• Got the Contributing Memberships stuff finally worked out and made up a thread as a sort of "How-To" to help people figure out how to participate. So if you need help figuring it out, here's the thread you need to take a look at -> http://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3581 Thank you, everyone! Rich Z.

I saw this sign while approaching a hiking trail.

OK, just a couple of comments:

1. Thanks for all of the research. :thumbsup:

2. Didn't know it wasn't considered a "search".

3. I agree that everyone needs to be respectful.

4. I am going to carry regardless. :D

Then keep some grape jelly handy:lmao::lmao:
(Actually, it's only a misdemeanor. You'll probably just get a notice to appear and lose your weapon(s)-Ever see what happens when FWC makes an arrest? Everything goes:eek::lmao:)

If "patting down" is not considered a search, then what is the PURPOSE of it? Just some friendly hands on contact between one consenting adult and the other not so consenting? :rolleyes:

I know it is claimed that it is for the safety of the officer(s), but seriously when does the concern for officer safety trump constitutionally guaranteed protections for us citizens? Sounds to me that "UP" is simply being redefined as "DOWN" just to conveniently bypass our legal rights concerning searches and seizures.

You answered your own question in the 1st line of the 2nd paragraph.
As to your second question, it doesn't.

As for the last section, you'd need to have a basic understanding of the elements that constitute a "search" vs. a "pat down."

Otherwise, youl'll continue to chase your tail for the exercise:D
 
Then keep some grape jelly handy:lmao::lmao:
(Actually, it's only a misdemeanor. You'll probably just get a notice to appear and lose your weapon(s)-Ever see what happens when FWC makes an arrest? Everything goes:eek::lmao:)

You answered your own question in the 1st line of the 2nd paragraph.
As to your second question, it doesn't.

As for the last section, you'd need to have a basic understanding of the elements that constitute a "search" vs. a "pat down."

Otherwise, youl'll continue to chase your tail for the exercise:D

A friend of mine is a retired cop in the NE. I can't say it's Jpee without his permission but this guy says he'll carry in NYC regardless. I have the right to be able to defend myself and if they ever pulled my license I'll renew my Mi license. This is kind of dumb so we must be bored cause this scenario isn't gonna happen anyway. It is a learning experience though regarding a "pat down". If I didn't know you I wouldn't believe it.

What was Rich's second question?

Never mind, I see it.
 
Cop Rule #1: I'm going home in one piece tonight, preferably without any extra holes in me.

Cop Rule #2: I am NOT dispensable.(If I go down, who's gonna save your a$$?)

Cop Rule #3: The bad guy gets it first, anything else moving after that is second. (When I say "Get Down!", get down and don't move)

Cop Rule #4: Any questions, see Cop Rule #1.

All joking aside, we take our safety(and our brothers in blue/green/tan) very seriously. Pat downs, Terry Frisk, are a part of our lives. I can articulate. And I know Gordon can.

I think this whole discussion comes down to: Rules is Rules. Just common sense guys. Is it worth walking on the Daisies to (possibly) lose your right to carry?:NoNo:
 
Cop Rule #1: I'm going home in one piece tonight, preferably without any extra holes in me.

Cop Rule #2: I am NOT dispensable.(If I go down, who's gonna save your a$$?)

Cop Rule #3: The bad guy gets it first, anything else moving after that is second. (When I say "Get Down!", get down and don't move)

Cop Rule #4: Any questions, see Cop Rule #1.

All joking aside, we take our safety(and our brothers in blue/green/tan) very seriously. Pat downs, Terry Frisk, are a part of our lives. I can articulate. And I know Gordon can.

I think this whole discussion comes down to: Rules is Rules. Just common sense guys. Is it worth walking on the Daisies to (possibly) lose your right to carry?:NoNo:

All good points 85 but I'm looking at it differently. I did not know 'pat downs' were not searches and I do think an officer should have to justify the 'pat down'. Having said that I'm sure any officer that does a pat down has a valid reason.

I also agree that rules are rules but if I have a need to be there and I see that sign I am not going to give up my right to self defense. What if someone entered that property and never saw a sign? They would still be guilty but if I was a LEO, saw someone and there wasn't a problem I wouldn't hassle anyone that would be legal on the other side of the property line. A smart azz or trouble maker would be treated differently.

Who's Terry Frisk?
 
As for the last section, you'd need to have a basic understanding of the elements that constitute a "search" vs. a "pat down."

Otherwise, youl'll continue to chase your tail for the exercise:D

Major hair splitting, without even a legitimate hair to split. When you are doing a pat down, what the heck are you doing it for? You are SEARCHING for concealed weapons. :rolleyes:

Seriously, how else can you define it?
 
A friend of mine is a retired cop in the NE. I can't say it's Jpee without his permission but this guy says he'll carry in NYC regardless. I have the right to be able to defend myself and if they ever pulled my license I'll renew my Mi license. This is kind of dumb so we must be bored cause this scenario isn't gonna happen anyway. It is a learning experience though regarding a "pat down". If I didn't know you I wouldn't believe it.

