and?E.Marquez wrote:Again,, No, it tells the officer about the vehicle and the registered owner.. NOT the person sitting in the car.RogueUSMC wrote:My brother in law was pulled over. When he handed licenses and insurance to the officer, the officer said he didn't need proof of insurance as 'system' told him when he ran the plates who he was and whether the vehicle was insured or not. If that info is available, warrants should be also...
Search found 4 matches
Return to “Pulled over for speeding in Louisiana”
- Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:29 pm
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: Pulled over for speeding in Louisiana
- Replies: 63
- Views: 9736
Re: Pulled over for speeding in Louisiana
- Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:33 pm
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: Pulled over for speeding in Louisiana
- Replies: 63
- Views: 9736
Re: Pulled over for speeding in Louisiana
My brother in law was pulled over. When he handed licenses and insurance to the officer, the officer said he didn't need proof of insurance as 'system' told him when he ran the plates who he was and whether the vehicle was insured or not. If that info is available, warrants should be also...
- Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:46 pm
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: Pulled over for speeding in Louisiana
- Replies: 63
- Views: 9736
Re: Pulled over for speeding in Louisiana
^^this...SewTexas wrote:He should have known about any and all criminal history of the vehicle's owner before getting out of his own car. There was no reason to be nervous. If a cop is scared of a CHL holder he needs a new job.
- Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:19 am
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: Pulled over for speeding in Louisiana
- Replies: 63
- Views: 9736
Re: Pulled over for speeding in Louisiana
Personally, I think disarming me on a routine traffic stop is not reasonable if there is no reasonable suspicion of violent behavior. He is carrying for the same reason I am. Disarming me on a traffic stop is simply him asserting authority.
Way back before CHL, I always informed any LEO of a weapon in the vehicle on a traffic stop. Was it necessary? No. Did they appreciate my telling them? The vast majority of the time, they stated that they appreciated it. They never treated me like a criminal. They never even batted an eye...even considering I was only 16 or so at the time. These incidences were all in Texas. (I did it once in California and about lost control of my bodily functions when he drew on me before I even finished the sentence...I just marked it off as 'freakin' California')
Now that I have gone through the whole legal rigamarole in obtaining my license, I would consider it very insulting to be treated in such a way as the OP was.
The OP's narrative just irritates me. The officer not only (1) disarmed him, (when being armed was in full accordance with the law and the OP willfully disclosed, unsolicited, the fact that he was armed) (2) took the gun out of the owners sight, (3) demanded other than ordinary access to the vehicle under the auspices of returning the gun and (4) made it as hard as possible for the gun owner to return the gun to operating condition.
Why have we gotten to a point where a public servant can treat you like a criminal until they are satisfied that you are not? And how is causing irritation by making things as hard as possible considered preserving the peace? The more irritation you cause, the farther you move from 'peace' I would think. We have even gone from calling them 'peace officers' to 'law enforcement officers'...seems like a step down to me.
Don't take me to be 'anti-LEO' because I most definitely am not. All of the LEOs I know are some of the most decent, reasonable and honest men I have ever met. I know there are bad apples out there, but how is justifying them acceptable?
Way back before CHL, I always informed any LEO of a weapon in the vehicle on a traffic stop. Was it necessary? No. Did they appreciate my telling them? The vast majority of the time, they stated that they appreciated it. They never treated me like a criminal. They never even batted an eye...even considering I was only 16 or so at the time. These incidences were all in Texas. (I did it once in California and about lost control of my bodily functions when he drew on me before I even finished the sentence...I just marked it off as 'freakin' California')
Now that I have gone through the whole legal rigamarole in obtaining my license, I would consider it very insulting to be treated in such a way as the OP was.
The OP's narrative just irritates me. The officer not only (1) disarmed him, (when being armed was in full accordance with the law and the OP willfully disclosed, unsolicited, the fact that he was armed) (2) took the gun out of the owners sight, (3) demanded other than ordinary access to the vehicle under the auspices of returning the gun and (4) made it as hard as possible for the gun owner to return the gun to operating condition.
Why have we gotten to a point where a public servant can treat you like a criminal until they are satisfied that you are not? And how is causing irritation by making things as hard as possible considered preserving the peace? The more irritation you cause, the farther you move from 'peace' I would think. We have even gone from calling them 'peace officers' to 'law enforcement officers'...seems like a step down to me.
Don't take me to be 'anti-LEO' because I most definitely am not. All of the LEOs I know are some of the most decent, reasonable and honest men I have ever met. I know there are bad apples out there, but how is justifying them acceptable?