Stopped by Police With EDC?

[jaymeister99]

I think a lot of people here are missing the point. Are some cops downright disrespectful and don't deserve respect? Absolutely, Ive dealt with some. But IMO most are very courteous and very respectable. If a cop pulls you over and gives you a massive attitude do you really think things will go any better if you give them attitude back?

I've been in situations where I've dealt with both calm and respectful officers, and some downright nasty. But in the end it turned out ok for me, why? Just some simple respectful conversations.

Being courteous and respectful to a Police officer or anyone for that matter regardless of the situation is much more likely to have a good outcome than copping an attitude and giving someone disrespect.

When I was 14 I had two officers come running towards me and a group of kids. They looked around then pointed to me and said "you, get over here!" They then pulled me aside and said someone fitting my description was seen running away from the station after a rock went through the window.

I knew this was total BS, but I still maintained my cool. I ended every answer and statement with "officer" and said we were all over here for the last hour, but that I would ask around and if I heard anything would come straight to the station. They cooled down and went on their way.

About an hour later a kid who was about 1/2 my height and looked nothing like me stopped by us and said two cops stopped him and said he fit the description of somebody who threw a rock through their window.

So sometimes its just a game they play, its not nice, but welcome to the real world. That's how the cop's find people sometimes. If they stop and ask enough people randomly, sometimes they get lucky.

 

[stabman]

Being courteous and respectful to a Police officer or anyone for that matter regardless of the situation is much more likely to have a good outcome than copping an attitude and giving someone disrespect.

Absolutely.
Politeness tends to end up with less getting punched in the face.

 

[billygoat162]

As to car searches, I can't tell you what to do, but I will say, I won't consent to a search of my vehicle without a search warrant.

I have never had a vehicle factory new. Always used. Never taken a drug dog to my newly purchased vehicle, or an expert to look for hidden compartments etc.

I have found all kinds of items in used vehicles that were definitely not mine!

YES. I found an ice pick wedged under the driver seat of a previously owned truck I had been driving for over five years when I removed the seat to shampoo the carpet. I never knew it was there. I had been stopped and asked before if I would consent to a search, and said I would prefer not, simply because I didn't want to get up and wait. I still say no, but I have more reasons now (I also do a more thorough job of going through used vehicles).

BigFattyt, it's really nice to hear input from someone with your experience. I just want to say thanks for taking the time to post everything.

 

[kniferbro]

I would let them know you have a knife. How ever phrasing is key, as a psychology major, there is a great difference in perception depending on how you say it. My go to is "yes sir I have my pocket knife. By using pocket it dulls down the weapon perception and by stating that it's "my pocket knife" vs. "a pocket knife" it sends the message that it's an item you always have on yourself, more "personal affect" than a weapon you happen to be carrying.

 

[G. Scott H.]

I don't think anyone here is saying that it's OK for an officer to violate someone's civil rights. They are just saying that the side of the road at 2am is not a good place to take a stance against that kind of thing if you actually want to accomplish anything. It seems like it would only escalate things in a situation you can't control.

Exactly. :thumbup:

 

[Charlie_K]

And what exactly is the proper response when an officer orders you to do something that the courts have declared they have no authority to? Such as surrendering your video camera because you were recording them in public and their intent is delete your data? The courts have said they aren't allowed to do that. The justice department has said they're not allowed to do that. So what are you legally allowed to do when they make it an order and you know they have no legal basis for such?

 

[leghog]

My non consent woudl be based upon my knowlege that there really is no reason to search my vehicle, and if the officer articulates one, he is making it up. I have seen officers go balistic when refused consent to search a vehicle. I have seen officers lie on a search warrant application (under oath) to get a search warrant (I have also witnessed officers fired for the same). ...

Officers can get pretty bent out of shape when some one exercises their right to refuse a search, or to answer questions designed to garner an incriminating response. But it remains a right, as long as a few are willing to exercise it.

Therein lies the very heart of the problem --- no respect for a citizen's rights.