What was Rich's second question?

Never mind, I see it.

Although the anti-firearms typse such as NYC's Bloomberg, and D.C.'a Adrian Fenty, and his puppet Chief Cathy Lanier, continue thier vigilence to keep weapons out of the hands of legal, law abgiding citizens,

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/New-DC-Gun-Restrictions-Unveiled/1$42312 (not sure why this won't link? Cut and Paste for the story!)

the Feds did strike down the law that impacted the citizens of those to states as unconstitutional.:thumbsup:
Unfortunately, the state and local restrictions placed upon ownership, don't make it much better in those states.:thumbsdown:

Sometimes I wonder why God put most of the more beautiful off road, camping, sporting and 4 wheeling lands in the world, in some of the stuipidest politcal chitholes he could find?
Maybe he just needed to give the people some legitimate reason for living there?:lmao:

Anyway, back to the discussion.
Your friend is in a different category than most here.
Retired LEO's carry under HR 218

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

Even then, many of the restrictions applied to CWP holders, apply to them as well.

That not withstanding, if your friend decides he want's to carrry in NYC, D.C., or anywhere else not authorized by law to do so, and get's caught, he too will deal with the consequences.
It's that simple.

Cop Rule #1: I'm going home in one piece tonight, preferably without any extra holes in me.

Cop Rule #2: I am NOT dispensable.(If I go down, who's gonna save your a$$?)

Cop Rule #3: The bad guy gets it first, anything else moving after that is second. (When I say "Get Down!", get down and don't move)

Cop Rule #4: Any questions, see Cop Rule #1.

All joking aside, we take our safety(and our brothers in blue/green/tan) very seriously. Pat downs, Terry Frisk, are a part of our lives. I can articulate. And I know Gordon can.

I think this whole discussion comes down to: Rules is Rules. Just common sense guys. Is it worth walking on the Daisies to (possibly) lose your right to carry?:NoNo:
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:2232censored: , that was very well put!:thankyou2:
It's exactly the point I've been trying to make.

Rules are rules.
So are traffic laws, and none of us violate those, right?
And you can eventually lose your prioviledge to drive as a result if such abuses continue.
The same is the case with the permit, only it's simpler to lose.

A lot of this boils down to "getting caught."
If you don't bring notice to yourself (ie: do something stupid, get involved in a shooting or act like an azz), most of us will have lkimited interactins with Law Enforcement.

Bottom line is, the OP's question was relative to the sign, it's legality, authority, jurisdiction and impact on CWP holders.
Those concerns have been researched and addressed..


From there, draw your own conclusions and do what you want;)
I know what I'll do, I won't share that opinion, and "if " my actions were to have any consequences, I'd be prepared to deal with them. That's it.

All good points 85 but I'm looking at it differently. I did not know 'pat downs' were not searches and I do think an officer should have to justify the 'pat down'. Having said that I'm sure any officer that does a pat down has a valid reason.

They do on both concerns. (I may have over simplified the issue in our prevopus conversation, sorry.

I also agree that rules are rules but if I have a need to be there and I see that sign I am not going to give up my right to self defense.

Again, yopu're partially correct.
What would be the "need" to be there in the first place? You'd definately have to articulate that "need" in your defense.
Traversing from one one locatioon to another when no other route is available (then I think thier sign would be unenforceable based on some recent legislative changes), might be one.
An emergency would be another.
Othewise, why would one "need" to be on WMD land?

If you're just out for a walk, going camping, fishing, etc., you knwo where you're going and should have planned accordingly.

Your "right" to self defense has not been abridged.
Your "right" to possess a firearm may have (they're working on that as I previously stated:thumbsup:), but not your right to defend yourself.
You simply have to find another means to do so.

I can show you a dozen different ways to do so that the average male of female can accomplish with moderate physcial abilities.
None of them involve firearms, unless it's the one you remove from the bad guy

And even your "rights" to carry concealed (it's actually a priviledge, not a "right") come with restrictions.
Hell, even HR 218 is not a "carte blanc to carry.
It too has restrictions on both active and retired LEO's.


It would serve us well to become intimately familiar with those restrictions if we intend to carry under a license.

What if someone entered that property and never saw a sign?
This is similar to one of the questions I posed to the WMD personnel yesterday in my lengthy phone conversation.
How well are the properties marked and what's the signage like.

Most of the properties are marked only "so-so."
Not really many fences, gates, etc to keep you off/out.

Most are bordered by fire roads/lines, or some other natural boundry, but all are posted.

