| Author | Post |
|---|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 08:11 am |
|
inNV wrote: Color of law would only apply (in this case) if HE was ARRESTED, it would have been a FALSE ARREST, and would have been covered under the color of law, something which you obviously know nothing about.
Please provide a cite. Where is it stated that "color of law" is only applicable if someone is arrested.......
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 08:15 am |
|
inNV wrote: I already explained that what the PO said was not a threat. I showed you what a threat was. Why do you insist in still calling it a threat? I think that is the problem..you misunderstand what actually transpired.
No, you provided your opinion.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun"..or? Did he take his gun? Again, color of law would only apply if he was illegally deprived of his property. But as was stated, during a lawful, criminal traffic stop, it is with in the law to "secure" a firearm.
As has been mentioned ad nauseum, during the traffic stop, LE can be within their right to secure a firearm. We discussed that. Upon culmination of the traffic stop, it was not longer a need. THEN the coercion continued, without legal statute backing it up.
And the reason I still persist is: 1) It's fun to keep proving you guys wrong, and 2) maybe you'll learn something.
Providing your baseless opinion is not akin to "proving you guys wrong." You have yet to cite a single thing to support your opinions.
The cop was in the wrong. He likely knew he was in the wrong after the 20 minute phone call. He continued to provide threats to confiscate the firearm. Once again, if the person in question believes the LE has the power to back up the threat of arrest or confiscation, it IS a threat. It is more so since it was not legal to arrest or confiscate.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 08:41 am |
|
inNV wrote: BTW, it seems that you all forgot that breaking a traffic law, no matter how minute it is, is still breaking the law, and hence you are a criminal. This is why they can secure your firearm. Same as if you just shoplifted, or robbed someone. You don't have to be put in handcuffs, you can just as easily be left in your car, or in this case your motorcycle.. You need a cite for this. Where is it declared that speeding and failure to signal lane change are criminal acts? 
Speeding is not the same as shoplifting. Even petty larceny is a much more serious offense than minor vehicle code infractions.
And are you really attempting to conflate Robbery with speeding? 
Robbery is a Category B Felony. Is a speeding ticket really a crime?
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 09:52 am |
|
inNV wrote: The OP was not threatened with arrest.
Threat: Show me your blue card or I will arrest you.
What was actually said many times: I could/would arrest you.
First one, threat and coercion. Second one, just words. Cops aren't stupid, it's how he said it. So do you and the others that lack jurisprudence want to continue bringing up the same old argument I have answered oh 10 times now?
I actually laughed when I read this. Do you actually believe the phrasing of the words made this any less of a threat?
If a man with a gun walks up to you and says "I could shoot you", has he not threatened you? I suppose you could argue the semantics, but I would argue that a reasonable person would believe a man who says "I could shoot you" is pretty much identical in threatening manner to "I will shoot you".
So the different between the cop saying "I could arrest you" and "I will arrest you" is, in much the same way, the same threat.
Tim
Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 09:56 am by timf343
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 591 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 03:47 pm |
|
inNV wrote:
What have I not responded to?. It's like playing ring around the rosie with you guys. Am I supposed to keep answering to NRS' that have no bearing? And the ones that do, you all seem to ignore.
The same can be said to you. You have been provided with NRS and Court precedence, you have provided little more than opinion to back your claims.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Getting pulled over for traffic infractions makes you a CRIMINAL. He can take your gun and secure it. No, you are probably not a threat, but that doesn't matter You BROKE the LAW
This statement is way to vague.
According to you, a person guilty of speeding is the same as an ax murderer (if criminals are criminals then they should all be treated the same, as according to you, they are all the same). In Nv., deadly force is authorized to stop a felony (since all criminals are the same, there is no reason to classify them differently), are you saying that the cop had the right to shoot the OP for his criminal activity (speeding), are you advocating death penalty for traffic violations? If not, then you are admitting that there are different degrees of crime (which everyone knows to be true), and therefore admitting that not every "criminal" should be treated the same.
Statutes and courts have said that there must be a RAS to justify certain behavior from LEOs. If this does not exist, then the LEO is breaking the law, hence he is a criminal. By your argument (you feel that all criminals are the same), the OP, by NRS had the right to use deadly force to protect himself from the illegal actions of the LEO.
By your own statements, you are indirectly calling for shootouts over traffic violations. This is exactly what the Brady Bunch are always saying will happen if people are allowed to have guns. What kind of insanity are you preaching here? What are we supposed to understand, other than that you have either made contradictory statements, or that you are nuts.
Does the law or an NRS specify the severity as to which laws have to be broken in order for a PO to secure your firearm?
