Traffic Stop Question

[ryan_j 0]

Lets just say i have discretion. What i may do if the guys is legit and just made an error may be different than someone.else

 

I am glad that you'd exercise discretion and I am sure you agree that not everyone would.

 

In the event of a traffic stop, my mission is mostly to get over with it quickly and with the least amount of charges. Because not consenting to a search and keeping my mouth shut achieves that, that's exactly what I do. It's nothing against you, it's not "LEO hatred" or anything. It's basic self preservation. Yes, I'm sure you are one of the good guys and not all cops are out to get people but as has been proven, there are cops who will arrest first and then let you sort it out in court. Nothing personal, just business.

[Handyman 5,682]

Lets just say i have discretion. What i may do if the guys is legit and just made an error may be different than someone.else

 

"Discretion"? So much for the big sign:

 

[Kingsoverqueens 10]

Say whatever you want..i dont care anymore. Lie, tell stories..read me.dr suess..i dont care anymore. I goot start resisting answering these threads. I feel like its the equivalent of repeatedly banging my head against the wall

I loved reading Dr. Suess to my kids. Such fun. You know what else was great...Thomas the Tank Engine. "He's a cheeky little engine." Loved that.

 

Then they grow up.

[Underdog 1,593]

So, how many citizens that are discussing this have had an encounter with a LEO when they were properly transporting their firearms to or from an eligible place and have been detained, the firearms confiscated, etc? How many LEOs out there have come across citizens in their stops and have discovered by some means, including disclosure from the person being stopped, and that have taken it, regardless, to the next level... Arrest, etc? Now, the answer might be a little skewed on this forum because many (not all) are more informed. So, in order to have a more realistic dialogue expand it to your friends and coworkers, etc.

 

The problem is that gun owners are guilty until they prove themselves innocent in this state, and its always in the back of their mind. Even when trying to do the right thing, transporting correctly, carrying out private sales, etc. there could always be some problem leading to an arrest or confiscation, etc., and there is mandatory jail time, everything is a felony, and the legal system beyond the LEOs is unfair. It can be lengthy, embarrassing, costly, damaging, etc. and citizens are always at the mercy of LEOs that may also be endeavoring to do the right thing, or they may have an agenda, lack experience, or may very well be uneducated on the law. And, either side, LEOS (or the citizens) might also be having a bad days that could further escalate this situation. A LEO might not like the way you look, etc., or he or she might be actually looking for someone that looks like you, and that could make a citizen a victim of these predatory gun laws. The power is all in the court of the law enforcement, and that is why a LEO has to be held to a higher standard. And, the aspiring law enforcement chiefs and other leaders are politically placed and largely agree the anti-Bill of Right's crowd. In addition, both LEOS and law-abiding citizens could also have prior experiences with each other which, although not related, could unduly nfluence the outcome.

 

And, in all of this there is serious potential jeopardy on the part of the citizen. And, LEOs are trained to be suspicious, to be apart from the citzens and no longer trained as a "peace officer" but rather "law enforcement" so you have "guilty until proven innocent" and "suspicious all the time" and an "us" and "them" mentality showing itself in sentiment on this and other forums. And, for the LEOs that do the right thing, they get embittered by the negative sentiment directed toward law enforcement.

[GRIZ 3,369]

I hope I am missing your point, but it sounds like you are implying that you haven't been 'screwed' over by police five times that means police aren't screwing anybody over. I'm fairly certain that isn't indicative of much of anything.

 

Thinking that all police do is think up ways to screw people isn't indicative of anything either.

 

Me? Never. My last official contact with LEO was a tailight out in the late 80's. (It is a little curious that most of the people that I regarded to be jackasses in high school have gone into law enforcement, though.)

 

My "unoffical" contact with LEOs is 30 years in the emergency services, hanging essentially daily with dozens of them and hearing about the antics they are frequently up to. For example, based on the curriculum in the state police academy, it seems like recruits were at one point indoctrinated into thinking that everyone is bascially a criminal if you look hard enough and LEOs are the only thing preventing the utter downfall of society.

 

I know good cops, bad cops, smart cops, dumb cops and lazy cops. I know that great cops have bad days. But unless something is radically changing, LEO culture is not about "protect and serve." Perhaps it never was.

 

I'm glad you never were screwed over by police.

 

I can assure you all LEOs were not high school jackasses.

 

I really can't comment on "antics" as you weren't specific enough.

 

The "them and us" mentality is not exclusive to law enforcement. I obviously can't speak for all but you can't be a LEO unless you are willing to exert authority. That's a big part of the job.

