Would you stop someone riding a bicycle with a rifle case?

[SoCalDep]

Read my comment again...I said nothing about "walked away" and the F Off was only part of the issue.

Telling a cop to F Off is not, in itself, grounds for detention. That, combined with other actions and the presence of a firearm case (as was explained in the initial post) can provide reasonable suspicion. PC is not needed to detain.

This is why I get frustrated. My words get manipulated by others so that a straw-man argument can be initiated. Let's all be intellectually honest and argue what is actually said as opposed to assumptions of facts not in evidence.

I said I was done and I should probably keep my mouth shut but I'm getting tired of people twisting my words.

[SoCalDep]

If the person were to stop (or not move on any faster than he/she was going) and talk to me, without consenting to a search or otherwise creating suspicion, then I wouldn't be comfortable detaining them.

From my post #34 in this thread....I explicitly state that if the person simply walked away I wouldn't feel comfortable detaining them. I stated exactly opposite what you accused me of saying.

If you look a little higher in the post, I stated that I would detain if the person "takes off"....While I may not have made myself perfectly clear in that statement, I feel the statement quoted below makes it very clear that I did not intend the words "takes off" to mean walks away. In fact, I can't figure out how you would interpret that out of my post.

[kermit315]

Telling a cop to F Off is not, in itself, grounds for detention. That, combined with other actions and the presence of a firearm case (as was explained in the initial post) can provide reasonable suspicion. PC is not needed to detain.

So, which other actions are you speaking of?

[SoCalDep]

Read the thread. Already discussed...(Hint...I put the post number in my above reply)

[chuckles48]

The answer to your question was practically the entirety of my posts...In fact, the quote you used was part of my answer to that question. I'm sorry, but I've gone around in circles numerous times in this thread. It's out of hand now and I'm done.

My apologies then. From my perusal of the thread, it looked like it drifted _quickly_ away from the "is it loaded" check, into different territory - which is why I re-asked the original question.

I'll see if I can tease out an understanding from your other posts.

[SJgunguy24]

So, which other actions are you speaking of?

The action SoCalDep is speaking of is, me riding a bicycle.
I have what is very clearly a rifle case. He stops and says "hey hows it going, hey what do you have in that case?"
I tell him to perform a lewd act on himself, and attempt to ride away.

He suspects I may have a firearm in that case, couple that with a bad attitude
and trying to avoid even talking to him....suspicious to say the least.

In my situation, if a cop asks me what's in the case i'm gona tell him what it is.
Flip on my recorder and see what happens. If I get run in for not breaking any laws believe me you will all hear about it. If i'm sent on my merry way, you'll hear abouit that as well.

I understand that our constitutional rights are what make this country great, unfortunatlly they are being taken away for reasone of "public safety" and thats B.S.
I also understand the job of a police officer/LEO and they want to see WTF your doing riding around with a gun.
They most likely have a family and want to see them at the end of their shift. LEO's are trained to be in charge, control is job 1. They must be in control of all variables so things don't get out of hand. If they do, they maybe killed or have to kill.
Neither of which is will end up well. Thats where the street smarts and experiance counts.

[kermit315]

To be honest, we're all operating in a grey area here. It could be argued either way and could end up in some state or federal supreme court making new law. Some cops may feel they can articulate that a person riding in public with a rifle case is such an abnormal act that it justifies an investigative detention. I doubt this would be the case in many other states, but here, they might be able to make it fly in court, and that's what the real "gist" of the matter is. Personally, I want something more than someone riding down the street with a rifle in a case. I would probably talk to them, but on the facts presented alone, I wouldn't necessarily detain them.

Now, if I stop my car, not blocking the person's path, and say "hey, what's goin' on?" and the guy says "F-You!" and takes off....We're going to have a big show and he's going to see a view of a Sig P226 he doesn't want to see... I can justify a detention at this point. The unusual situation (rifle-case toting bike riders are just not that common...) combined with his aggressive language and attempt to leave as if to avoid discovery of what he/she may be carrying leads me to believe, based on my training and experience, that the person may be involved in criminal activity. If the person were to stop (or not move on any faster than he/she was going) and talk to me, without consenting to a search or otherwise creating suspicion, then I wouldn't be comfortable detaining them.

I would love to be able to say that in any circumstance (given the facts above) if someone did A, B, and C, they wouldn't be detained, but each officer has different training and experience, and there are so many variables that a detention could legally occur.

This is why people go to school for three years to wade through the pile of steaming cow turd that is the law. I used to have fun in law class because they'd assign us an issue, and also a side to argue. It's amazing what you can argue when morality isn't a part of it. Since we all have different perspectives of morality, much of it comes down to how well we argue and to whom we are arguing. (9th Circuit???)

Read the thread. Already discussed...(Hint...I put the post number in my above reply)

Oh, so you are basically saying that you would make a knee jerk reaction based on your experience for something thats lawful.

Guess what, some people dont like cops, and dont want to be near them. Some people have been screwed over by cops, and dont want to afford ANY cop that opportunity to do it again, so telling a cop to F off and hauling *** might not be as unreasonable as you would like to paint it as being.

So, what other actions would result in you pulling your Sig?

[SoCalDep]

Excellent argument...I guess I'm just a knee-jerk reacting rights violator. Thank you for making such an educated argument that I will forget all my legal research and agree with you.

[kermit315]

no problem.

[camsoup]

Yes, the freeway stop would be legitimate, to perform the 12031(e) check.

In this scenario would you request DL, Insurance and Registration?




What if it was a motorcycle riding on the street with a rifle case, would you still initiate a vehicle stop?

[inbox485]

In this scenario would you request DL, Insurance and Registration?

What if it was a motorcycle riding on the street with a rifle case, would you still initiate a vehicle stop?

DL, insurance and registration are all fair game in any traffic stop. I'd be curious to see if 12031e would be a justifiable stop however. Aside from being blatantly against the constitution which officers are sworn to uphold, there are certain moving violations considered minor enough that a stop for that violation alone isn't justifiable. Since having a gun in of itself isn't a violation at all, I don't see how it is justified if a stop is necessary.

[retired]

This thread has served its purpose and has migrated away from the OP's original scenario; it's done.