PDA

View Full Version : Shreveport, LA cop pulls you over Your rights are suspended


willm952
06-17-2010, 3:00 PM
Has anyone else heard of this:

Cop pulls over Cedric over for a turn signal violation, but only asks questions about his political associations particularly with gun groups because he had quite a few on his bumper. This bastard mayor then goes on to say that when you're pulled over in his town by a cop your rights are suspended. Its on tape.

The only positive out of this is that he's answering in a civil and what he thinks is logical tone. Only the police can suspend your rights. This is a power even the President of the United States doesn't have. What the?

Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.
According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of a pro-gun organization.

No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

Audio link:
http://www.conservativedrink.com/media/GloverInterview-060809-Video.asp?roi=echo3-6459441735-4327145-f85938fd528eef661899599b5824b043&

jdberger
06-17-2010, 3:03 PM
Got a link?

jdberger
06-17-2010, 3:04 PM
Sorry - on iPhone. Got a link to a text story?

Snaps
06-17-2010, 3:07 PM
http://www.ksla.com/global/story.asp?S=10652408

SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) - It's another potential knock on the reputation of "The Next Great City of the South."

An online campaign is underway, claiming that when you come to Shreveport, your "rights will be suspended." It all started with a traffic stop on a Friday night a month ago. Even though Robert Baillio was never cited, and his gun was never confiscated, his story and a secretly recorded telephone conversation with Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover has been burning up the blogosphere.

Here is an excerpt of what happened in Baillio's own words, as posted on Conservative.Drink.com:

"Right after I stopped, I got out of my truck and walked toward the tailgate. I kept my hands where he could see them and I stopped right there by the back bumper. Right there I was directly in his headlights, and I wanted to be sure he could see that I wasn't carrying any kind of weapon, and I didn't pose any type of threat to him.

Well he got out of his vehicle and walked toward me.

He stopped a little short of what I'd consider conversation distance, and he looked at me and said, "Do you have any firearms in your vehicle?"

I didn't really expect him to ask me that. And I didn't know why he asked, but I answered and said "Yes"

He asked where they were. And I really didn't understand why he was asking me these questions. But I told him the truth, and I said "My pistol is between the drivers seat and the console.

He instantly turned and walked to the drivers side door, opened it, and removed my pistol. I stayed at the back of the truck. He approached me, held my HK 45 Compact up, and dropped the magazine. He then asked if there was a shell in the chamber, and I said, "Yes sir, there is." He ejected it onto the ground, locked the slide back, and walked back to his patrol unit and got in it.

After the stop was completed, and my gun was was returned, I thought about the events that had happened.

I called the mayor of Shreveport, on Monday June 8th. Late in the day he finally called me back. I told him that I was very uncomfortable standing on a busy street without my hand gun, and I did not believe the officer had any reason, or right to remove it from my vehicle.

He told me that during a traffic stop "My rights were suspended." At first I couldn't believe he said that. Then, I thought "no one is going to believe me when I tell them he said that" so I turned on my digital recorder and recorded the rest of our conversation."

Here is the transcript of where that recording (posted in it's entirety on the blog site) picks up:

Mayor Cedric Glover: It's something that no police officer no police division anywhere within this country would defend or support or allow.

Robert Baillio: Now..you lost me there for a second. Uh when I said "are you still there"..you..I'm not sure what you are saying..Uh Mayor Glover.

Mayor Cedric Glover: You are not sure of what I'm saying?

Robert Baillio: Well...I don't know if my phone broke up or what but you're saying that..as a citizen...when I am stopped by a police officer I don't have any rights? Mayor Cedric Glover: Your rights at that point, Mr. Baillio, have been suspended.

It's a choice of words that Mayor Glover tells KSLA News 12 he does not regret. "I'm perfectly comfortable with the conversation and what I said and and how I said it."

And Shreveport City Attorney Ed Jones says the Mayor wasn't wrong. "I don't think the law ever mentions a 'suspension of rights,' like the mayor said, but what the mayor said was correct, they are suspended at that point. his right to travel down the road he was on certainly had been suspended."

Baillio claims he was profiled because of the stickers on the back of his truck window. One says, "Armed We Are Citizens, Un-Armed We Are Subject!" Another says, "Celebrate Diversity," depicting an array of ammunition.

"They may have played a role," agrees Jones, "but certainly if you have 'This vehicle protected by Smith & Wesson' it's legitimate question: 'Do you have a weapon in the vehicle?'

"Well I answered that question honestly and he...disarmed me," says Baillio in the recorded telephone conversation, to which Glover replies, "Which would be appropriate and proper action, sir."