Frankly, it they're not posted every so many feet (there's a reg for it, but I don't have it available at the moment), they they're going to have problems enforcing the rule.
That said, you'll beat the rap, not the ride:rofl1:
If I were the LEO on scene, and realized this deficiency, I'd probably just ask you to leave.:wavey:

They would still be guilty but if I was a LEO, saw someone and there wasn't a problem I wouldn't hassle anyone that would be legal on the other side of the property line. A smart azz or trouble maker would be treated differently

And there's the common sense 85 was talking about...on both sides:thumbsup:

The person's not causing a problem, "may not" have observed the sign, known they were on WMD property, and the officer is exercising good judgment in asking them to depart.:thumbsup:

And you're absolutely correct sir on the last line!
More than one person in my career has "talked" themselves into an arrest:lmao:

Who's Terry Frisk?

Enjoy...
http://www.answers.com/topic/terry-v-ohio

...or...

The readers digest version:

Under the search part of the Terry doctrine, policy may pat down the detained suspect on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and may then remove any object from the suspect's clothing that by its size or density might be a weapon. An object so discovered is admissible in evidence whether it turns out to be a gun or something else seizable as contraband or evidence; in Michigan v. Long (1983), the Court rejected the notion that to ensure against pretext frisks only weapons should be admissible. (Long also holds, by rather strained logic, that the protective search allowed by Terry may extend to the passenger compartment of a vehicle to which the suspect has access.)


Major hair splitting, without even a legitimate hair to split. When you are doing a pat down, what the heck are you doing it for? You are SEARCHING for concealed weapons. :rolleyes:

Seriously, how else can you define it?

:rolleyes:
Refer to the above.
(You'd be better off addressing that question to the Supreme Court:D)

I really didn't want to take the time to address this since I thought most of us would be able to figure out the difference; however, reading some of the responses, I can see that there's a need for definition.

So here's the huge difference in a pat down (Terry Frisk) vs. a search:

Where you can go.....!

...That's pretty much it.

In a search based upon warrant/PC, I can go anywhere and as far as the warrant or PC allows.

I can go INTO your pants/shirt/jacket pockets, remove your hat and check the band, remove your shoes/socks, and as we know from experience, can go as far as a cavity search (in the property faciloity with the proper personnel! I'm not doing it!), and anywhere else necessary to discover evidence and/or contraband (limiting this to the person, nothing else at this time).

In a pat down, it's the outside of the clothing, with specific intent, and then into the clothning only if you the officer, can articulate PC that what you felt from the outside, may be a weapon.

Does that clarify the issue a bit for everyone?

I agree with 85.
As a LEO I've lived this and as a citizen I continue to.
I get up in the morning and go out, with every intention of coming home in the evening the same way I left :thumbsup:
If that means you don't as a result of some flawed decision on your part to prevent that objective, so be it;)
 
OK, first and foremost I respect you and 85 and at times I may seem argumentative but that's just me. I've learned a lot from both of you especially in this thread so although I still make my own decisions I do appreciate the knowledge you guys are willing to share.

The good friend of mine that is a retired LEO knows the consequences if he's caught carrying in NYC. He says he would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I have spent a lot of time in the city at Ground Zero, museums....... and I have talked to several officers on foot patrol. They're no different than us and unless you're some type of an azz they're not going to hassle you. Could they, hell ya. Ya gotta use some common sense and a little courtesy goes a looooong way.
 
Enjoy...
http://www.answers.com/topic/terry-v-ohio

...or...

The readers digest version:






:rolleyes:
Refer to the above.
(You'd be better off addressing that question to the Supreme Court:D)

I really didn't want to take the time to address this since I thought most of us would be able to figure out the difference; however, reading some of the responses, I can see that there's a need for definition.

So here's the huge difference in a pat down (Terry Frisk) vs. a search:

Where you can go.....!

...That's pretty much it.

In a search based upon warrant/PC, I can go anywhere and as far as the warrant or PC allows.

I can go INTO your pants/shirt/jacket pockets, remove your hat and check the band, remove your shoes/socks, and as we know from experience, can go as far as a cavity search (in the property faciloity with the proper personnel! I'm not doing it!), and anywhere else necessary to discover evidence and/or contraband (limiting this to the person, nothing else at this time).

In a pat down, it's the outside of the clothing, with specific intent, and then into the clothning only if you the officer, can articulate PC that what you felt from the outside, may be a weapon.

Does that clarify the issue a bit for everyone?

Yeah, it does. That it's pure BS. I'm sorry, but I don't believe any reasonably logical person can honestly delude themselves and attempt to delude others into believing that a frisk or pat down is NOT a search. "huge difference in a pat down (Terry Frisk) vs. a search" my ass....... :rolleyes: Again, WHY does a LEO decide to do a pat down in the first place unless he or she feels weapons, or something else, may be present under the clothes and wants to engage in a SEARCH for those items? And seriously, just because the SCOTUS sided with the government doesn't mean that it is not blatantly unconstitutional. They very often decline to bite the hand that feeds them, and are as politically motivated as any other body of appointed government officials.
 