This has been covered. RAS must be present, or it is an illegal seizure.
And no I am not a cop.
Are you a lawyer?
Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 04:06 pm by Gordie
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 591 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 04:29 pm |
|
inNV wrote:
I already explained that what the PO said was not a threat. I showed you what a threat was. Why do you insist in still calling it a threat? I think that is the problem..you misunderstand what actually transpired.
Unless you were there, how can you better understand what transpired than the person who was? A thinly veiled threat is still a threat.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun"
People are not required to give a reason to keep their own property, cops are required to have a legal reason for taking it.
Did he take his gun?
Yes, he did.
Again, color of law would only apply if he was illegally deprived of his property.
Gee, I thought that RAS was required to seize property from someone. If it was taken without permission, and without RAS, he was illegally deprived of it.
If I steal your car and bring it back 10 minutes later, have I now "unstolen" your car? No, of course not. My original actions are not undone by my later actions, the car was still stolen, and without RAS, the gun was still illegally taken, even though it was later returned.
But as was stated, during a lawful, criminal traffic stop, it is with in the law to "secure" a firearm.
I can state anything that I want, without a cite to authority, it means nothing more than opinion.
And the reason I still persist is: 1) It's fun to keep proving you guys wrong, and 2) maybe you'll learn something.
1) You have yet to prove anything.
2) We've learned that you don't understand the basic requirements for proving an argument.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 05:52 pm |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Color of law would only apply (in this case) if HE was ARRESTED, it would have been a FALSE ARREST, and would have been covered under the color of law, something which you obviously know nothing about.
Please provide a cite. Where is it stated that "color of law" is only applicable if someone is arrested.......
Please cite where I said that false arrest, which is what I said, is the only rule that applies under the color of law. As a matter of fact I gave two instances; false arrest and deprivation of property. I suppose I could of said that if the PO demanded sexual favors in return for not arresting the OP, or pushed him around physically, that would also come under the color of law. But then again, unlike you, I was only referring to the cirumstances of this case.Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 05:52 pm by inNV
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:01 pm |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: I already explained that what the PO said was not a threat. I showed you what a threat was. Why do you insist in still calling it a threat? I think that is the problem..you misunderstand what actually transpired.
No, you provided your opinion.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun"..or? Did he take his gun? Again, color of law would only apply if he was illegally deprived of his property. But as was stated, during a lawful, criminal traffic stop, it is with in the law to "secure" a firearm.
As has been mentioned ad nauseum, during the traffic stop, LE can be within their right to secure a firearm. We discussed that. Upon culmination of the traffic stop, it was not longer a need. THEN the coercion continued, without legal statute backing it up.
And the reason I still persist is: 1) It's fun to keep proving you guys wrong, and 2) maybe you'll learn something.
Providing your baseless opinion is not akin to "proving you guys wrong." You have yet to cite a single thing to support your opinions.
The cop was in the wrong. He likely knew he was in the wrong after the 20 minute phone call. He continued to provide threats to confiscate the firearm. Once again, if the person in question believes the LE has the power to back up the threat of arrest or confiscation, it IS a threat. It is more so since it was not legal to arrest or confiscate.
Baseless opinion, thats good. Saying I could do something is not threatening the person. Saying "I will if you don't" is. Big difference. If you say "I could kill you" to someone, should you be arrested?
Also, when was the culmination of the traffic stop? You agree that the firearm may be secured during a traffic stop. Are you trying to say that the officer pulled the OP over, gave him his ticket, and then after continued with the blue card fiasco? I am trying to understand why you believe the blue incident was not during the traffic stop, but after. Where does the OP claim this?
It is not a violation of anyones rights for a PO to claim he will confiscate firearm, nor is it illegal. Again, color of law would only apply if he actually did it.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:05 pm |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: BTW, it seems that you all forgot that breaking a traffic law, no matter how minute it is, is still breaking the law, and hence you are a criminal. This is why they can secure your firearm. Same as if you just shoplifted, or robbed someone. You don't have to be put in handcuffs, you can just as easily be left in your car, or in this case your motorcycle.. You need a cite for this. Where is it declared that speeding and failure to signal lane change are criminal acts?
Speeding is not the same as shoplifting. Even petty larceny is a much more serious offense than minor vehicle code infractions.
And are you really attempting to conflate Robbery with speeding?
Robbery is a Category B Felony. Is a speeding ticket really a crime?
Are you kidding me? Severity aside, a crime is a a crime. You already acknowledged in your previous post that it is lawful for a PO to secure a firearm with in the confines of a traffic stop, explain to me why you think so.