 

[killgar]

Killgar, I'm not trying to challenge you, but I really am curious as to what you are suggesting. I don't think anyone here is saying that it's OK for an officer to violate someone's civil rights. They are just saying that the side of the road at 2am is not a good place to take a stance against that kind of thing if you actually want to accomplish anything. It seems like it would only escalate things in a situation you can't control.

On another note, being courteous and honest while never calling a pocket knife a weapon has worked well for me ("no, but I do have a pocket knife"). One time an officer's eyes lit up when I said I had a knife in my center console, but as soon as I started talking about legal length he did a complete palm-to-face and shook his head, like "oh god, not another one of these knife nuts," and changed the subject. I later realized the town I was in had stricter laws than I thought, and I was in the wrong, and the officer probably knew it, but he didn't care. We both told each other to have a good day, and away I went with a warning.

My original post was written to express my feelings on what I perceive to be a social and cultural acceptance of police misconduct in this country. I believe that people have come to accept as a normal fact of life the idea that if you "give a cop attitude" that you will suffer for it, rather than recognizing it for the gross abuse of power and serious act of injustice that it truly is. I believe that this acceptance has advanced to the point that many people no longer view such misconduct as a serious abuse of power.

I also believe that this acceptance of LEO misconduct causes people to "blame the victim". Instead of condemning the idea that an LEO might violate your rights if they don't like your attitude, it seems to me that many people believe that you deserve whatever you get if you give an LEO "attitude".

It always bothers me when I see what I perceive to be any public acceptance of misconduct committed by those in power. It bothers me when I believe that people think it's ok as long as it happens to someone else. And it always bothers me when I believe that people possess a casual attitude towards any violation of a law abiding citizens rights.

Those are my perceptions, and people are free to disagree with them.

By all means, people should act the way they feel they need to act in order to avoid being a victim of LEO misconduct. When interacting with LEO's I certainly wouldn't do or say anything if I thought it might endanger me. But at the same time, I won't hesitate to exercise my constitutional rights and refuse any request on the part of LEO's if I consider their request to be a violation of my rights.

 

[monger4142]

My original post was written to express my feelings on what I perceive to be a social and cultural acceptance of police misconduct in this country. I believe that people have come to accept as a normal fact of life the idea that if you "give a cop attitude" that you will suffer for it, rather than recognizing it for the gross abuse of power and serious act of injustice that it truly is. I believe that this acceptance has advanced to the point that many people no longer view such misconduct as a serious abuse of power.

I also believe that this acceptance of LEO misconduct causes people to "blame the victim". Instead of condemning the idea that an LEO might violate your rights if they don't like your attitude, it seems to me that many people believe that you deserve whatever you get if an LEO doesn't like your attitude.

It always bothers me when I see what I perceive to be any public acceptance of misconduct committed by those in power. It bothers me when I believe that people think it's ok as long as it happens to someone else. And it always bothers me when I believe that people possess a casual attitude towards any violation of a law abiding citizens rights.

Those are my perceptions, and people are free to disagree with them.

By all means, people should act the way they feel they need to act in order to avoid being a victim of LEO misconduct. When interacting with LEO's I certainly wouldn't do or say anything if I thought it might endanger me. But at the same time, I won't hesitate to exercise my constitutional rights and refuse any request on the part of LEO's if I consider their request to be a violation of my rights.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with you on that, and I don't think any post in this thread suggests a casual attitude towards rights violations? Giving you a speeding ticket when you were speeding, or a seat belt ticket, wasting a little more of your time, etc aren't violations of your constitutional rights.

Imo the example of a cop asking you about weapons/knives at a DUI checkpoint is borderline, but the big factor is he asked - and then information was volunteered. He could have actually said no to that request. they would not have been able to search him otherwise. its all in the subtleties. knowing your rights is just as important as knowing how to act.

 

[G. Scott H.]

And what exactly is the proper response when an officer orders you to do something that the courts have declared they have no authority to? Such as surrendering your video camera because you were recording them in public and their intent is delete your data? The courts have said they aren't allowed to do that. The justice department has said they're not allowed to do that. So what are you legally allowed to do when they make it an order and you know they have no legal basis for such?