OK, first and foremost I respect you and 85 and at times I may seem argumentative but that's just me. I've learned a lot from both of you especially in this thread so although I still make my own decisions I do appreciate the knowledge you guys are willing to share.

Eh, you're just a crotchety old fart, that's all:lmao:
Heck, if someone didn't know me at times, they'd think I hated cops and the government.:rofl1:
Nothing could be further from the truth, but I love a good, well founded, and logical debate or discussion:thumbsup:

The good friend of mine that is a retired LEO knows the consequences if he's caught carrying in NYC. He says he would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

There is some validity to that statement.
My thought is, take the time to learn some alternative means of defense. A firearm isn't the cure all of cure alls;)

I have spent a lot of time in the city at Ground Zero, museums....... and I have talked to several officers on foot patrol. They're no different than us and unless you're some type of an azz they're not going to hassle you. Could they, hell ya. Ya gotta use some common sense and a little courtesy goes a looooong way.

Amen on the common sense:thumbsup:

As far as officers go, you have all types of personalities, just like you do in any other profession.
Some are very well grounded, take thier job for what it is, and do the best that can with it while not being pricks.
Others, see how big a prick they can be:(

It's just the luck of the draw.

We had members of out TACTICAL TEAM hassled by NYC's finest many year ago.
Thier weapons were confiscated, and they were threatened with arrest.

They were there for a SWAT Competition:rolleyes:

Needless to say, that didn't go over well with anyone.
So again, it just depends:yesnod:


Yeah, it does. That it's pure BS. I'm sorry, but I don't believe any reasonably logical person can honestly delude themselves and attempt to delude others into believing that a frisk or pat down is NOT a search.

:rolleyes: Uh, ok...if you say so?:lmao::rofl1:
But for the rest of us more delusional types, it's pretty simple and clear cut.;)

"huge difference in a pat down (Terry Frisk) vs. a search" my ass....... :rolleyes: Again, WHY does a LEO decide to do a pat down in the first place unless he or she feels weapons, or something else, may be present under the clothes and wants to engage in a SEARCH for those items?

Once again, reading is fundamental:lmao::rofl1:
Read the entire link from which the snippets came, and maybe you'll gain a better understanding of the two?

And you do have a point.
Even the SCOTUS even refers to it at points as a "search,"; however, they qualify it as not being a "search" in the traditional thought and application.
It's not an all inclusive, invasive search, not based upon probable cause, and not used to discover contraband other than weapons.

As for the Terry Frisk, Don't add to it..."weapons"...not "something else.":

This very succinctly describes the "Terry Frisk":

patting down of the clothing of the suspect to ensure that the person was not armed.

And the rest are what it's designed to discover:

he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him

Under the search part of the Terry doctrine, policy may pat down the detained suspect on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed

A little more substance as to Terry and it's restrictions and application:

Terry did settle two fundamental points: stop and frisk neither falls outside the Fourth Amendment nor is subject to the usual Fourth Amendment restraints. In rejecting “the notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of something called a ‘technical arrest’ or a ‘full‐blown search’” (p. 19), the Court wisely concluded that the protections of the Fourth Amendment are not subject to verbal manipulation. It is the reasonableness of the officer's conduct, not what the state chooses to call it, that counts.

In concluding that a stop and frisk does not require probable cause, the Court in Terry explained that because the policeman had acted without a warrant his conduct was not to be judged by the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause (which contains an express “probable cause” requirement) but rather “by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures

By understanding the legal differences between a full "search" in the eyes of the court, and a frisk, pat down, Terry Frisk, call it what you will, you'll have a better understanding of the differences.
All you've provided is a semantics debage.
I really dont' care to debate semantics. It does no good in getting to the meat and potatoes of the problem, and that's whats going to help you in a bind:yesnod:.

And seriously, just because the SCOTUS sided with the government doesn't mean that it is not blatantly unconstitutional. They very often decline to bite the hand that feeds them, and are as politically motivated as any other body of appointed government officials.

Bruddah...you need a few days at the beach:thumbsup:
Get away from all this for a while.:D:thumbsup:

While a personal agenda on the part of the SCOTUS and it's members has definately been the impetus for many court decisions, and while many of those decision make little sense, I don't think it's necessarily "politics" that motivate them.

After all, they are appointed for life.
Why would they necessarily G.A.S. what you and I think?:shrug01:
 
Seriously, bud, WHO is it that writes their paychecks and gives them raises? :rofl1: And do you think they didn't incur favors to get that job in the first place? :rolleyes: Get real, please. The "job for life" didn't make them untouchable if they screw their handlers.

A search is a search, black and white. The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not give law enforcement exceptions to violate what it states. Matter of fact those documents were written SPECIFICALLY to try to protect the people from exactly these kinds of abuses. Not to say that I don't understand that the SCOTUS and the government in general have pretty nearly gutted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but I'm STILL calling a "spade" a "spade" when I see it.

