Yes officer, I have weapons you need to be aware of - Page 2

Yes officer, I have weapons you need to be aware of

This is a discussion on Yes officer, I have weapons you need to be aware of within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Bm7b5 This is interesting because the police officer asked Mr. Simpkins if he had any weapons, and though Mr. Simpkins has a ...

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 141

Thread: Yes officer, I have weapons you need to be aware of

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Bm7b5 View Post
    This is interesting because the police officer asked Mr. Simpkins if he had any weapons, and though Mr. Simpkins has a right not to incriminate himself, he doesn't have the right to lie to a police officer.

    Let's say you are pulled over and have a can of OC and a knife on your person. You have a CPL, but you aren't carrying your pistol. The police officer at your window asks if you are carrying any weapons.

    Let's assume you you are not 100% sure your OC and knife are legal (perhaps your knife is a fraction of an inch over legal limit), and also assume the police in your area have a history of arresting people for bogus weapons laws (and costing citizens $$$ in court fees).

    How do you respond?
    I've been through this discussion a few times before. At this point, you may be damned regardless of how you answer the question. We've seen here what can happen if you answer yes. If you say no, well especially since you have a CHL, that's suspicious. That might justify pulling you out of the car, handcuffing you, body search on the hood, search of the car, and trumped charges when he finds the legally possessed weapon. Take the fifth, and oh my goodness, then this honest cop we had so much respect for is going to yank you out of the car, throw you to the ground, gun to the head, handcuffed, body search, car search, car impounded, hauled of to jail, instantered, and brought in front of the judge on trumped up charges. Pick your evil.


  2. #17
    Member Array basher052's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Richmond TX
    Posts
    369
    Andy
    You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas - David Crockett
    When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by Guns and more View Post
    The problem with settling it in court is you will then have a felony charge on your record.
    A friend of mine was charged with a DUI but he tested 0.00 so the charges were dropped. Guess what? His insurance canceled him because he was charged with a DUI. Basically, a cop can do whatever he wants and you are screwed.

    In the case cited above, it seems like the Sargent should have had some common sense if the deputy didn't.
    Am I to believe NONE of the cops on the scene knew the law?
    And the DA went forward? What, are they all incompetent?
    The DA went forward because doing so creates immunity for everyone involved. The officers acted "in good faith" and the DA supported their actions with a prosecution before the Grand Jury. No "false arrest" or "under color of authority" issue here.

    For those who are required to notify, do so with your permit and DO NOT "SPEAK" about the firearm. If the officer asks, you can choose to say you are armed or not. Be aware that in either instance the officer may choose to disarm you "for officer safety" and that this will entail a search of your person.

    If you aren't "required to notify" then SHUT UP! when asked this question. Just ignore it like it was never asked.

  4. #19
    Distinguished Member Array ArmyCop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Chickasaw, AL
    Posts
    1,841
    Hate that for him. I personally see NO problem with any law abiding person having pepper spray - it's the BG's who I don't like having that or any other weapon.

    I also - from what was written - think the officer was overzealous. Myself and other LEO friends would have let the guy go as long as there wasn't something going on that I don't seee in the above reading....
    For God, Family and Country!

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    This just proves, to me, that you get legal advice from a lawyer and not a LEO, of which I am considered one, much to the chagrin of some.

    Also, the place to argue the validity of an arrest is not the side of the road, but rather the inside of a courtroom.
    BINGO!!!! ^^

    Folks need to get it into their mind and hearts.
    Arguing at the side of the road with a police does not win you anything but bracelets. Period. At the very least.
    If not being tased, sprayed, clubbed attacked by a 'police' dog or even shot. Period.

    Recognize.

    You have a beef or disagreement with a road officer.
    Fine.
    He wants you to turn around so as to size you up for restriction and detention if not arrest.
    Comply.
    Save the lip flappin' and 'Umm but officer you are wrong/mistaken' convo for the bench judge.

    Simple.

    As well do not never ever for no reason take legal advice from a LEO.
    No disrespect to LEOs. But jeebus how many tales of woe does one have to read and hear of to understand this to simply be a bad idea. especially when said LEO is the one holding bracelets and initiating conversation with; "Turn around and put your hands behind your head" type talk.

    Stupid.

    You know your rights. Great.
    Tell it to the judge and/or your attorney.

    BTW stating to anyone at all anything about yeah I know this looks bad and other such non-sense is unwise as well.
    If you own something then well you own it. He could be towing the snowmobile as inside the back of a station wagon. Neither is unlawful nor unheard of. There is no question as long as otherwise it's road safe and transport laws proper.

