Reasonable Suspicion/Reasonable Cause

[Guest tlondon]

dude i was one of the ones defending all of our rights so I know about freedoms not being free but respecting an LEO request to have a look at your car is not a problem to me. For one I am glad he/she is out on the street trying to make a difference in the community. I know a lot of officers that have found good "busts" by just asking if they can look. Like I said if you aint hiding anything why worry. We will have to just agree to disagree.

[Guest rj8806]

Giving away freedoms always gets me going. Just look at us now we have to ask the gov' to be able to carry a gun.......... what else would you like taken from you? Men and Women have died for your rights that you take for granted. Thats the harm in letting somthing go, because its the easy way out.

Coming from a non-military man. I'd suggest you tone it down as I am honorably dis-charged and a Desert Storm Vet and agree whole heartedly with tlondon. WE fought for you to have these rights, you didn't, but you do enjoy the fruits of OUR labor. He is right IMO, if you've got nothing to hide from a LEO, then you dam well let him have a look and not make it hard on yourself or him.:mad:

Richard

[dariks]

Coming from a non-military man. I'd suggest you tone it down as I am honorably dis-charged and a Desert Storm Vet and agree whole heartedly with tlondon. WE fought for you to have these rights, you didn't, but you do enjoy the fruits of OUR labor. He is right IMO, if you've got nothing to hide from a LEO, then you dam well let him have a look and not make it hard on yourself or him.:mad::mad:

Richard

There's something wrong with this statement, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

[Guest betobeto]

Coming from a non-military man. I'd suggest you tone it down as I am honorably dis-charged and a Desert Storm Vet and agree whole heartedly with tlondon. WE fought for you to have these rights, you didn't, but you do enjoy the fruits of OUR labor. He is right IMO, if you've got nothing to hide from a LEO, then you dam well let him have a look and not make it hard on yourself or him.:mad:

Richard

And thank you for your service to our country.

It doesn't matter if you are clean as a wistle its your right to protect. And just so YOU know its not only the duty of the military men and women to protect OUR rights, Its all americans job! I've met pleanty of honoraly dis-charded people that have't a clue when it comes to US history and why we have that right. All Im saying is that its your right to decline being searched:mad::mad::mad:

[Guest rj8806]

And thank you for your service to our country.

It doesn't matter if you are clean as a wistle its your right to protect. And just so YOU know its not only the duty of the military man and women to protect OUR rights, Its all americans job! I've met pleanty of honoraly dis-charded people that have't a clue when it comes to US history and why we have that right. All Im saying is that its your right to decline being searched:mad::mad::mad:

yes it is your right, but unless you just stamped out a joint or polished off a beer, or something else illegal, why would you? just because you can? That's ignorant. The LEO is doing his job and you want to make it hard on him(and yourself) just because you can. Beautiful...... this is why I have no faith in this generation.

[einnor1040]

The "shut up" comment would have went over well with me.

[Guest rj8806]

There's something wrong with this statement, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Please....do tell.....?

Richard

[Guest rj8806]

The "shut up" comment would have went over well with me.

I don't recall saying that to anyone? Where was that?

[Guest mw.]

I don't recall saying that to anyone? Where was that?

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showpost.php?p=110671&postcount=1

[einnor1040]

I don't recall saying that to anyone? Where was that?

Read the first post. You didn't say it. The fine ossifer did.

[Guest Revelator]

To refuse a search just because I can is good enough for me. I don't see any ignorance in that whatsoever. I don't think the founding fathers would either, seeing as how they wrote the Fourth Amendment and all. And they would know, having lived under the tyranny of the British. I'd rather not go back to that kind of government, and if a police officer doesn't understand that then shame on them.

[dariks]

Please....do tell.....?

Richard

1) The implication that since he didn't serve in the military his opinion is somehow of less importance than your own and he is somehow a second class citizen. And That since you did serve you automatically know what is best.

2) Why do you assume that he would be making it hard on the officer? Is is not equally true that the officer is making it hard on him for no apparent reason?

[Smith]

Part of the problem is LE want to be respected as their positions require it and non-LE want to be respected as free individuals with a presumption of innocence. The very nature of these encounters tend to create tension. LE is looking for evidence of malfeasance and non-LE is wondering why they are looking at him.

So which comes first? The Chicken or the egg?

Edited June 4, 2008 by Smith

[Guest canynracer]

Bahhh, I just reread the title to the thread.....Time to go home, my brain is dead!

Hmmm....so not much changed huh??? hehehehehhee

[memphismason]

To refuse a search just because I can is good enough for me. I don't see any ignorance in that whatsoever. I don't think the founding fathers would either, seeing as how they wrote the Fourth Amendment and all. And they would know, having lived under the tyranny of the British. I'd rather not go back to that kind of government, and if a police officer doesn't understand that then shame on them.

I agree

[Smith]

Coming from a non-military man. I'd suggest you tone it down as I am honorably dis-charged and a Desert Storm Vet and agree whole heartedly with tlondon. WE fought for you to have these rights, you didn't, but you do enjoy the fruits of OUR labor. He is right IMO, if you've got nothing to hide from a LEO, then you dam well let him have a look and not make it hard on yourself or him.:mad::mad:

Richard

While I know where you are coming from, for the sake of discussion I will ask. Who exactly qualifies as one of the "WE" and "OUR labor" part. Is it only the point of the spear? What about support personnel? What about civilian support personnel? Government support? government support staff? I think you can see where this goes. You can't do what you did with out all of these and we can't do what we do without you. It is a symbiotic relationship we often forget. Especially if you're a Democrat!