Dance around it all you want, but a pat down IS a search. What in the world else COULD it be except for a SEARCH for weapons? Just a casual friendly roadside groping by a VERY friendly LEO? OOh, whats that there in your pants, big guy? :lmao: If it's not a hands on caressing in the way of greeting, then what the heck is someone doing running their hands up and down another's body? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I can certainly understand why a LEO would want to have this power and appreciate their position concerning their safety (but NOT to the extent that it gives them carte blanche to override all other considerations), however this sort of thing is just another brick in the paving of that good intentioned road to hell you are pointedly turning a blind eye to. I am sorry that your involvement in that career field has evidently affected your ability to see this objectively.
 
A friend of mine is a retired cop in the NE. I can't say it's Jpee without his permission but this guy says he'll carry in NYC regardless. I have the right to be able to defend myself and if they ever pulled my license I'll renew my Mi license. This is kind of dumb so we must be bored cause this scenario isn't gonna happen anyway. It is a learning experience though regarding a "pat down". If I didn't know you I wouldn't believe it.

What was Rich's second question?

Never mind, I see it.

Bob...

There is a relatively new law (app 3 or 4 yrs old) "RETIRED" LEO can CARRY CONCEALED in ANY state as long as they "Qualify" in or at their former Police Dept.

I can shoot a 300 on the combat course 99% of the time, and I seldom carry here in Westchester County where I live, however "IF" I go to the city (NYC) you can bet your life I'm packing my Glock...

Ant to be perfectly "Honest" if I was in the city and saw a hold-up going down across the street, I grab my "CELL PHONE" NOT my Glock !

The only time I would ever pull my gun out is if "I" personally or my family was threatened!!

Just last yr I had the gun in my Vette and was stopped by a NJ State Trooped (85 on the GSP) .....

He asked for my license and reg.. I pulled out my license & ID, and remembered I had the gun in the console, & told him so... he said "No problem... just slow it down a little" :thumbsup:

NJ is "supposed" to be one of the toughest states on carrying a canceled weapon....maybe I was lucky & met a easy going PO or maybe he knew the law....
 
Bob...

however "IF" I go to the city (NYC) you can bet your life I'm packing my Glock...

The only time I would ever pull my gun out is if "I" personally or my family was threatened!!

Same conversation we had about 6 years ago John about the city. I do know the law was changed for you guys but that doesn't cover NYC right?

You know damn well why that officer cut you some slack. I think you guys call it professional courtesy. :D
 
You know damn well why that officer cut you some slack. I think you guys call it professional courtesy. :D

Yes you hit the nail on the head... Thankfully I have been granted "Professional" courtesy when I was going a "few" MPH over the limit..:thumbsup:
 
Why are we doing this?:nonod:

Seriously, bud, WHO is it that writes their paychecks and gives them raises? :rofl1: And do you think they didn't incur favors to get that job in the first place? :rolleyes: Get real, please. The "job for life" didn't make them untouchable if they screw their handlers.

:lmao: Well, as a matter of fact, yes:

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office

A search is a search, black and white. The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not give law enforcement exceptions to violate what it states. Matter of fact those documents were written SPECIFICALLY to try to protect the people from exactly these kinds of abuses. Not to say that I don't understand that the SCOTUS and the government in general have pretty nearly gutted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but I'm STILL calling a "spade" a "spade" when I see it.

Semantically/theoretically, you're correct.
Realistically, in application, you're way off.
Sorry.

As for the consitution, although I support and believe in the constitution, and wish we were more in tuned to it as a nation, if it were not for such things as amendments, SCOTUS opinions, ruling and precedents, we'd still be living in the woods in a lot of aspects of our lives.
Some would be better, others not so.

Things change, life changes.
It's the way it is.
Need I say more?

Dance around it all you want, but a pat down IS a search. What in the world else COULD it be except for a SEARCH for weapons? Just a casual friendly roadside groping by a VERY friendly LEO? OOh, whats that there in your pants, big guy? :lmao: If it's not a hands on caressing in the way of greeting, then what the heck is someone doing running their hands up and down another's body? :rolleyes:

Athough there's no need for :rolleyes:, once again, you've missed the point.

Semantically, you're right. I've already said that.
It's the legal application that differs wildly between a frisk and a search.

Yeah, I can certainly understand why a LEO would want to have this power and appreciate their position concerning their safety (but NOT to the extent that it gives them carte blanche to override all other considerations),

however this sort of thing is just another brick in the paving of that good intentioned road to hell you are pointedly turning a blind eye to.

WTF are you talking about?

Terry has been around sine 1968, and it's no broader now than it was then
So how has that "paved the road to hell?
:shrug01:

I am sorry that your involvement in that career field has evidently affected your ability to see this objectively.

As you know, that's not the only thing I've done in life.