While Baillio and his supporters clearly feel that this it was inappropriate, Jones says the law does in fact allow an officer to ask for, frisk and even search for weapons within that person's reach in the course of a traffic stop, if he has reason to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed. But this it's not the only instance in which you may not be allowed to exercise your 2nd Amendment right. In fact, there are several instances where your right to bear arms is suspended even if you possess the firearm legally have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, like in an airplane, at a school, and in any federal or municipal building.

While having his words used against him is one thing, Mayor Glover says he is more concerned about the negativity the whole thing is drawing toward the city's officers. "I'm a big boy, so I'm accustomed to bring attacked from all sides, the right, the left, front and back. I think the thing that worries me the most and should worry and concern our citizens are the statements that have been made concerning our police officers, because all of this is about officer safety."

BusBoy
06-17-2010, 3:09 PM
Sorry - on iPhone. Got a link to a text story?

Google it... its all over the 1st page. http://www.ksla.com/global/story.asp?S=10652408

Video?? of the Audio... http://www.conservativedrink.com/media/GloverInterview-060809-Video.asp

asme
06-17-2010, 3:15 PM
Halfway through the audio the mayor referred to common folk as "Civilians."

This is my semantic kryptonite. The police are "civilians" too.

RomanDad
06-17-2010, 3:17 PM
Has anyone else heard of this:

Cop pulls over Cedric over for a turn signal violation, but only asks questions about his political associations particularly with gun groups because he had quite a few on his bumper. This bastard mayor then goes on to say that when you're pulled over in his town by a cop your rights are suspended. Its on tape.

The only positive out of this is that he's answering in a civil and what he thinks is logical tone. Only the police can suspend your rights. This is a power even the President of the United States doesn't have. What the?

Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.
According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of a pro-gun organization.

No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

Audio link:
http://www.conservativedrink.com/media/GloverInterview-060809-Video.asp?roi=echo3-6459441735-4327145-f85938fd528eef661899599b5824b043&

I just listened to what the Mayor said... IN CONTEXT... And the mayor is 100% legally correct. If you are lawfully pulled over by a police officer, your "RIGHT" to proceed has been suspended. He says this very clearly at the 2 minute mark.... At the 11:50 he clearly says "Am I saying all of your rights at that point have been eliminated and anything can be done to you no matter what? No I'm not saying that at all."


The officer pulls him over says "Do you have a gun?" The driver says "Yes" The officer says "where is it?" He takes it and at the end of the stop he returns it to the driver and he goes on his way. Where is the violation of his rights?

No Court ANYWHERE, EVER is going to say the Second Amendment prevents the police from temporarily disarming a criminal suspect during a lawful investigation.

FatalKitty
06-17-2010, 3:22 PM
EDIT: nevermind

I didn't realize he had is firearm returned.

whew... seams perfectly fine to me

RomanDad
06-17-2010, 3:23 PM
on what grounds was the firearm confiscated? what is he charged with? what in the **** do they think they are doing?!?! I am dismayed by this, I can't figure out what is going through these people's heads when they treat law abiding citizens like this!

It was a traffic stop. The officer asked if their was a gun in the vehicle. There was. The officer asked to keep it during the stop for his own safety. When the stop was over, HE GAVE THE GUN BACK.

Vtec44
06-17-2010, 3:25 PM
No Court ANYWHERE, EVER is going to say the Second Amendment prevents the police from temporarily disarming a criminal suspect during a lawful investigation.

The driver was questioned regarding firearms because of the stickers on his truck, and not because he was a suspect of a crime. IMHO, I believe that it is wrong, although, no harm was done and the firearm was returned. Unless challenged in court, this kind of discrimination against gun owners will continue to happen.

choprzrul
06-17-2010, 3:26 PM
...the law does in fact allow an officer to ask for, frisk and even search for weapons within that person's reach in the course of a traffic stop, if he has reason to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed.

The guy was standing at the back of his pickup, well out of reach of the gun. What could be construed from this man standing there to make the officer believe that "...a crime has been or is about to be committed..."???????

I am hoping that McDonald incorporates the 2A against the states and a flood of civil rights violation law suits are brought against entities like this for violating our civil rights. This kind of crap makes my blood boil. What would be said if the guy's jaw had been clamped shut so as to prevent him from exercising his 1A rights?

RomanDad
06-17-2010, 3:30 PM
The guy was standing at the back of his pickup, well out of reach of the gun. What could be construed from this man standing there to make the officer believe that "...a crime has been or is about to be committed..."???????