And yes, a speeding ticket, under the law, is a crime. If it's against the law, and you do it, it's a crime.
Of course this is in no way trying to portray the OP as a bad person, I speed all the time. But facts are facts.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:06 pm |
|
timf343 wrote:
inNV wrote: The OP was not threatened with arrest.
Threat: Show me your blue card or I will arrest you.
What was actually said many times: I could/would arrest you.
First one, threat and coercion. Second one, just words. Cops aren't stupid, it's how he said it. So do you and the others that lack jurisprudence want to continue bringing up the same old argument I have answered oh 10 times now?
I actually laughed when I read this. Do you actually believe the phrasing of the words made this any less of a threat?
If a man with a gun walks up to you and says "I could shoot you", has he not threatened you? I suppose you could argue the semantics, but I would argue that a reasonable person would believe a man who says "I could shoot you" is pretty much identical in threatening manner to "I will shoot you".
So the different between the cop saying "I could arrest you" and "I will arrest you" is, in much the same way, the same threat.
Tim
Read post above.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:08 pm |
|
Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
What have I not responded to?. It's like playing ring around the rosie with you guys. Am I supposed to keep answering to NRS' that have no bearing? And the ones that do, you all seem to ignore.
The same can be said to you. You have been provided with NRS and Court precedence, you have provided little more than opinion to back your claims.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Getting pulled over for traffic infractions makes you a CRIMINAL. He can take your gun and secure it. No, you are probably not a threat, but that doesn't matter You BROKE the LAW
This statement is way to vague.
According to you, a person guilty of speeding is the same as an ax murderer (if criminals are criminals then they should all be treated the same, as according to you, they are all the same). In Nv., deadly force is authorized to stop a felony (since all criminals are the same, there is no reason to classify them differently), are you saying that the cop had the right to shoot the OP for his criminal activity (speeding), are you advocating death penalty for traffic violations? If not, then you are admitting that there are different degrees of crime (which everyone knows to be true), and therefore admitting that not every "criminal" should be treated the same.
Statutes and courts have said that there must be a RAS to justify certain behavior from LEOs. If this does not exist, then the LEO is breaking the law, hence he is a criminal. By your argument (you feel that all criminals are the same), the OP, by NRS had the right to use deadly force to protect himself from the illegal actions of the LEO.
By your own statements, you are indirectly calling for shootouts over traffic violations. This is exactly what the Brady Bunch are always saying will happen if people are allowed to have guns. What kind of insanity are you preaching here? What are we supposed to understand, other than that you have either made contradictory statements, or that you are nuts.
Does the law or an NRS specify the severity as to which laws have to be broken in order for a PO to secure your firearm?
This has been covered. RAS must be present, or it is an illegal seizure.
And no I am not a cop.
Are you a lawyer?
NRS backing me up was posted, stop lying and saying it wasn't. And just because the others have provided case law, it doesn't mean it is case on point. Providing case law on a different case doesn't mean you win.
And the rest of your post is too ridiculous to even bother responding to.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:21 pm |
|
Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
I already explained that what the PO said was not a threat. I showed you what a threat was. Why do you insist in still calling it a threat? I think that is the problem..you misunderstand what actually transpired.
Unless you were there, how can you better understand what transpired than the person who was? A thinly veiled threat is still a threat.
You know, it's pretty amazing that the SCOTUS can make landmark decisions based on what they read. I wonder how they do it without ever being there...? Now I'm no SC Justice, but I have pretty good reading comprehension, and I base it on what the OP said. When the SCOTUS issues a writ of certiorari, all they receive is documents in order to make a decision. Amazing.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun"
People are not required to give a reason to keep their own property, cops are required to have a legal reason for taking it.
I agree. But the Po didn't take it, he secured it during a lawful traffic stop, which is with in the law. This was even agreed upon by your head spokesperson here.
Did he take his gun?
Yes, he did.
No he didn't.
Again, color of law would only apply if he was illegally deprived of his property.
Gee, I thought that RAS was required to seize property from someone. If it was taken without permission, and without RAS, he was illegally deprived of it.
Read above.
If I steal your car and bring it back 10 minutes later, have I now "unstolen" your car? No, of course not. My original actions are not undone by my later actions, the car was still stolen, and without RAS, the gun was still illegally taken, even though it was later returned.
Another ridiculous, non applicable example.
But as was stated, during a lawful, criminal traffic stop, it is with in the law to "secure" a firearm.
I can state anything that I want, without a cite to authority, it means nothing more than opinion.
So you disagree that a weapon may be secured during a lawful traffic stop, although citation was given, and with your cohorts agreeing?