I've worked both sides of the fence.
I've seen the abuse of power by law enforcement both from an on scene perspective as well as through the courts.
I've been the recipient of some less than stellar, heavy handed "police work" and some outright sloppy and lazy public servants!:mad:

I've seen judges that didn't have the sack or the sense, to make a ruling or decision that needed to be made.
I've seen the back room deals between defense attorneys, the prosecution and the judges.

And I've seen first hand, the unscrupulous abuse of judicial rhetoric and procedure, used by some defense counsel (in criminal cases), to set thier client free:(

You know my position on police work (it's been spewed out here on many occasions).
Do it right or don't F'in do it at all.
Go find something else to do.

Don't play with the sysytem, Period!

And you also know my position on government.
It's out of control, abusive and needs to be reigned in.
I told you almost verbatim, what the state (DOAC) was going to do, and they did it:thumbsdown:
It's because I've dealt with these idiots.
They want $$$ nothing more and don't really want to be bothered with anything that's not likely to bring them "Glory" or publicity.

Finally, I'm no cherry!
What you see above my bald ass head, is not a f**king HALO, it's a GLARE!

So to suggest that I'm jaded, one sided, narrow minded, blind eyed, or somehow have the "inability to see this objectively" is somewhat insulting:nonod:

Maybe it's your recent interactions with the state and law enforcement, that have somewhat jaded your opinion?

I'm no f**king Dr. Phil, but adding to that, your previously stated opinions an stated feelings about the constitution, and constitutionlism in general, and I think I understand your feelings and emotions on the matter.:thumbsup:
In many cases, I agree:yesnod:

Again, the fact is, the ruling has been around 43 years with no real revisions other than to make it's usage more strict on the officers.

You refer to the Terry rule as "POWER."
It's not power, it's authority.

In my younger, less informed days, I held the same opions you do, that it's just a way around the constitution.
The more I read and learned, the more I understood.

I saw the abuses of the Terry Frisk and thier ramifications on the officers, thier cases, and the opinion itself, making it's use tighter.

What it does, is gives the officer the lawful ability or authority, to protect oneself from harm while trying to do the job he/she was hired by the taxpayers to do.
It protects the citizen against violations of thier rights against unreasonable searcha nd siezure, while giving the officer the ability to do a cursury search (there's that word again) to find weapons that may harm him.
It also protects the officer from unreasonable and unscrupulous allegations of abuse and civil rights violations, which may previously been made prior to Terry.

It's progress without oppression.

If you've read anything I've posted or linked, you'd realize that there's nothing about a Terry Frisk, that is Carte Blanche, or overrinding.
It's relatively narrow and confined.

It's a tool to be used lawfully, or lose the opportunity to use it at all.

The Law Enforcement community has over the years, lost several "tools" both physical and administrative, simply because some overzealous officer or agency, chose to use them outside the scope of thier intent or advertised purpose (remember the taser flashlight?)

These things really are watched pretty closely by many including the legal community and the several civil rights groups.

As an aside, I too am pretty strict where it concerns the protection and maintenance of our constitutional rights!
I've said that numerous times right here.

FWIW, I taught this subject to boarding teams during my stints with the Coast Guard.

In the testing phase, they had to articulate the difference between a search and a frisk, how, if and what evidence could be used as a result of each, and in the end, demonstrate both.

If they missed something on a search, we'd go back over and over it until they figured out what they were doing incorrectly.
Miss a weapon during a search and it can cost someone thier life!
I've missed a couple in 30 years and was lucky....very lucky!
I learned from those mistakes and went on to teach others.

F**k up and go outside the parameters while demonstrating the Terry Frisk, and you failed the course and had to reattend the entire course at a later date.:eek:
(meanwhile, you're assigned to shore duty, just what every mariner longs for:rolleyes::lmao:)

Why?
Becasue it's that serious, that's why!

This is supposed to be a fun place. A place where we can aire our opinions and differences, chat and even argue, among friends, without the need for insults.

So, for the time being, I think I need to do what I suggest to you. I need some beach time.

I think I'm going to take my narrow minded ass the f**k out of here for a while. I've already said too much anyway and I like what I do as a moderator, and I don't like watching friends go after friends:thumbsdown:

F**k it!
I'm going to finish my business work and start planning a Keys or Panhandle trip! (most likely the Keys)
:dancer01::dancer01:


Gordon
 
Before I take leave.....:welcome: back John:wavey:
Good to have you back on board with us :thumbsup:

Bob...

There is a relatively new law (app 3 or 4 yrs old) "RETIRED" LEO can CARRY CONCEALED in ANY state as long as they "Qualify" in or at their former Police Dept.

I can shoot a 300 on the combat course 99% of the time, and I seldom carry here in Westchester County where I live, however "IF" I go to the city (NYC) you can bet your life I'm packing my Glock...

Ant to be perfectly "Honest" if I was in the city and saw a hold-up going down across the street, I grab my "CELL PHONE" NOT my Glock !