The crime was the illegal left turn the officer pulled him over for. At that point the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio has ruled that the police officer may search a person if they reasonably beleive they may be armed. And it doesnt take Sherlock Holmes to figure out the guy with the NRA stickers on his truck, MAY BE ARMED.... But the cop didnt FRISK HIM.... He asked.... By the Drivers admission- POLITELY. And then he secured the firearm until the stop was complete....


THIS WILL NOT CHANGE.... EVER.

Under the most STRENUOUS Strict Scrutiny analysis (if that is even the standard?) The COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST OF POLICE OFFICER SAFETY outweighs the Narrowly Tailored and Least Restrictive Policy of allowing Police Officers to temporarily disarm people who they lawfully stop.

Vtec44
06-17-2010, 3:32 PM
The crime was the illegal left turn the officer pulled him over for.

Traffic infraction crime? :eek:

RomanDad
06-17-2010, 3:42 PM
Traffic infraction crime? :eek:

Doesnt matter. If the police can pull you over for it, YOU ARE DETAINED. You are now "Terry Stopped". YOU ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE.

Vtec44
06-17-2010, 3:49 PM
Doesnt matter. If the police can pull you over for it, YOU ARE DETAINED. You are now "Terry Stopped". YOU ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE.


I may need to go back and read Terry v. Ohio, because I can only remember that it only reference searching the person.

Window_Seat
06-17-2010, 3:54 PM
The Mayor says that the Mr. Baillio does NOT support the Police based on his complaint about having his rights suspended. This Mayor has an EXTREMELY bad attitude about civilians and rights given by the Framers. I hope that he is investigated thoroughly.

Erik.

RomanDad
06-17-2010, 3:57 PM
I may need to go back and read Terry v. Ohio, because I can only remember that it only reference searching the person.

Michigan v. Long extends Terry to passenger compartments of vehicles.

choprzrul
06-17-2010, 4:01 PM
Doesnt matter. If the police can pull you over for it, YOU ARE DETAINED. You are now "Terry Stopped". YOU ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE.

I'm thinking that you might want to get up to speed on your SCOTUS decisions regarding this type of search and siezure:

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.Contents [hide]
1 Facts
2 Blurring the Belton bright line
3 Scholarly interest
4 Supreme Court decision
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading

[edit]
Facts

The case involved Rodney J. Gant, who was arrested by Tucson, Arizona police and charged with driving on a suspended driver’s license. Police arrested Gant in a friend's yard after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away. Gant and all other suspects on the scene were then secured in police patrol cars. The officers then searched Gant's vehicle. After finding a weapon and a bag of cocaine, they also charged him with possession of a narcotic for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.
[edit]
Blurring the Belton bright line

Thomas Frank Jacobs (Tucson, Arizona), lead counsel for Rodney Gant, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court on October 7, 2008. Jacobs argued that an unreasonable expansion of a limited authority to search vehicles incident to arrest provided by the Supreme Court's 1981 decision in New York v. Belton was occurring. Lower courts were allowing searches after the initial justifications for setting aside the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement had ceased to exist, relying on a so-called bright-line rule of "if arrest, then search." Jacobs argued, and the Court ultimately agreed, that such application of the Belton exception caused the exception to "swallow the rule," allowing unconstitutional searches.
[edit]
Scholarly interest

A group of legal scholars, including University of Iowa law professor James Tomkovicz, wrote an amicus curiae brief asking the court to overturn its precedent from a 1981 case, New York v. Belton, that gives police the right to search a person’s vehicle even if that person is not in the vehicle. According to Tomkovicz, Belton fails to meet the constitutional standard of probable cause.[1]
[edit]
Supreme Court decision

In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, "In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred."

Again, this guy was no threat to the officer and I firmly believe that suit should be brought subject to the violation of the gentleman's civil rights.


.

choprzrul
06-17-2010, 4:03 PM
Michigan v. Long extends Terry to passenger compartments of vehicles.

Michigan v. Long = 1983

Arizona v. Grant = 2008

Which one applies in 2010?


.

RomanDad
06-17-2010, 4:04 PM
I'm thinking that you might want to get up to speed on your SCOTUS decisions regarding this type of search and siezure:



Again, this guy was no threat to the officer and I firmly believe that suit should be brought subject to the violation of the gentleman's civil rights.


.

You have completely misapplied Gant.... GANT WAS ARRESTED.... IN CUFFS. That cut off the right to conduct the search.... This guy was NEVER IN CUFFS.... NEVER IN THE BACK OF A CAR. He could have run to the car and grabbed the gun at any time.