And the reason I still persist is: 1) It's fun to keep proving you guys wrong, and 2) maybe you'll learn something.
1) You have yet to prove anything.
Because, no offense, you're too blind to see it.
2) We've learned that you don't understand the basic requirements for proving an argument.
No, I think you take that honor.
You are probably the worst one here, that really has no clue what he is talking about. The other guys, although they do lack understanding, at least have something more intelligent to say.
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 591 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:01 pm |
|
inNV wrote:
NRS backing me up was posted, stop lying and saying it wasn't. And just because the others have provided case law, it doesn't mean it is case on point. Providing case law on a different case doesn't mean you win.
And the rest of your post is too ridiculous to even bother responding to.
You have failed to show RAS that the OP was armed and dangerous. Also, the threat of arrest to force compliance with demands which were not required by law is coercion. The threat of confiscation of the gun is further coercion.
Obviously any case law will be from another case since this case has not gone to court. If the only case law allowed, is that which is from the particular case in question, then no case law would ever be allowed until it was too late to be relevant.
Ignoring case law in similar cases does not mean that you win either.
And the rest of your post is too ridiculous to even bother responding to.
I was just using the flow of your own arguments to show the total lack of logic in your statement that "a criminal is a criminal is a criminal".
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:14 pm |
|
Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
NRS backing me up was posted, stop lying and saying it wasn't. And just because the others have provided case law, it doesn't mean it is case on point. Providing case law on a different case doesn't mean you win.
And the rest of your post is too ridiculous to even bother responding to.
You have failed to show RAS that the OP was armed and dangerous. Also, the threat of arrest to force compliance with demands which were not required by law is coercion. The threat of confiscation of the gun is further coercion.
I am unaware of an RAS that shows the OP was armed and dangerous. I don't know if such an RAS would exist. But if you mean NRS showing that a PO can secure a weapon during a lawful stop, it has been. He doesn't have to be armed AND dangerous, he just has to be believed to have committed a crime, which is why the PO pulled him over in the first (yes traffic infraction are a crime, no matter how you put it). That is what gave the PO legality to secure his weapon for the duration of the traffic stop. Also, please learn what coercion is, and stop following the wrong leaders.
Obviously any case law will be from another case since this case has not gone to court. If the only case law allowed, is that which is from the particular case in question, then no case law would ever be allowed until it was too late to be relevant.
Ignoring case law in similar cases does not mean that you win either.
Do you have any idea what case on point means? Obviously not. Let me explain, Case on point means that a previous case law has to apply to the case in point, in other words precedence. What was provided was not case on point, but relied on completely different circumstances, none of which happened here, in order to try and prove a false claim. Get it? It is almost idiotic to think that I wold require case law from this case. Doh!
And the rest of your post is too ridiculous to even bother responding to.
I was just using the flow of your own arguments to show the total lack of logic in your statement that "a criminal is a criminal is a criminal".
Yea, that's what you're doing. Obviously you still fail to see the reasoning of traffic stops. But act like I am comparing speeding with murder in terms other than they are both crimes. Maybe it would work. Like I said earlier, you are the worst when it comes to understanding.Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:16 pm by inNV
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 591 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:14 pm |
|
inNV wrote:
You are probably the worst one here, that really has no clue what he is talking about. The other guys, although they do lack understanding, at least have something more intelligent to say.
And generalized statements like "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal" display the very height of intellect.
You're just mad because someone showed your deeply flawed statement to everyone here and ran with it to its' own conclusion.
To be called the worst by you is no insult. Thank You.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:19 pm |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Color of law would only apply (in this case) if HE was ARRESTED, it would have been a FALSE ARREST, and would have been covered under the color of law, something which you obviously know nothing about.
Please provide a cite. Where is it stated that "color of law" is only applicable if someone is arrested.......
Please cite where I said that false arrest, which is what I said, is the only rule that applies under the color of law. As a matter of fact I gave two instances; false arrest and deprivation of property. I suppose I could of said that if the PO demanded sexual favors in return for not arresting the OP, or pushed him around physically, that would also come under the color of law. But then again, unlike you, I was only referring to the cirumstances of this case. So, then please provide a cite where color of law is only applicable if someone is arrested and ? deprived of property? Or do you mean to allege that color of law is only applicable if someone is arrested OR deprived of property? No matter which it is, provide a cite. Prove your case.
Teach us, oh great one.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:20 pm |
|
Gordie wrote:
inNV wrote:
You are probably the worst one here, that really has no clue what he is talking about. The other guys, although they do lack understanding, at least have something more intelligent to say.
