Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stories of traffic stops and leagal firearms..

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by dboogie2288 View Post
    [edit]

    ah hell. I'm going to go ahead and be the bigger man here. He's obviously one upped me with his oh-so-superior title and ability to make traffic stops.


    oops, almost forgot.
    [/sarcasm]
    Let me know how yours turn out when you start doing them....
    Pay attention to the title of the thread that YOU created, TRAFFIC STOPS and legal firearms.
    Last edited by CityCopDC; 12-26-2007, 10:09 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by grog18b View Post
      I fully agree with the rest of your post, but you seemed to get pretty offended when some of the brotherhood offered their comments. As a personal observation, you seem to have big problems with anyone offering differing opinions. and take them quite personally.
      This is the internet. If I was offended by something, I would say it. I dont agree with the way you do some things, and you dont agree with the way I do some things. The "brotherhood" can disagree with me or agree with me all day. It allows you to look at varying takes on different scenarios and thats cool. Whats not cool is in effect a person who has never initiated or peformed a traffic stop offering their slick remarks on how I peform mine. Kinda hypocritcal when you think about it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by CityCopDC View Post
        Let me know how yours turn out when you start doing them....
        Pay attention to the title of the thread that YOU created, TRAFFIC STOPS and legal firearms.
        Yeah I know the thread I created. You chose in submit your responses, which officially have ZERO interest since [as you say] citizens cannot carry in DC. So, your responses are completely off topic if you want to be the forum-cop. You also spoke of stopping LEO's, nope, not about that either...so what would you say that you have added that was on topic? Eh?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CityCopDC View Post
          Whats not cool is in effect a person who has never initiated or peformed a traffic stop offering their slick remarks on how I peform mine. Kinda hypocritcal when you think about it.
          Ahh that's ironic, you speaking about hypocrites. You dont know me. You dont know ANY of my background, and lastly, you have no idea how many traffic stops I may or may not have performed. I guess ignorance is bliss.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by dboogie2288 View Post
            Ahh that's ironic, you speaking about hypocrites. You dont know me. You dont know ANY of my background, and lastly, you have no idea how many traffic stops I may or may not have performed. I guess ignorance is bliss.
            Fair enough, however what is KNOWN NOW is that your not a sworn leo. With that said you still cant criticize me for what I do as RIGHT NOW your not in a position to, atleast not on this forum. Your in the law enforcement industry, then again, so are probation officers. Ignorance is bliss and I look forward to hearing about the prior LE career you MAY or MAY NOT have had....

            Comment


            • Our training for off duty/soft clothes situations is pretty simple: Whatever the uniformed on duty officer says you do. Would I be thrilled to be cuffed by CityCopDC, no but I wouldn't resist or mouth-off either. A few years ago one of our officers, off duty, arrested a city cop for rape. When the uniforms showed up, they put our officer in cuffs, because he was armed, until they verified his ID. Did they need to do that, probably not but they were in charge at that point. That is the crux of this question. The on-duty officer must be obeyed and his policy controls.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                Our training for off duty/soft clothes situations is pretty simple: Whatever the uniformed on duty officer says you do. Would I be thrilled to be cuffed by CityCopDC, no but I wouldn't resist or mouth-off either. A few years ago one of our officers, off duty, arrested a city cop for rape. When the uniforms showed up, they put our officer in cuffs, because he was armed, until they verified his ID. Did they need to do that, probably not but they were in charge at that point. That is the crux of this question. The on-duty officer must be obeyed and his policy controls.
                And again, thats my only point.

                Comment


                • Because the category is "Ask a Cop" I understand the question to be confined to what a police officer would do when stopping a non-officer who is carrying a firearm. The responses differ greatly because different states have very different laws about whether and under what circumstances a non-officer may carry a firearm. States also have different laws about whether a permit-holder who is stopped is required to notify the officer that he is carrying a weapon. Beyond that, what the officer will do will depend on all the circumstances, including the reason for the stop and the behavior of the person stopped.
                  Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                  Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • I'm kinda bored, i'd like to see this one kick off again........'ding'..'ding'
                    http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member1572.png
                    You mean I get to have a gun AND handcuffs....how could this get any better?

                    as seen on www.berettaforum.net

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bearcat357 View Post
                      First time a couple of thugs were popped by law abiding citizens.....crap would stop.....but that's just my opinion.....
                      Off topic for just a second...but, that's actually been happening quite a bit lately around my neck of the woods...we've had at least 3 robbery victims actually shoot and/or kill their respective robbers in just the last few months! Unfortunately, "crap hasn't stopped". Don't get me wrong--I think every victim who kills their attacker should get a fvcking medal. But unless virtually every citizen was armed, I don't think the occasional dead suspect is much of a deterrant.
                      Aggression will save you when caution won't.
                      -Kent Anderson

