Posted on 04/12/2021 6:17:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
IT still blows my mind that I worked with someone (older) who told me that bringing a gun to high school in North Carolina WAS REQUIRED as part of PE class when he was growing up. Where he lived, there was a real purpose to this; if you could hunt and shoot, you would never starve.
Number of incidents/accidents with injuries that happened while he was growing up there: 0.0.
What the heck happened to us?
I hate to break this to you, but the rights of members of the Armed Forces who are subject to the UCMJ are circumscribed by that document and by military regulation, ironically to include the RKBAs.
The armed forces are chock full of base Commanding Officers who require privately owned firearms to be stored in the company arms room or in another approved facility. They even go so far as to prescribe regulations involving your carry OFF post. (Although I admit that I don’t know what specific regulations may or not have applied in his case through his chain of command.)
Civilians have the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Try telling that to your company commander who has scheduled a surprise inspection. Try being insubordinate to the point of court martial and consider yourself lucky to avoid the stockade or brig, to say nothing of walking off the job. These offenses could get you fired in civvy life, but in the service they carry the possibility of a prison term or an Article 15 as well.
When I was on combat duty in a combat theatre, I was ordered to keep my issued weapon at all times, wherever I went. When they ordered me to turn it in, I had to revert to the rules set up by the base commander. That is the nature of the beast. I don’t like it, but if you are subject to the UCMJ, then your rights do not follow directly from the constitution. They come from the UCMJ, and those regulations pertaining to the armed forces promulgated by Congress.
“Hm...how do we solve this problem? One way: if you get stopped by law enforcement, COMPLY. Do not be a smart mouth. Do not resist. Do not swear at the officers. Simply COMPLY. It really is that easy.”
This is generally good advice, but it is true that police have been known to plant thing into cars while conducting a search or “smell something” which will result in your car being ripped to pieces while being made unavailable for several days. This does tend to happen to “some kinds” of people more than others. That is not right, period.
Yes, it’s “a few bad apples”, but everyone seems to forget the second part of that cliche’.
I know you wish one of the awful cops had been shot by your most recent hero....maybe next time.....oh! Local Dallas news still has the video up of a Trooper getting murdered by a heroic, special drug dealer! With a concealed gun from his truck. Won’t totally fit your narrative, though. The Trooper had stopped for a motorist assist....not a dastardly and unnecessary evil traffic stop. 😣
Sure 🙄
Why in the world do so many minority people think they can blatantly flout the rules and laws?
.
.
Because they can??
I don't know about the Army, but in the Air Force you have to really screw up to not get promoted to first lieutenant after about a year. I foresee four years of second lieutenant in Nazario's future.
Saw/heard the vid yeaterday.
The backup officer radioed that he was responding to a Felony Stop.
A person driving to a well lit area is not justification to escalate the contact to a Felony Stop.
Second note about Comply, years ago I and 15 year old daughter rolled into a DWI check point in Dalworthington Gardens (Texas y'all).
There was a hand painting sign stating to have license & registration at ready.
I did not COMPLY though daughter thought I should.
Rolled up to the LEO and rolled down my window. He was irritated that I did not have papers ready.
I told him I was not taking my seatbelt off until I was in his view.
Cop had a expression on his face that he was "caught".
They wanted people to have their seatbelt off so they could cite a violation.
Daughter learned a good lesson, she said.
I called the Dalworthington Gardens city hall the next day and asked "How did last night's fund raiser go?"
Guy said "Great". Lots of citations and towed vehicles.
Freeptarders and cop haters pounced.... I am not saying the one cop was over the top but obviously society has learned nothing from taking video clips and running with emotion.
Again! It was your negative comment about Free Republic. Try reading
Very often those regulations are with the intention of preventing suicides. Single military in particular face restrictions that married ones in base housing don't. I've seen the same at firing ranges that rent weapons - they won't rent to individuals who arrive alone but will rent to accompanied individuals.
There’s something up with this lieutenant. That facial hair is out of regs which points toward something else going on. If I stopped someone wearing BDUs with that facial hair, my first reaction would be that they’re an imposter.
Yes, but on those rare occasions where something like that happens, that needs to be sorted out afterwards. During the “confrontation,” it does absolutely no good to be uncooperative and belligerent.
You make me want to puke. I wouldn't want you in my foxhole, bar, or community.
A man, and specifically an American Man, should not have to lick the boots or bow down to another American man. I am serious. You say comply, a completely pathetic response.
Too many cops are on a power trip. And the good cops are complicit and let the bad cops get away with crap responses like this situation.
How could this have been prevented? Show some friggin' respect for another man. This started with a mere traffic stop, legal or not. The LEO (Law Enforcement Officer, a revenue producing agent of the State, not to be confused with the old designation PO, for Peace Officer, who kept the peace) makes a lot of stops. He knows the drill. Most people I know have never been pulled over by a LEO and don't know the drill. So the LEO jumped into the bully mode immediately it didn't go the way he wanted, with predictable results.
Why did this LEO, probably trying to compensate for his short d***, get so hostile? Why didn't he wait for the LT to stop, pull up behind the car, and casually open a conversation? Like, Hi Sir, I wished you had pulled over when I turned my lights on. Then he could listen respectfully to the LT to say he wanted stop in a lighted area. Now they are talking together, like PO's used to do. It would peacefully ended when the misunderstandings had been resolved.