The only time I would ever pull my gun out is if "I" personally or my family was threatened!!

Just last yr I had the gun in my Vette and was stopped by a NJ State Trooped (85 on the GSP) .....

He asked for my license and reg.. I pulled out my license & ID, and remembered I had the gun in the console, & told him so... he said "No problem... just slow it down a little" :thumbsup:

NJ is "supposed" to be one of the toughest states on carrying a canceled weapon....maybe I was lucky & met a easy going PO or maybe he knew the law....

That's HR218.

And I'm with you on the respose.
About the only time I'd reveal I was carrying, is if myself, a family member, another innocent, or a LEO was about to be killed or seriously injured. Then I'd take my chances.
The rest of the time, it's Sprint and 911:D

Yes you hit the nail on the head... Thankfully I have been granted "Professional" courtesy when I was going a "few" MPH over the limit..:thumbsup:

I've had the same courtesy provided me when I got popped by FHP doing a little over 90+ and still accellerating:eek:

Was on 75 N. bound headed for my cousins funeral and running late.
Passing a string of tractor trailers and I hate being caught for extened periods next to them (Seen the results of a catastrophic tire failure....not pretty:nonod:)

Still no reason for it, I was just in a hurry.
Had the 00 Z28, LS package, and jsut not thinking straight (this was my closest cousin in age and very dear to me).

Just as I passed the last truck, I saw the trooper on the side of the hill next to the overpass.:ack2:

JUst started slowing down and pulled over so he wouldn't have to chase me:D

He was very courteous, asked if I knew how fast I was going?
My response?

Too damned fast or you wouldn't be standing in my window, right?:blush:

He'd seen the star on my window and asked that I step to the back of the car.

He went through all the which agency, etc, then asked "can you do me a favor?"
(I figured short of a blow job, WTH) and I responded:
"slow down?"

Trooper: "That'd be it. Have a safe trip and thanks for your service."

Professional courtesy is not dead:thumbsup::dancer01:


Welcome back:wavey:
 
JUst started slowing down and pulled over so he wouldn't have to chase me:D

He was very courteous

I did the exact same thing Gordon. I was driving a friends Z06 and he was riding with me. The trooper coming at me was behind a semi so he nailed me doing 80 in a 60. I just pulled over when I saw him hit his brakes. He came back, walked up to the car and said thanks for not making him chase me. I gave him the paperwork, he went back to his car and I knew I was getting a ticket.

He cited me for failure to provide proof of insurance, which he didn't ask for. He told me to take the proof of insurance to DMV and that would cancel the ticket. I have never had a bad encounter with a cop except for a prick back in 1970. I've had a few tickets and I earned all of them. :D
 
I have a video that is very graphic, I can't find it now but it SHOWS why a "Good Search" is a necessisty... in the meantime.. I'll inject a little humor...

You know you are a cop if:


1) You have the bladder capacity of five people.


2) You have ever restrained someone & it was not a sexual experience.


3) You believe that 50% of people are a waste of good air.


4) Your idea of a good time is a "man with a gun" call.


5) You conduct a criminal record check on anyone who seems friendly towards you.


6) You believe in the aerial spraying of Prozac & birth control pills.


7) You disbelieve 90% of what you hear & 75% of what you see.


8) You have your weekends off planned for a year.


9) You believe the government should require a permit to reproduce.


10) You refer to your favorite restaurant by the intersection at which it's located.


11) You have ever wanted to hold a seminar entitled: "Suicide...getting it right the first time."


12) You ever had to put the phone on hold before you begin laughing uncontrollably.


13) You think caffeine should be available in IV form.


14) You believe anyone who says, "I only had two beers" is going to blow more than a .15


15) You find out a lot about paranoia just by following people around.


16) Anyone has ever said to you, "There are people killing other people out there and you are here messing with me."


17) People flag you down on the street & ask you directions to strange places...and you know where they're located.


18) You can discuss where you are going to eat with your partner while standing over a dead body.


19) You are the only person introduced at social gatherings by profession.

(ISN'T THIS THE TRUTH)


20) You walk into places & people think it's high comedy to grab their buddy & shout, "They've come to get you, Bill."


21) You do not see daylight from November until May.


22) People shout, "I didn't do it!" when you walk into a room & think they're being hugely funny & original.


23) A week's worth of laundry consists of 5 T-shirts, 5 pairs of socks, & 5 pairs of underwear.


24) You've ever referred to Tuesday as "my weekend", or "this is my Friday".


25) You've ever written off guns & ammunition as a business deduction.


26) You believe that unspeakable evils will befall you if anyone says, "Boy, it sure is quiet tonight."


27) Discussing dismemberment over a meal seems perfectly normal to you.


28) You find humor in other people's stupidity.


29) You have left more meals on the restaurant table than you've eaten.


30) You feel good when you hear, "these handcuffs are too tight".