Vtec44
06-17-2010, 4:05 PM
A quick read through Terry vs Ohio, it seems like a quick search on the person's clothing for weapons is not a violation of The Fourth Amendment. However, says nothing about searching the vehicle or any other nearby properties.

As far as I know, police do not need a search warrant for a vehicle if they believe it it contains evidence of a crime. I don't think traffic violation constitute a "crime" that gives police the power to search a vehicle without a warrant. In Michigan v. Long, the driver "appeared to be under the influence". I'm assuming that gave police the power to search the car for evidence of him driving under the influence.

Super Spy
06-17-2010, 4:06 PM
I laugh every time I hear cops refer to the rest of us as civilians, and I love pointing out to my LEO buddy that HE IS A CIVLIAN, and NOT a member of the military. I'm at least a former member of the military and I find having a civilian call someone else a civilian ironic.

RomanDad
06-17-2010, 4:07 PM
Michigan v. Long = 1983

Arizona v. Grant = 2008

Which one applies in 2010?


.


In this case, Michigan v. Long.

The facts in Gant are VERY specific.... 1. ARREST.... 2. HANDCUFFS... 3. STUFFED IN THE BACK OF THE PATROL CAR.... None of those things happened here.... And you'll notice... In your quote, you repeatedly site the trouble of "Belton". Not Michigan v. long.

Belton is a "Search incident to a lawful arrest" case (as is Gant).
Michigan v. Long is a "Protective Terry Search" Case.

One has nothing to do with the other.

bwiese
06-17-2010, 4:14 PM
I agree with Roman Dad.

This got blown out of proportion with some poor wording.

When you're pulled over, it's a bit of a 'mini-arrest'. Various rights of yours are curtailed for that limited time period.

RomanDad
06-17-2010, 4:27 PM
A quick read through Terry vs Ohio, it seems like a quick search on the person's clothing for weapons is not a violation of The Fourth Amendment. However, says nothing about searching the vehicle or any other nearby properties.



Correct... and Michigan v Long merely extends the Terry power to include vehicle compartments...

I don't think traffic violation constitute a "crime" that gives police the power to search a vehicle without a warrant.


you are 100% absolutely right. It has nothing to do with the underlying crime (or "infraction"). That underlying infraction gives them the right to "detain" you.... "detainment" is short of an arrest, but the subject is not free to leave. The cops cant just walk up to you and and start asking questions and causing you to be late for your church choir just because they feel like it (unless youre on probation or parole).... They need a REASON to make contact with you- that reason is "reasonable suspicion that you have broken the law"... Whether it be reasonable suspicion that you stabbed the owner of the Qwik-e-mart, or reasonable suspicion that you jaywalked. Once they have that threshold met, then Terry kicks in (and Long).


What Long does is gives them power to search the vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion to beleive it may contain a weapon that may pose a threat to their security.

"But But But what was the reasonable suspicion that the car had a gun in it?"

The officer asked if there was a gun in the car.... And the driver told him where it was. That's "reasonable suspicion" theres a gun in the car.


This really isnt even an interesting case.... The cop held the gun, then gave it back (Probably unloaded) after the stop....

The interesting case is: while he's grabbing the gun, he finds 50 pounds of blow and a dead hooker under the seat. That's ADMISSIBLE evidence.

dustoff31
06-17-2010, 5:58 PM
I don't think traffic violation constitute a "crime" that gives police the power to search a vehicle without a warrant.

It depends on state law. Some traffic violations are civil and some are criminal.

Having driven through Louisiana and knowing how they do "business" there, I'm surprized the situation ended as well as it did.

darksands
06-17-2010, 10:44 PM
Traffic in California is in the criminal courts so technically it is a crime. I agree with what the officer did for his own safety. After everything was over, the firearm was returned and no ticket was given. We could only be so lucky if this happened in California.

FatalKitty
06-17-2010, 10:50 PM
pretty much this is why you don't talk to cops

he volunteered information when asked = bad idea always.

may seem paranoid to say, but cops are out to "get you" it's their job... they didn't spend all of high school getting bullied around to become philanthropists

gorblimey
06-17-2010, 11:57 PM
[]

What Long does is gives them power to search the vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion to beleive it may contain a weapon that may pose a threat to their security.

"But But But what was the reasonable suspicion that the car had a gun in it?"
[]



Clearly the thing to do is slather the car with "Guns kill people" and "Give peace a chance" sort of libtarded moonbattery stickers. And to say nothing given the above sort of a question.

The case for reasonable suspicion of a weapon in vehicle would grow rather weaker, yes?