To say that only point of spear infantry have fought for rights and "fruit of OUR labor", misses the very concept of a free society. In essence all Americans have and are fighting for our freedom. Do those who fund the soldier have any less invested in victory or defeat?

[Guest db99wj]

Hmmm....so not much changed huh??? hehehehehhee

[saintsfanbrian]

The officer had no reason or probable cause based on the owner of the vehicle having a firearm and a permit. This is why there was no reason to bring the permit or the pistol in to question until necessary. When the officer runs the DL he will find out if the person has a permit. At that time he can ask the person for their permit and the person must show it. The individual still does not have to state that they are armed.

[Punisher84]

. Beautiful...... this is why I have no faith in this generation.

Why does everyone think my generation is ruining the world? I by far don't think we are the best, but I can't say we are the worst. I was an Army man myself and I'm about to be a police officer. I've debated similar topics before and I can see both points. Really what it boils down to is probable cause. If it's good enough, it will withstand. If it's not, well, "Have a nice night Sir."

[Guest rj8806]

While I know where you are coming from, for the sake of discussion I will ask. Who exactly qualifies as one of the "WE" and "OUR labor" part. Is it only the point of the spear? What about support personnel? What about civilian support personnel? Government support? government support staff? I think you can see where this goes. You can't do what you did with out all of these and we can't do what we do without you. It is a symbiotic relationship we often forget. Especially if you're a Democrat!

To say that only point of spear infantry have fought for rights and "fruit of OUR labor", misses the very concept of a free society. In essence all Americans have and are fighting for our freedom. Do those who fund the soldier have any less invested in victory or defeat?

I, in no way, singled out the non combative support personel. I did try to single out anyone who never served in any form or fashion and thinks they have the "right" to refuse a LEO the opportunity to look in their vehicle.

Maybe my post came across wrong and maybe I stepped on toes but correct me if I am wrong.... The poster said what gets him riled up is someone who "gives away" their rights so easily. My point was since he never served in any fashion and is only enjoying the fruits of OUR labor(and by OUR, I mean anyone who served in any fashion in any branch), he should not refuse a LEO the chance to search his car if he (the LEO) feels like he needs to.

I have been pulled over twice since acquiring my HCP and both times, I presented my drivers license and HCP card and then stepped out of the car and allowed him to have a look. I have nothing to hide. Maybe he does illegal activities while in his car and for that, doesn't want to get busted? I don't know, but for someone who never served to go off on a rant about his/her rights, when all they did to get those rights was pop out of their momma, is just wrong.

That's what gets me riled up.

Richard

Edited June 4, 2008 by rj8806

[Guest rj8806]

1) The implication that since he didn't serve in the military his opinion is somehow of less importance than your own and he is somehow a second class citizen. And That since you did serve you automatically know what is best.

2) Why do you assume that he would be making it hard on the officer? Is is not equally true that the officer is making it hard on him for no apparent reason?

1. I was not trying to imply that someone who did not serve should have no opinion or that my opinion is better than theirs. If that's the way you or everyone else took it, then I can't help that. re-read my post above for clarification.

2. I assume that he is making it hard on the officer because he is. The officer is trying to do his job, feels the need to search the car and unless you have something to hide, then let him.

[Fallguy]

Richard...I think you are really off on a few things.

To me you did imply that those that have not served have no say so in how their right are used or abused.

It is not an officers job to search a vehicle that he is no probable cause to think anything illegal is in.

[Guest rj8806]

Richard...I think you are really off on a few things.

To me you did imply that those that have not served have no say so in how their right are used or abused.

It is not an officers job to search a vehicle that he is no probable cause to think anything illegal is in.

I was not implying that when I typed it and therefore tried to clarify it in the above post. IMO, if the officer is asking to search the car, then he has probable cause and no one has the right to refuse him. That's just how I see it.

[Guest kwikrnu]

I, in no way, singled out the non combative support personel. I did try to single out anyone who never served in any form or fashion and thinks they have the "right" to refuse a LEO the opportunity to look in their vehicle.

Maybe my post came across wrong and maybe I stepped on toes but correct me if I am wrong.... The poster said what gets him riled up is someone who "gives away" their rights so easily. My point was since he never served in any fashion and is only enjoying the fruits of OUR labor(and by OUR, I mean anyone who served in any fashion in any branch), he should not refuse a LEO the chance to search his car if he (the LEO) feels like he needs to.

I have been pulled over twice since acquiring my HCP and both times, I presented my drivers license and HCP card and then stepped out of the car and allowed him to have a look. I have nothing to hide. Maybe he does illegal activities while in his car and for that, doesn't want to get busted? I don't know, but for someone who never served to go off on a rant about his/her rights, when all they did to get those rights was pop out of their momma, is just wrong.

That's what gets me riled up.

Richard

The way I see it joining the military or being a law enforcement officer is a job. They get paid for their service and that is all they should get.

If we decide we don't want cops stepping on our rights then we should refuse searches and refuse to answer questions besides identifying ourselves.

[Guest bkelm18]

I'm with Fallguy on this RJ. Your post(s) did seem awful high and mighty. He has as much of a right to exercise his freedoms as you. Just because someone chose not to enter military service doesn't mean they can't voice their opinions on their freedoms and it irritates me very much when a service member thinks they are better or somehow more qualified to voice their opinions on how to exercise our rights (thats exactly how your posts sounded). This isn't a YOU or THEY situation. Its an US situation.