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dave2886 View Post
                        Off topic for just a second...but, that's actually been happening quite a bit lately around my neck of the woods...we've had at least 3 robbery victims actually shoot and/or kill their respective robbers in just the last few months! Unfortunately, "crap hasn't stopped". Don't get me wrong--I think every victim who kills their attacker should get a fvcking medal. But unless virtually every citizen was armed, I don't think the occasional dead suspect is much of a deterrant.
                        I tend to disagree with you. It is common knowledge that states with many armed citizens tend to have less violent crime. Many criminals are terrified of an armed citizen because they know they WILL shoot them. There biggest hope is that they (the citizen) are unarmed. I also believe the trend of people defending themselves with deadly force is becoming more common place. The "crap" will never completely stop. But as deadly defense becomes more common I honestly believe you will see a drop in violent crime. Perhaps an increase in property crimes but these crack heads, even in their drug induced stupor, will start avoiding the confrontation type crimes. I think and I hope!
                        "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by j706 View Post
                          I tend to disagree with you. It is common knowledge that states with many armed citizens tend to have less violent crime. Many criminals are terrified of an armed citizen because they know they WILL shoot them. There biggest hope is that they (the citizen) are unarmed. I also believe the trend of people defending themselves with deadly force is becoming more common place. The "crap" will never completely stop. But as deadly defense becomes more common I honestly believe you will see a drop in violent crime. Perhaps an increase in property crimes but these crack heads, even in their drug induced stupor, will start avoiding the confrontation type crimes. I think and I hope!
                          First off, sir, I am a big fan of law-abiding citizens RESPONSIBLY carrying weapons. And I do believe that IN THEORY, if A GREAT MANY people were routinely armed in public, violent crime would go down. What I was saying in my above post is that where I work, there is just as much violent crime now, even though we've had several highly publicized incidents here lately where the would-be robber was shot and/or killed by their intended victims. My main point is, in order for an armed citizenry to have a real impact on violent crime, there has to be a very high likelihood in the mind of the criminal that "everyone" is carrying.

                          Furthermore, I would like to point out to you that while the Southeast has probably the highest number of "will-issue" states, regarding CCW permits, the Southeast is also the dealiest region of the country as far as LEO's killed by gunfire. Also, if you look at the FBI's crime stats, I believe it's right up there in homicides and assault with deadly weapon incidents for everyone, not just LEO's. Please show me the statistics that support your "common knowledge that states with many armed citizens tend to have less violent crime."

                          Again, the theory that an armed society is a polite society IS SOUND. However, the problem is that there just aren't enough people actually carrying legal firearms to impact crime in a meaningful way. The other problem is that most violent gun crime occurrs in lower income areas of cities, where a lot of people can't or don't get CCW permits, therefore the criminals know that as long as they stick to certain areas, there is a much lower likelihood of encountering an armed citizen. Of course, in rural areas where just about everyone is armed, of course there is much lower crime. But I would submit that the reason there is lower crime out in the sticks is mostly due to the fact that most would-be robbers know they would stick out like a sore thumb if they went out to the boonies to start robbing people. And yes, they may also fear all the good 'ole boys with rifles in the back window of their trucks, but I believe that would be a secondary factor, not the primary factor in the low crime in our rural areas.

                          But by all means, I applaud anyone who legally carries a firearm and uses it to defend themselves from a criminal. Maybe if we see a drastic increase in victims killing their attackers, it actually will have an impact on crime, but as of right now, neither my personal knowledge at my agency, or the crime stats support the idea that crime is directly impacted by CCW holders.
                          Aggression will save you when caution won't.
                          -Kent Anderson

                          Comment


                          • Crime stats mean nothing to me.

                            I don't carry to bring crime stats down. I carry for one purpose, and that is to have the ability to defend myself, and my family. Since it is no one else's responsibility to protect me, or them, I choose to take the RESPONSIBILITY for it upon myself. I am confident in my abilities to be able to defend. Does that mean I will never be the victim of crime? No. Does that mean it will keep someone from attacking me? Nope. Stats don't mean a darned thing. I can come up with stats to prove anything, or disprove anything. The bottom line is, I have a right to bear arms, if I choose to exercise it. So do the rest of the population, if they choose to.

                            The reason I have that right is, everyone has a basic right of self protection. If I choose not to roll over on my back and quiver in a crying heap when confronted by a criminal, that is my right. If someone chooses to be a victim, that is their choice. I choose not to be. I am the sheepdog, and will continue to be armed, and protect myself and my family. (Because no one else will.) GROG
                            As far as "rights" are concerned; I look at them this way... I don't tell you what church to go to, and you don't tell me what kind of firearm I can own...

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 4758 users online. 286 members and 4472 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X