Decoligny
06-18-2010, 8:08 AM
I just listened to what the Mayor said... IN CONTEXT... And the mayor is 100% legally correct. If you are lawfully pulled over by a police officer, your "RIGHT" to proceed has been suspended. He says this very clearly at the 2 minute mark.... At the 11:50 he clearly says "Am I saying all of your rights at that point have been eliminated and anything can be done to you no matter what? No I'm not saying that at all."


The officer pulls him over says "Do you have a gun?" The driver says "Yes" The officer says "where is it?" He takes it and at the end of the stop he returns it to the driver and he goes on his way. Where is the violation of his rights?

No Court ANYWHERE, EVER is going to say the Second Amendment prevents the police from temporarily disarming a criminal suspect during a lawful investigation.


The man was standing at the back of his truck. The firearm was between the seats in the cab of the truck. The weapon was not within reach of the man. He was not a "criminal suspect", and there was no "investigation". He allegedly violated the vehicle code by not using his turn signal. The officer should have asked for his license and registration and written him a ticket. The officer was perfectly within his rights to ask about weapons. He could have even patted down the man. But he had no right to go into the truck as it wasn't within immediate reach of the man, so it posed no immediate threat to the officer.

This is a case where the man should have locked his doors the second he stepped out of the vehicle. When asked if he had any weapons, he should have answered "No officer, I do NOT have any weapons on me." If the officer asked about inside the car, he should have simply said "I do not consent to any unwarrented search of my vehicle."

N6ATF
06-18-2010, 8:29 AM
You have no right to remain silent. :rolleyes:

FatalKitty
06-18-2010, 9:27 AM
Clearly the thing to do is slather the car with "Guns kill people" and "Give peace a chance" sort of libtarded moonbattery stickers. And to say nothing given the above sort of a question.

The case for reasonable suspicion of a weapon in vehicle would grow rather weaker, yes?

pay attention, obey all traffic and vehicle code laws, don't make yourself an easy target.

darksands
06-18-2010, 9:28 AM
The man was standing at the back of his truck. The firearm was between the seats in the cab of the truck. The weapon was not within reach of the man. He was not a "criminal suspect", and there was no "investigation". He allegedly violated the vehicle code by not using his turn signal. The officer should have asked for his license and registration and written him a ticket. The officer was perfectly within his rights to ask about weapons. He could have even patted down the man. But he had no right to go into the truck as it wasn't within immediate reach of the man, so it posed no immediate threat to the officer.

This is a case where the man should have locked his doors the second he stepped out of the vehicle. When asked if he had any weapons, he should have answered "No officer, I do NOT have any weapons on me." If the officer asked about inside the car, he should have simply said "I do not consent to any unwarrented search of my vehicle."

I completely understand why people in California would do this because of the mentality towards law enforcement in California; however, in Louisiana, it may not be the same. A law abiding citizen with a gun may not be treated like a complete criminal. This is an example of how a guy was treated in a civil manner. No cuffs, no lying down on the ground, just a conversation and off he went.

Now let's put this situation in CA. Guy with pro-2A stickers on the car gets pulled over. That right there gives the officer PC (at least that what the officer will think) to search the car for weapons. Go ahead and say no. He will search the car anyway and when they find the gun, you just lied in an ongoing investigation (argue all you want that there is no investigation, it's not me you have to convince). Off to jail you go, not to mention by this time you are in cuffs sitting in the back seat.

CCWFacts
06-18-2010, 9:52 AM
What the mayor said makes sense within the context. When someone is pulled over, he loses his right to continue traveling. When he answers questions about what's in his vehicle he has waived his right to remain silent. And when someone is stopped by the police, the police have some powers to search for weapons (this is a complicated area which I don't understand).

He still retains certain rights, but has lost some of his most critical ones (right to free movement), temporarily.

tonelar
06-18-2010, 12:39 PM
ok I'm confused about one thing:
What are the odds that the mayor's and vehicle driver's names are both Cedric?

DTOM CA!
06-18-2010, 1:10 PM
That's why I do not put stickers on my car. I do not want to give an Officer any reason to profile me and ask questions that do not pertain to the reason he stopped me. I put my NRA stickers on my tool box in the garage.

ke6guj
06-18-2010, 1:26 PM
Halfway through the audio the mayor referred to common folk as "Civilians."

This is my semantic kryptonite. The police are "civilians" too.I understand the frustration hearing that term used improperly, but what term are we supposed to use when refering to people who are not LE or .mil?

choprzrul
06-18-2010, 3:27 PM
I understand the frustration hearing that term used improperly, but what term are we supposed to use when refering to people who are not LE or .mil?

