LEO's if I ever find myself on the side of the road with some asking to search my vehicle? I would simply, politely, decline. Again though I don't drive like a moron so I would also remain polite. If they decide to arrest me? Well I will at that point let a lawyer do the talking.
 
Clear example of availability bias. Just like how so many members have to have a bear/cougar gun anytime they step off the pavement, even though you have a higher chance to win the Powerball than be attacked by either.
I have LONG been looked at "strange" that I ALWAYS have a gun with me by many. Many who actually own guns but see no need to keep one with them. To me that's a big shrug. I don't try to tell them they should follow my idea. Also when I say if stopped I am not going to volunteer info I am talking about locked guns in the vehicle. Last couple times I got an "interaction" with an LEO it was simple break downs. I was waiting for AAA and they were just stopping to check. Both times I had my CPL (permit) in my hand along with DL, ready to hand them. Both times this was waved away. I am sure they already knew who I was as they surely ran tags as soon as they pulled up. Now if I ever get pulled over I would have no problem letting them know I had a pistol on my person. I would wait and see at that point what they want. If they wanted to take the one I was carrying? Could care less. If they for some reason wish to search my vehicle? :confused:
The answer would be no. I would remain polite but it would still be no.
 
Did you bother reading my post, that you also quoted, that clearly said "that doesn't mean you can't claim the 5th"??:s0140:
Yes I read it. Here is a recap that prompted that response:

Just like in a court of law... you are legally compelled to answer questions
And my response:
Did you actually read the 5th amendment?

"...nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
You can't be compelled in a court of law to testify if you are the defendant.

You also do not have to speak to a LEO. Ever. You need to follow their lawful instructions, but do not need to speak.
Note the use of "do not have to" and "do not need". A person can choose to do so but cannot be compelled.
 
You can't be compelled in a court of law to testify if you are the defendant.
Ummm.... I never said you are legally required to testify if you are the defendant.

The example was that of a person standing/sitting before a judge in a court of law. Not how they got there in the first place. As a witness in a trial or standing before a judge in traffic court.... the same would apply.
 
East of Salina KS
Kansas and Nebraska are infamous for pull-overs on the interstate. Especially since cannabis was legalized in Colo. Drug and related money trafficking are the ostensible reasons. However, in reality it has more to do with revenue. Because if they find one roach in your ashtray, the entire rig and all your cash can become forfeit. They like to seize large amounts of cash when found, not necessarily related to drug traffic. The Nebr. state legislature passed some reform measures a while back requiring conviction to cause forfeiture but it goes on.

Kansas has had very loose civil forfeiture laws for decades which became very lucrative for law enforcement agencies in view of the drug transportation activity that has grown steadily. Their state legislature is working on reforms this year.

There is also a "revenue sharing" deal between state enforcement agencies and the feds.

Some people who've had cash seized without basis have spent 20 or more years hassling to get it back.

So this is why they pull over certain profile vehicles and comb through everything. I'd guess that any vehicles with plates from pot-legal states might fit the profile.
 
Just like in a court of law... you are legally compelled to answer questions and to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... but that doesn't mean you can't claim the 5th.

They are not mutually exclusive.... or.... "contradictory".
I think the point is the 5th Amendment makes it clear that you cannot be legally compelled to answer questions.
With a LEO (a legal officer of the courts) you are indeed legally required to truthfully respond to questioning, and to comply with their orders.
Respectfully, you have to identify yourself (if lawfully detained) and nothing further. The pendulum is swinging hard (to the left :cool: ) where in some places, officer are not legally allowed to ask questions (which is just stupid). An LEO is not an officer of the court. For there to be a fair trial, they have to be an independent witness.

Having said that, I never tried to play a 'gotcha' game with any of the thousands of people I pulled over. I asked questions, and when reasonable answers were the reply, all was good. When the conversation goes something like, "Where are you coming from?" Answer, "These are not my pants."...a good officer is going to try and find out what is in the pants that are not his (yes, criminals say this when they have dope in their pockets).
 
Kansas and Nebraska are infamous for pull-overs on the interstate. Especially since cannabis was legalized in Colo. Drug and related money trafficking are the ostensible reasons. However, in reality it has more to do with revenue. Because if they find one roach in your ashtray, the entire rig and all your cash can become forfeit. They like to seize large amounts of cash when found, not necessarily related to drug traffic. The Nebr. state legislature passed some reform measures a while back requiring conviction to cause forfeiture but it goes on.

Kansas has had very loose civil forfeiture laws for decades which became very lucrative for law enforcement agencies in view of the drug transportation activity that has grown steadily. Their state legislature is working on reforms this year.

There is also a "revenue sharing" deal between state enforcement agencies and the feds.

Some people who've had cash seized without basis have spent 20 or more years hassling to get it back.

So this is why they pull over certain profile vehicles and comb through everything. I'd guess that any vehicles with plates from pot-legal states might fit the profile.
Yah, figured it was something like such. Coming from Colorado & having Mass tags.