And generalized statements like "A criminal is a criminal is a criminal" display the very height of intellect.
You're just mad because someone showed your deeply flawed statement to everyone here and ran with it to its' own conclusion.
To be called the worst by you is no insult. Thank You.
So breaking a law, no mater how minute, does not make you a criminal? Please explain how not.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:23 pm |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: BTW, it seems that you all forgot that breaking a traffic law, no matter how minute it is, is still breaking the law, and hence you are a criminal. This is why they can secure your firearm. Same as if you just shoplifted, or robbed someone. You don't have to be put in handcuffs, you can just as easily be left in your car, or in this case your motorcycle.. You need a cite for this. Where is it declared that speeding and failure to signal lane change are criminal acts?
Speeding is not the same as shoplifting. Even petty larceny is a much more serious offense than minor vehicle code infractions.
And are you really attempting to conflate Robbery with speeding?
Robbery is a Category B Felony. Is a speeding ticket really a crime?
Are you kidding me? Severity aside, a crime is a a crime. You already acknowledged in your previous post that it is lawful for a PO to secure a firearm with in the confines of a traffic stop, explain to me why you think so.
And yes, a speeding ticket, under the law, is a crime. If it's against the law, and you do it, it's a crime.
Provide a cite. Attempting to state it as such does not provide support for your opinion.
Of course this is in no way trying to portray the OP as a bad person, I speed all the time. But facts are facts. Yes, facts are facts. Present some. You are presenting opinion.
So, is speeding really a crime? No. UNLESS it fits certain criteria that place it in the category of a misdemeanor.
You have not shown that speeding is a crime; you have only attempted to declare it to be a crime. Prove your case. Cite to authority, instead of attempting to pontificate as one.
You state:
And yes, a speeding ticket, under the law, is a crime. Cite to authority. Where in the NRS does it state that a speeding ticket is a crime? Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:25 pm by wrightme
|
Sheepdawg
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:25 pm |
|
Also, when was the culmination of the traffic stop? You agree that the firearm may be secured during a traffic stop. Are you trying to say that the officer pulled the OP over, gave him his ticket, and then after continued with the blue card fiasco? I am trying to understand why you believe the blue incident was not during the traffic stop, but after. Where does the OP claim this?
I was given my gun back shortly after the ticket was issued. I don't argue the fact that the PO could legally secure my gun during the traffic stop, but the NRS states he needs RAS that I am a threat. What makes me a threat?
Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:27 pm by Sheepdawg
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: I already explained that what the PO said was not a threat. I showed you what a threat was. Why do you insist in still calling it a threat? I think that is the problem..you misunderstand what actually transpired.
No, you provided your opinion.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun"..or? Did he take his gun? Again, color of law would only apply if he was illegally deprived of his property. But as was stated, during a lawful, criminal traffic stop, it is with in the law to "secure" a firearm.
As has been mentioned ad nauseum, during the traffic stop, LE can be within their right to secure a firearm. We discussed that. Upon culmination of the traffic stop, it was not longer a need. THEN the coercion continued, without legal statute backing it up.
And the reason I still persist is: 1) It's fun to keep proving you guys wrong, and 2) maybe you'll learn something.
Providing your baseless opinion is not akin to "proving you guys wrong." You have yet to cite a single thing to support your opinions.
The cop was in the wrong. He likely knew he was in the wrong after the 20 minute phone call. He continued to provide threats to confiscate the firearm. Once again, if the person in question believes the LE has the power to back up the threat of arrest or confiscation, it IS a threat. It is more so since it was not legal to arrest or confiscate.
Baseless opinion, thats good. Saying I could do something is not threatening the person. Saying "I will if you don't" is. Big difference. If you say "I could kill you" to someone, should you be arrested?
Saying you would do something IS a threat. If the recipient believes you are capable and willing to carry it out. As in the case of a LE, if the person the cop makes the statement to believes the cop is willing (and has the authority) to perform the arrest or confiscation, yes Virginia, it IS a threat.
Also, when was the culmination of the traffic stop? You agree that the firearm may be secured during a traffic stop. Are you trying to say that the officer pulled the OP over, gave him his ticket, and then after continued with the blue card fiasco? I am trying to understand why you believe the blue incident was not during the traffic stop, but after. Where does the OP claim this?
That is how I understood the OP. You seem to understand it differently.
It is not a violation of anyones rights for a PO to claim he will confiscate firearm, nor is it illegal. Again, color of law would only apply if he actually did it. Once again, if you really believe color of law only applies if he actually did it, please cite to authority. Where do you get your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