IMHO: If you sign a contract with the government in agreement to give up your rights and wear their uniform, then you no longer have "civilian" status. Also, non-civilians (military personnel) fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

If you can quit and just walk away from your job without being considered AWOL, and the UCMJ doesn't apply to you, then you are a civilian.

ke6guj
06-18-2010, 5:02 PM
right, I would agree that .mil personnel are not civilians. My point was more "what do we call members of the general public who are not LE" without using the "civilian" word. Using that word, even when the context is understood to be those civilains who aren't LE, seems to always brings up the arguement that LEOs are civilians too.

And Webster's Dictionary definition seems to indicate that LEOs are not considered civilains.


Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b : outsider 1

JimWest
06-18-2010, 5:43 PM
Someday (probably soon) you will need to learn to handle the situation like this:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CnjaUoR15dU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CnjaUoR15dU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Dr. Peter Venkman
06-18-2010, 5:55 PM
Lots of horrible information in this thread. At least Roman Dad got it right pretty early on.

Dreaded Claymore
06-18-2010, 6:02 PM
Seems like this thread consists mostly of misunderstanding. I'm very glad the situation wasn't how it seemed from a cursory look at the thread.

I'm not too concerned about the cops taking my gun during a traffic stop. After all, the cop keeps her/his gun, so s/he can shoot back if the Zombie Gun Control Lesbian Aliens attack.

Arteel
06-18-2010, 6:48 PM
Forgive me if I'm being dense here, but was this guy driving around with an unlocked and loaded handgun?
I didn't see any mentioning of a CCW permit.

ke6guj
06-18-2010, 6:55 PM
Forgive me if I'm being dense here, but was this guy driving around with an unlocked and loaded handgun?
I didn't see any mentioning of a CCW permit.

LA allows for open carry of loaded handguns, no CCW needed.

Arteel
06-18-2010, 7:25 PM
Oh, wow...I did not know that. Thanks.

LA allows for open carry of loaded handguns, no CCW needed.

USAFTS
06-18-2010, 7:52 PM
I completely understand why people in California would do this because of the mentality towards law enforcement in California; however, in Louisiana, it may not be the same. A law abiding citizen with a gun may not be treated like a complete criminal. This is an example of how a guy was treated in a civil manner. No cuffs, no lying down on the ground, just a conversation and off he went.

Now let's put this situation in CA. Guy with pro-2A stickers on the car gets pulled over. That right there gives the officer PC (at least that what the officer will think) to search the car for weapons. Go ahead and say no. He will search the car anyway and when they find the gun, you just lied in an ongoing investigation (argue all you want that there is no investigation, it's not me you have to convince). Off to jail you go, not to mention by this time you are in cuffs sitting in the back seat.

Forgive me if this was answered previously, but I thought I heard the Mayor say that IF the motorist had answered "NO"...that the officer would have secured the motorist and searched the vehicle anyway...and any weapon found would have led to more severe charges. How does that not violate the 4th?

tonelar
06-18-2010, 8:01 PM
firefighters are not civilians? i learn something new every day.

turbogg
06-18-2010, 8:24 PM
pay attention, obey all traffic and vehicle code laws, don't make yourself an easy target.

................and don't have a bunch of NRA, or "I love guns and have one in my pants now" stickers all over your car.

resident-shooter
06-18-2010, 9:59 PM
If the cop crapped his pants because of fear of being shot simply because a law abiding man might have a gun, he should go clean the streets or play with kids or do some other, supposedly safer job.


No offense to LEO's around here, but that is how I feel. If I am too scared of a job (for various reasons such as liability or personal safety), I dont take it.

ChuckBooty
06-19-2010, 7:08 AM
All the "outrage" over this whole thing is bass ackwards IMO. For me, I'm more irked that a citizen who makes the choice to be exercise his second amendment doesn't know enough to exercise his fourth and fifth amendment as well. They go hand-in-hand. You TELL an LEO that you have a gun in-between your car seats during a traffic stop and what the hell do you EXPECT an officer to do??? A simple, "I have nothing illegal in the car and don't consent to any warrant-less searches, sir." would have sufficed.

darksands
06-19-2010, 11:00 AM
All the "outrage" over this whole thing is bass ackwards IMO. For me, I'm more irked that a citizen who makes the choice to be exercise his second amendment doesn't know enough to exercise his fourth and fifth amendment as well. They go hand-in-hand. You TELL an LEO that you have a gun in-between your car seats during a traffic stop and what the hell do you EXPECT an officer to do??? A simple, "I have nothing illegal in the car and don't consent to any warrant-less searches, sir." would have sufficed.

I see two outcomes of telling the LEO this.

1: He says OK and give you a ticket for whatever he pulls you over for...