Again tho, deputies were very polite & professional. I was driving like a Mass-hole then volunteered information which simply was nonsensical to the initial deputy.

So, ENTIRELY my fault. Getting pulled over, as well as the search.

Had I declined the search, they could have gotten the warrant. Which would have hugely wasted everyone's time.

Nothing to hide, don't imbibe the reefer (but once at a buddy's bachelor party, awful!).

Don't drive like a dick. It's that simple.
 
Yah, figured it was something like such. Coming from Colorado & having Mass tags.

Again tho, deputies were very polite & professional. I was driving like a Mass-hole then volunteered information which simply was nonsensical to the initial deputy.

So, ENTIRELY my fault. Getting pulled over, as well as the search.

Had I declined the search, they could have gotten the warrant. Which would have hugely wasted everyone's time.

Nothing to hide, don't imbibe the reefer (but once at a buddy's bachelor party, awful!).

Don't drive like a dick. It's that simple.
The last many years its become a "15 minutes of fame" kind of thing with the net. Drive like a moron, gets pulled over, then do EVERYTHING humanly possible to throw gas on a fire. Daring the LEO to do anything. The one common theme of course is those who do this and are driving with no license, insurance, ect blame the cops for all their trouble. I have tried to tell people the side of the road is NOT the place to try to hold court. Cop wants to hand you a ticket? Take the ticket and take it to a judge. Again though if some LEO wants to go all super trooper? Time to just stop talking.
 
You haven't lived there long enough.
Yeah, only 30 years. Well aware of the DOJ consent decree and the history. Of course, I only worked 17 years in the law enforcement community up here after retiring from the military (having also worked a few years as a reserve cop in SoCal and elsewhere as well as a short stint as a deputy sheriff before going on active duty), so I'm sure my knowledge pales in comparison to yours and the rest of the anonymous brain trust that constitutes this forum membership.

My point was taking exception to whatshisname's post about needing only to have the ability to fog a mirror to become a cop these days. Utter horse poop. But I know that those predisposed to the anti-LE bias neither know nor care what the requirements are these days to enter the field, y'all want to believe that crap, have at it, your opinions don't keep me awake at night.

It's truly ironic that so many alleged supporters of the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA, supposed stalwarts of the movement, believe that they have to maintain an adversarial relationship with law enforcement personnel when the reality is that we're all on the same team.

But if turning a five-minute encounter on the roadside with a cop who pulls you over for doing 74 in a 55 zone into an uncomfortable thirty minute or one hour mess makes you feel as though you are displaying your credentials as a master supporter of your Constitutional rights, go for it. Just be honest when telling us how that worked out for you. And then 'splain please, how you have advanced the cause of supporting the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and made the rest of the law-abiding gun-owners in America look good.
 
Yeah, only 30 years. Well aware of the DOJ consent decree and the history. Of course, I only worked 17 years in the law enforcement community up here after retiring from the military (having also worked a few years as a reserve cop in SoCal and elsewhere as well as a short stint as a deputy sheriff before going on active duty), so I'm sure my knowledge pales in comparison to yours and the rest of the anonymous brain trust that constitutes this forum membership.

My point was taking exception to whatshisname's post about needing only to have the ability to fog a mirror to become a cop these days. Utter horse poop. But I know that those predisposed to the anti-LE bias neither know nor care what the requirements are these days to enter the field, y'all want to believe that crap, have at it, your opinions don't keep me awake at night.
I'm guessing I'm "Whatshisname".

I went to CHP Academy right out of high school. I dropped out after a couple weeks seeing the kind of dipsh!ts I'd be working with, plus the kind of crap they wanted us to pull to rack up our arrest numbers. Not for me.

Working in the gun industry, I came across a lot of officers from different walks of life. Not all bad, but not the best examples of the population either. Lots of holier-than-thou attitude, some of which you're displaying now.

It's truly ironic that so many alleged supporters of the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA, supposed stalwarts of the movement, believe that they have to maintain an adversarial relationship with law enforcement personnel when the reality is that we're all on the same team.
The ATF being a stellar example of that relationship.

It shocks me that alleged 2A supporters pick and choose which other bits of the constitution they deem important.

Exactly what 'team' are we on?

But if turning a five-minute encounter on the roadside with a cop who pulls you over for doing 74 in a 55 zone into an uncomfortable thirty minute or one hour mess makes you feel as though you are displaying your credentials as a master supporter of your Constitutional rights, go for it. Just be honest when telling us how that worked out for you. And then 'splain please, how you have advanced the cause of supporting the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and made the rest of the law-abiding gun-owners in America look good.
If they would just learn the constitution they are allegedly upholding, we wouldn't have these issues.
 

Upcoming Events

Rifle Mechanics
Sweet Home, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors May 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Handgun Self Defense Fundamentals
Sweet Home, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top