 

I do applaud you as you recognize there are all kinds of cops.

 

And the town and officer can be sued for abuse of power. I can see how well that would go in court,

 

Abuse of power? How the hell can you claim abuse of power when what I said is spelled out in the statute. Back in the 70s before there was reciprocity between all the states for unpaid tickets you had to arrest an out of state driver and have them post bond. I'm not familiar with current policies but when I worked on a police department there were specific motor vehicle violations you were expected to arrest someone for. DUI, Driving on the Revoked List, No Insurance, and others.

 

With all due respect Griz, I'm really not that concerned with him wondering why I didn't answer his question or don't want to answer his question. It's not a question he should have asked me, and as I see it, I have 3 options if he does ask me:

 

1) Lie, and be subject to the penalites mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

or

 

2) Admit to having guns, and run the risk of a search and being inconvenienced or worse getting jammed up by an officer who isn't familiar with the law. "Those are hollow poitns...you can't have them."

 

or

 

3) I'm sorry sir, but I respectfully refuse to answer that question.

 

You tell me...what would you do? Or what would you suggest that someone like me do? Same with Bluelinefish, or other LE on board.

 

If he or she asked if I had guns in the car, I'd tell them and take my chances with what followed. If you lie and they find out it is only normal to wonder what else you are lying about. I would not consent to a search and if asked why I would tell them "out of principle".

 

However, as someone else asked, how many people have been asked if they had guns in the car when stopped in NJ? I've asked that question when I was working in places like AZ where people normally have guns. I've always asked that question boarding boats and in places like FL my suspicions would increase if they said they didn't have guns.

[RTSP1 67]

Just chiming in, as a retired LEO (hold the jokes!) I have had the opportunity to both stop "criminals" with guns in their cars and "law abiding civilians" with guns in their car. There is no NJ statutory mandate that states you must disclose you are transporting firearms to a range. That said, there is mandates that if you posses a CCW permit you "should" disclose that you are in possession of a firearm for the safety of all involved.

So, what is suggested? If you are stopped for a minor traffic violation, conduct yourself as you would any other time you would be stopped if you where not transporting firearms. Be polite, courteous and go through your normal routine of trying to avoid the summons (LOL). If at some point the subject comes up (and that would only be because you were remiss in not covering something, ammo bag, gun case or such), then be completely honest and forth coming.

One post said that LEO's do not have a good understanding of civilians and guns. That is correct! It is not taught at any academy that I have taught in and honestly it is not a topic that is covered in any "in service" training that I have ever attended.

Always air on the side of caution, if you are nervous about the guns in the car it will very likely show in your mannerisms and start to set off red flags in the officers behavior, so just remember that you are not doing anything wrong.

Hope that helps a bit.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Thanx for your input RTSP1. However there is no requirement to disclose if you have a CCW in NJ.

[Fullhouse 0]

 

Interesting perspective.

[Duppie 73]

Forgive me... but this tread should have effectively ended at post #22, the balance is just masturbation.

[Soju 153]

Just chiming in, as a retired LEO (hold the jokes!) I have had the opportunity to both stop "criminals" with guns in their cars and "law abiding civilians" with guns in their car. There is no NJ statutory mandate that states you must disclose you are transporting firearms to a range. That said, there is mandates that if you posses a CCW permit you "should" disclose that you are in possession of a firearm for the safety of all involved.

So, what is suggested? If you are stopped for a minor traffic violation, conduct yourself as you would any other time you would be stopped if you where not transporting firearms. Be polite, courteous and go through your normal routine of trying to avoid the summons (LOL). If at some point the subject comes up (and that would only be because you were remiss in not covering something, ammo bag, gun case or such), then be completely honest and forth coming.

One post said that LEO's do not have a good understanding of civilians and guns. That is correct! It is not taught at any academy that I have taught in and honestly it is not a topic that is covered in any "in service" training that I have ever attended.

Always air on the side of caution, if you are nervous about the guns in the car it will very likely show in your mannerisms and start to set off red flags in the officers behavior, so just remember that you are not doing anything wrong.

Hope that helps a bit.

 

Excellent post!

 

As you have illustrated, police aren't trained on every scenario, and this is one. And as such, you can see why people would be concerned about revealing too much (if anything), when this may be a new situation for the officer. Since the officer doesn't have specific training, may err on the side of caution for him/her. That generally means it is bad for you. This is why it is best to avoid the situation entirely.