2: He will find a reason to toss the car and make your day long and troublesome. In the end the LEO probably wont get in trouble for anything and you will have to go to court to try to defend yourself, possibly spend money on a lawyer.

Saying you do not consent to a search and there is nothing illegal in the car doesn't mean that the LEO will comply. It's the "if you have nothing to hide then why don't you consent to a search?" mentality. Saying no will make them want to search more and they will find a reason if they really want to. They just have to word it properly in their report.

Let's say the officer doesn't ask. Then you don't have to tell. But if they do ask and you say yes and cooperate then chances are better that you have a more pleasant experience. Tell the truth and it goes a long way. But only when asked ;)

stan
06-19-2010, 11:33 AM
I completely understand why people in California would do this because of the mentality of law enforcement towards proles in California;

fixed

JimWest
06-19-2010, 7:32 PM
Let's say the officer doesn't ask. Then you don't have to tell. But if they do ask and you say yes and cooperate then chances are better that you have a more pleasant experience. Tell the truth and it goes a long way. But only when asked ;)

You can say alot without saying anything. Officer: "Any guns on your person or in the vehicle"? Citizen: "(Laughs out loud). I'm afraid I left my rocket launchers at home today officer". (Smiles) changes the subject. "Did I do something wrong"? etc.

On the other hand cooperate if your not doing anything illegal (and you should know if you are or are within your rights). Otherwise, make damn sure your a professional BSer (like Bill Clinton) or a pathological liar (like me):)

ke6guj
06-19-2010, 7:56 PM
You can say alot without saying anything. Officer: "Any guns on your person or in the vehicle"? Citizen: "(Laughs out loud). I'm afraid I left my rocket launchers at home today officer". (Smiles) changes the subject. "Did I do something wrong"? etc.


and then you just gave them probable cause to get a search warrant to toss your home looking for that illegal DD:43:

darksands
06-20-2010, 2:53 AM
You can say alot without saying anything. Officer: "Any guns on your person or in the vehicle"? Citizen: "(Laughs out loud). I'm afraid I left my rocket launchers at home today officer". (Smiles) changes the subject. "Did I do something wrong"? etc.

On the other hand cooperate if your not doing anything illegal (and you should know if you are or are within your rights). Otherwise, make damn sure your a professional BSer (like Bill Clinton) or a pathological liar (like me):)

I can imagine it now:
Citizen: "(Laughs out loud). I'm afraid I left my rocket launchers at home today officer".
LEO: Sir, are you trying to be a smart ***?
Citizen: No Sir.
LEO: Step out of the vehicle please.
*facepalm*

JimWest
06-20-2010, 7:20 AM
Remember, you must size up your opponent first and be good at it. If you aren't good at this stuff don't even try it. There are subtle signs the cop will pick up on to know you are faking something. When I see him exit his vehicle and approach, I can tell what I'm going to be dealing with. If you can't then you won't know what I'm talking about anyway. It's not possible to offer a blank ticket to these scenarios but I was just throwing one out there as an example. But by no means an exact, correct one for any given situation.
If you are not familiar with psych tactics then use a prop to change the environment such as an animal. Having a small capuchin monkey loose in the vehicle generally works marvelously.;)

ChuckBooty
06-20-2010, 8:11 AM
You guys are way off. Immediately explaining to the officer that you do not consent to any warrant-less searches does two things: Tells the officer that you're well aware of YOUR rights and HIS limitations, and covers you if the officer DOES conduct an illegal search (IE without probable cause). Remember, being pulled over for a traffic violation does NOT constitute probable cause to search you or your vehicle. So if the officer gets too "curious" and searches the vehicle illegally, you've got yourself a civil right violation and a nice law suit.

joedogboy
06-20-2010, 10:13 AM
Halfway through the audio the mayor referred to common folk as "Civilians."

This is my semantic kryptonite. The police are "civilians" too.


Exactly - the police are part of the civil authorities (except for military police, of course), so are civilians - just as all non-military members are.

The misuse of the term "civilian" to refer to a CITIZEN is a subtle way of encroaching on the rights of the citizen, since everyone knows that citizens have rights.

joedogboy
06-20-2010, 10:22 AM
You have completely misapplied Gant.... GANT WAS ARRESTED.... IN CUFFS. That cut off the right to conduct the search.... This guy was NEVER IN CUFFS.... NEVER IN THE BACK OF A CAR. He could have run to the car and grabbed the gun at any time.

This citizen was also not arrested, so rulings that allow a search incident to arrest do not apply.

This was pure and simple harassment of a citizen and a violation of his 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th amendment rights.