Let them take the camera and then contact an attorney who specialized in such cases asap? I think that would be my course. Again, you aren't going to solve anything by putting up a fight at the scene. I would never suggest that someone sit by and let an officer violate their rights. All I'm saying is that one must recognize the proper time and place to take issue with it, which IMHO is in your attorney's office and in the courtroom, not out on the street.

 

[sirupatespecial]

My original post was written to express my feelings on what I perceive to be a social and cultural acceptance of police misconduct in this country. I believe that people have come to accept as a normal fact of life the idea that if you "give a cop attitude" that you will suffer for it, rather than recognizing it for the gross abuse of power and serious act of injustice that it truly is. I believe that this acceptance has advanced to the point that many people no longer view such misconduct as a serious abuse of power.

I also believe that this acceptance of LEO misconduct causes people to "blame the victim". Instead of condemning the idea that an LEO might violate your rights if they don't like your attitude, it seems to me that many people believe that you deserve whatever you get if you give an LEO "attitude".

It always bothers me when I see what I perceive to be any public acceptance of misconduct committed by those in power. It bothers me when I believe that people think it's ok as long as it happens to someone else. And it always bothers me when I believe that people possess a casual attitude towards any violation of a law abiding citizens rights.

Those are my perceptions, and people are free to disagree with them.

By all means, people should act the way they feel they need to act in order to avoid being a victim of LEO misconduct. When interacting with LEO's I certainly wouldn't do or say anything if I thought it might endanger me. But at the same time, I won't hesitate to exercise my constitutional rights and refuse any request on the part of LEO's if I consider their request to be a violation of my rights.

I'll go back to the original question. "Do you have a weapon". The question itself and the premise behind it is in one or maybe 2 words. Bull Shit. As soon as you answer in the affirmative, you have given up all your rights. Why? You have given law enforcement probable cause.

How hard do you think it would be to get a search warrent if they tell the Judge "suspect had a 6 inch edged weapon"? You think they are going to get a warrent saying "suspect posessed a 3 inch pocket knife" Hell No. Or, the easiest thing would be for them to call the K-9 unit. Let us see. You call the only K-9 officer at 2 in the morning, get him and his dog outta bed. He drives 30 minutes to the scene. And you don't think the dog is gonna "hit" on your car? You gotta be kidding me. So then you get your car searched anyway.

So, a cop who is trained to assume anyone he comes in contact with is armed. He is armed. With hand gun, pepper spray, probably knife, bullet proof vest, knife, baton(we used to call them billy clubs when they used to beat the shit outta people with them but that became politically incorrect). He's worried about me and my Case stockman?

You have got to be kidding me.

The entire reason for the question is to establish probable cause. That's it and that's all.

Naw, you'd do what I did. After an hour in cuffs in the back of a Dodge charger with the heat on in the middle of summer. Don't know if you have had the pleasure of being in the back of a Charger Police cruiser, with a cage, with a bad knee after being pulled over for having a burned out headlight in the daytime. But you'd do like I did. You'd just say yes to the search so you could just get out of there.

Doesn't baton sound so much better than Billy Club? Where in the world did they come up with the name Billy Club? Just something else to ponder.....Maybe they clubbed someone named Billy. Poor Billy. He's in the grave but he had something named after him....baton.

 

[SPXTrader]

Let them take the camera and then contact an attorney who specialized in such cases asap? ...

Would you need proof they took your camera? Would proof be another person vidoetaping the act of them talking your camera? What if they took that camera?

(This has the ability to be an endless loop...kinda like a room with mirrored walls that oppose each other...)

 

[casebomber]

cops could care less if i am carrying a knife and i have never thought about it or needed to personally. carrying a firearm i have more pressing concerns. legally you are not required to inform an officer of carry where i live but they do appreciate the information. the bigger concern is how you handle yourself in the situation.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

My original post was written to express my feelings on what I perceive to be a social and cultural acceptance of police misconduct in this country.

(we used to call them billy clubs when they used to beat the shit outta people with them but that became politically incorrect).

Why is this discussion in the General Knife Discussion? I think we've heard enough.