Now for all you despicable LEO apologists with your bleatings about officer safety... If the LEO would show respect he wouldn't get into these dangerous situations. I have no concern whether he returns safely home or not, he is handsomely paid to take that risk and he volunteered for it.
Why do you thing his fellow Americans despise cops so much... Hmmm? Because there is NO situation that can be made better by the arrival of a LEO. Notice their all black costumes, shades on their brow, hands holding onto the straps of their bullet-proof vests, all straddle legged....This the stance of an insecure man taking a bully posture. Kharma works for all, and the LEO's deserved every bit of the hostility exhibited towards them. That thin blue line is what divides the police from their fellow man. They, the the police, worked for this and now they got it. It won't change until police work with the community. It worked before, it works in some community now, they have to make it work all over. If the LEO's don't want that, give up their fat paychecks and full pension after 20 years and get another job not dealing with the public. It is all about respect.
We do live in a police state. I think globalists are encouraging thugs and bullies to join police forces to create more tensions between the public and police. As the public loses respect for police, civil unrest and violence is more likely. Sure, it’s good advice for citizens to comply with almost all police orders but respect for authority isn’t improved by snide remarks and rough treatment. Professionalism is a better approach than goading in most cases.
What’s the response when there’s more violence, more police, more resentment and the cycle repeats.
Supposedly he traveled for a mile and did not stop but I'm sorry I simply would not believe that from officers that have demonstrated totally unprofessional and outright dangerous conduct.
This man probably save someones life by calling these cops out and getting them fired. These officers were destined to kill someone needlessly.
So comply and let these unhinged power drunk loons put you on the ground and beat the hell out you and maybe even kill you?
This man almost certainly saved someones life by calmly engaging these cops and showing they were in fact a serious danger to the public they were supposed to be serving.
The good news is the right people saw this correctly and promptly fired them. Now the next step should be a national database that prevents these ex cops from ever working in law enforcement in any capacity anywhere in the United States.
No beard; just bad lighting.
Let’s try to put ourselves in the officer’s mind set, please, for a moment.
Just the other day a routine traffic stop ended in the death of an officer when the “stopped motorist” grabbed his rifle from the truck and shot the officer.
An officer has no idea who is in the vehicle, (as evidenced by the video in which the driver was asked if there was anyone else in the vehicle-I suspect that at night with tinted windows it was hard to see inside for the officers).
The driver drove for more than a mile after lights and sirens,(not sure about the siren?), were activated. This would cause the officers to suspect the driver was attempting to avoid the traffic stop. Thus, once the driver stopped, the officers treated the stop as a potential felony stop, (remember, they have not seen the driver yet and do not know who he is. And being a “soldier” does not mean that they are not in potential physical danger.)
Almost from the jump the driver, who the officers still have no idea who he is, starts trying to argue with the officers about the reason for the stop and , in no uncertain terms, states that he will not comply with the lawful orders to exit the vehicle.
This would naturally cause an officer to suspect that this traffic stop may result in a arrest on an active warrant or result in some other type of physical altercation. The only thing they know for sure is that the driver will not follow orders and CLAIMS to be an Army Officer.
Only a fool takes the word of a stranger concerning his/her identity and why he/she is where they are or why they are acting with noncompliance.
Now, the weapon on the floor board is not immediately relevant except for the fact that it was in easy access to the driver. Not knowing it was there, (for the officers), makes its presence even more of a potential threat and it would have been discovered only upon the driver having exited the vehicle.
When I carried a gun for work, (P.I.), the one rule stressed by firearm license instructor was: when stopped by the police immediately announce that you have a gun in your possession and place your hands on the windshield until the officers instruct you to do otherwise. This advice was helpful during the many traffic stops I underwent with zero negative consequences. The officer would ask me where the gun was, (holstered on my right hip), and ask me to use my left hand to unholster it and carefully hand it to him. Next would be asking for my gun license and then my state P.I. license. Finally would come the questions about what I was doing in the area, or, mostly, why I was parked in that neighborhood. Then-have a nice day and thanks for your cooperation.
The driver in this incident did none of that He was argumentative from the get go, refused to follow instructions and failed to advise the officers of the presence of a gun in the vehicle.
From my perspective, the officers did not violate the driver’s rights. They took the facts that they knew at the time, (tinted windows which may/may not have made seeing the temporary registration hard to see, the refusal to stop the vehicle when the lights, (possibly siren), was activated, the driving for more than another mile, the refusal to exit the vehicle immediately upon being ordered to, the arguing about the nuances of traffic laws requiring his exiting the vehicle for a traffic violation, (which he had no idea exactly why the officers initially stopped him), and his continual refusal to exit the vehicle after numerous orders to do so. All of these actions by the driver kept escalating the encounter with the officers.
Again, until the officers had been able to identify the driver, confirm the vehicle was not stolen, that the vehicle did have a valid temporary registration and the lack of threat by the driver to the officers, they acted within prudent parameters, (conflicting orders included, which would not have occurred if the driver had immediately complied with the order to exit the vehicle).
Amen!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.