He was targeted for detention and harassment because he had a bumper sticker that promotes a safe and legal activity (1st), he was targeted because he was suspected to be a law abiding gun owner (2nd), his vehicle was entered and searched without consent, warrant, or good cause (4th), and other motorists were not subject to the same harassment as he was (14th).

bohoki
06-20-2010, 10:28 AM
hmm this is why disco stu doesn't advertise

i guess bumper stickers does give probable cause

so all the potleaf stickers should invite a search as well

joedogboy
06-20-2010, 10:30 AM
I understand the frustration hearing that term used improperly, but what term are we supposed to use when refering to people who are not LE or .mil?

Citizens is the proper word - if they indeed are citizens. There are other terms that are appropriate for those who aren't citizens, depending on their status.

A LEO or government functionary calling someone a "civilian" and pretending that LEOs are not civilians is a subtle "tell" that the LEO/functionary does not believe that they are subject to civil law, and gives probable cause to suspect that they are casual violators of civil rights - certainly more probable cause than a pro 2a bumper sticker gives that the vehicle operator is both armed and a threat to the LEO pulling them over.

Seesm
06-20-2010, 10:36 AM
Guy did a illegal turn right? So he is a NOT a criminal nor should a gun sticker make you a target IMHO anyway... Seems bogus...

joedogboy
06-20-2010, 10:45 AM
LA allows for open carry of loaded handguns, no CCW needed.

That's how they roll in Free America. ;)

When I lived in KY, you could carry a loaded handgun in your glove box (may have needed a lock - I can't recall at this point), and I did so on longer trips. I was careful to keep my registration and insurance clipped to my visor, to avoid any accidental misunderstandings.

joedogboy
06-20-2010, 10:53 AM
pay attention, obey all traffic and vehicle code laws, don't make yourself an easy target.

It is only alleged that the motorist failed to use his turn signal. It is arguable that, since the cop was focusing on the bumper stickers, he was unable to pay attention to the turn signal.

Also, the story doesn't explain how he came to be outside of his vehicle. If the officer told him to exit the vehicle and move to the rear bumper, then the officer had already take steps to protect himself from any weapons in the truck.

Of course, if the motorist jumped out of his truck and advanced "menacingly" on the patrol car, the officer may have been justified in being afraid.

USAFTS
06-20-2010, 11:57 AM
I'm having a hard time with a bumpersticker being satisfactory PC for a Terry search of the vehicle.

I have a San Diego Chargers sticker in my back window. Does this give a patrol officer the PC necessary to search my vehicle, just in case I may have Darren Sproles in my trunk?

If I am at the bank drive-through and I happen to be wearing my camo jacket, I surely must be there to rob the place.

I am afraid this just goes back to "officer safety" being used as a catch-all excuse for a fishing trip. (NO... I am NOT bashing LE) It is the policies, not the people, that I take issue with.

advocatusdiaboli
06-20-2010, 12:52 PM
The officer pulls him over says "Do you have a gun?" The driver says "Yes" The officer says "where is it?" He takes it and at the end of the stop he returns it to the driver and he goes on his way. Where is the violation of his rights?

No Court ANYWHERE, EVER is going to say the Second Amendment prevents the police from temporarily disarming a criminal suspect during a lawful investigation.

The LEO didn't fell like getting shot that day, the bumper stickers gave the LEO the impression that his stop might escalate into armed resistance if things became testy, so he just "made safe" the firearm, and I don't blame him. He didn't confiscate it, he didn't arrest the driver, and he returned the firearm. I don't see this as a big deal. heck in CA, that would have been illegal loaded carry and the driver would be in jail now. I think the LEO was rather calm and collected compared to shat I imagine the SF or SJ PD would be like.

Mstrty
06-20-2010, 5:46 PM
This is an interview from June of 2009 shortly after the incedent happened.
Tom Gresham (Radio Host) also contacted the Mayor himself (If I recall correctly) to get a explanation of the Mayors comments. Great audio. I love this guy.

Listen Here (http://traffic.libsyn.com/guntalk/090614guntalkA.mp3)

Bill Jackson
06-21-2010, 12:10 PM
I am afraid this just goes back to "officer safety" being used as a catch-all excuse for a fishing trip. (NO... I am NOT bashing LE) It is the policies, not the people, that I take issue with.

Exactly right. If things are so bad that LE is afraid of traffic stops, I'll take my tickets "FasTrak style", through the mail, thank you very much.

CharAznable
06-21-2010, 1:33 PM
While this should never happen...it's also a good lesson for not having stickers on your car. Why give anyone the idea that you may be armed?