..... or



A friend of mine who has a few cop friends sent me this....



I offer you my thanks and respect for serving as a policeman for 29 years. Like the military today being volunteers, so is the choice to be a cop. I have a number of very good friends who are or were in law enforcement. Here are the ones I have regarding police:

Bullet Proof vests aren't.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. They punch, kick and choke harder too.

Tear gas works on cops too, and regardless of wind direction, will always blow back in your face.

High speed chases will always proceed from an area of light traffic to an area of extremely heavy traffic.

If you know someone who tortures animals and wets the bed, he is either a serial killer or he works for Internal Affairs.

Placing a gun back in a shoulder holster with your finger on the trigger will cause you to walk with a limp.

Flash suppressors don't really.

If you have `cleared' all the rooms and met no resistance, you and your entry team have probably kicked in the door of the wrong house.

If a cop swings a baton in a fight, he will hit other cops more often than he will hit the bad guys he swings at.

Domestic arguments will always migrate from an area of few available weapons (living room), to an area with many available weapons (kitchen).

If you have just punched out a handcuffed prisoner for spitting at you, you are about to become a star on `Eyewitness News'.

Bullets work on veteran cops too. They also work on weight lifters, martial arts experts, department marksmen, Narco Investigators, S.W.A.T. jocks, and others who consider themselves immortal.

When a civilian sees a red light approaching at a high rate of speed, he will always pull into the lane the cop needs to use.

If you drive your patrol car to the geometric center of the Gobi Desert, within five minutes some dumb civilian will pull along side you and ask for directions.

You can never drive slow enough to please the citizens who don't need a cop, and you can never drive fast enough to please the ones who do.

Any suspect with a rifle is a better shot than any cop with a pistol.

On any call, there will always be more `bad guys' than there are good guys, and the farther away your back-up, the more there will be.

The longer you've been a cop, the shorter your flashlight and your temper gets.



Whatever you are about to do, if there is a good chance it will get you killed, you probably shouldn't do it.

You should never do a shotgun search of a dark warehouse with a cop whose nickname is "Boomer."

The better you do your job, the more likely you are to be shot, injured, complained on, sued, investigated, or subpoenaed on your day off.

If a large group of drunk bikers are "holed-up" in a house, the Department will send one officer in a beat car. If there is one biker "holed-up" in a house, they will send the entire S. W. A. T. Team.

The likelihood that you are speaking to an undercover law enforcement officer, is directly proportional to the number of personal questions being asked of you.
__________________
Ramcharger

Murphy's Laws of Police Work:
"The speed at which you respond to a fight call is inversely proportional to how long you've been a cop."




JPee



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now.
 
John, you got me rolling on the floor. This is one of the best:

"If you have just punched out a handcuffed prisoner for spitting at you, you are about to become a star on `Eyewitness News'."
 
BTW, we're discussing Terry Frisk, not to be confused with a search. :rofl1:

Have you done your share of 'frisks'?
 
Before I take leave.....:welcome: back John:wavey:
Good to have you back on board with us :thumbsup:



That's HR218.

And I'm with you on the respose.
About the only time I'd reveal I was carrying, is if myself, a family member, another innocent, or a LEO was about to be killed or seriously injured. Then I'd take my chances.
The rest of the time, it's Sprint and 911:D



I've had the same courtesy provided me when I got popped by FHP doing a little over 90+ and still accellerating:eek:

Was on 75 N. bound headed for my cousins funeral and running late.
Passing a string of tractor trailers and I hate being caught for extened periods next to them (Seen the results of a catastrophic tire failure....not pretty:nonod:)

Still no reason for it, I was just in a hurry.
Had the 00 Z28, LS package, and jsut not thinking straight (this was my closest cousin in age and very dear to me).

Just as I passed the last truck, I saw the trooper on the side of the hill next to the overpass.:ack2:

JUst started slowing down and pulled over so he wouldn't have to chase me:D

He was very courteous, asked if I knew how fast I was going?
My response?

Too damned fast or you wouldn't be standing in my window, right?:blush:

He'd seen the star on my window and asked that I step to the back of the car.

He went through all the which agency, etc, then asked "can you do me a favor?"
(I figured short of a blow job, WTH) and I responded:
"slow down?"

Trooper: "That'd be it. Have a safe trip and thanks for your service."

Professional courtesy is not dead:thumbsup::dancer01:


Welcome back:wavey:

Be that all that it may, if I or anyone else is just walking through a Wildlife Management District, the only reason I can fathom a LEO demanding to do a pat down (ie: a SEARCH for weapons) if I have not given him or her any overt reason to fear for their safety around me, is that the LEO is just being a bonafide prick about it and abusing their "authority" (power).

It is my OPINION that Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights was penned exactly for the reason of trying to prevent this sort of abuse from happening to the citizens of this country.

Perhaps we just lost sight of what this thread was originally about..... ;)
 
Back
Top