    Act like you know.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  6. #21
    New Member Array Gibbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    13
    That sucks...
    If I were him I would get my record expunged and then see if I could go after the department.


    I was watching cops the other night and they charged a guy for having a concealed weapon because he was sitting on his folding pocket knife... the guy just woke up in the car and it looked like it fell out of his pocket.

    Granted they got them for drugs, but the pocket knife thing seemed way over the top...

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087

    Violation of ethical principles and oath

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    The DA went forward because doing so creates immunity for everyone involved. The officers acted "in good faith" and the DA supported their actions with a prosecution before the Grand Jury. No "false arrest" or "under color of authority" issue here.

    .
    Of course if that was the reason, it was an unethical act which violates his oath and duty to seek justice, not convictions.

    A recent analysis of the prevalence of "corruption" in various countries put the US in 19th place; behind Australia and Canada which were in 8th, and New Zealand first (that is least corrupt society). Of course a lot of the rest of the world ranked somewhere in the 120 or worse position.

    It is the little day to day things like this that add up.

    I'd call that "technical reason" for moving forward to the Grand Jury, if true, an act of official corruption. You don't need to be taking bribes to do wrong.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Bm7b5 View Post
    T...Let's assume you you are not 100% sure your OC and knife are legal (perhaps your knife is a fraction of an inch over legal limit), and also assume the police in your area have a history of arresting people for bogus weapons laws (and costing citizens $$$ in court fees).

    How do you respond?
    A knife as carried upon your person or as within your reach is by many state regulations deemed to be a 'weapon', as a tool, by default.

    OC/CS is in fact a weapon period as it has no other practical application but for use as a defensive tool against humans and/or animals. Automatically and everywhere it is deemed a weapon.

    Knowledge of this as legal view is as related to law & enforcement is incumbent upon the possessor (citizen).
    Not knowing this for any reason be it for sake of forgetfulness or ignorance (being unaware) is of no consequence as toward the enforcement of law(s) and situational legality.

    This is why in any _good_ citizen carry course the instructor will not only cite to you some, not all, state and local as well as federal laws with regard to possession (!) and carry which should be noted are two different things.
    But also that instructor will strongly and multiple times suggest that you as on your own go home and not 'read' but _study_ and _know_ your state and local laws as well as those relevant Federal laws too.
    BTW this applies to game laws as well whether you be a hunter, animal watcher or Joe Schmo who stepped into the woods to take a dump only to be by chance walked upon by a game warden (who most often are state police officers!).

    Ignorance of the law is not an excuse or plea as in the eyes of the law.
    Know this and understand, or suffer the consequences.

    How does one respond?

    Simple...
    "Yes officer. I have on my person at <exact location> a <weapon as by type description and/or product name>."

    Next thing to say is key...

    <Shut yer yap...Stop talking and bet quiet as well as petrified log still!>

    Seriously.
    After that speak only when spoken to and answer questions in brief statement style responses.

    "Do you have any weapons or items that could hurt me in your vehicle?"

    This is a yes or no question.
    Not an opportunity to tell tale of the home run you hit with that baseball bat in your trunk as from senior year of HS some 20 yrs. ago.

    Answer the question, yes or no. Period.
    If 'yes' then see the advisory above about response manner and statement.

    News items like this come up every week and consistently the people reported as being hauled off have statements and actions that are basically same.

    Do not be this guy or these people.
    And study as well as _know_ your laws.
    I state this to my own students.

    $0.02 Street

    - Janq

    P.S. - Watch 'C.O.P.S.' and note how very very rarely anyone get s let off for sass talking a cop.
    Also note how very very often folk get detained if not arrested for not knowing, being ignorant (unaware) or simply trying to futz with the cops and talk them self out of trouble only into deepr trouble and often times steeper charges.
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  9. #24
    Member Array OLDPUPPYMAX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115
    Far too many cops are out looking for points rather than actual criminals. That is one of the reasons that I have a CC license and keep a loaded shotgun in my room. I'll take responsibility for my OWN safety, thanks. I'll be happy to call the police afterward.

  10. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087

    Exclusionary rule comment

    Quote Originally Posted by basher052 View Post
    Not a lawyer. It is not clear to me that this applies in the situation being discussed, but in any case, the rule has rather clearly not fulfilled its purpose very well.

    If, instead of merely excluding evidence that was improperly obtained there were a civil or criminal penalty for the person who improperly got the evidence, we might actually have some real protection of our rights.

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,007
    I am probably in the minority on this but...Officers can't know everything. Seriously, look at the penal code for a city/state/county/etc. It's freaking massive. Cops arent lawyers. I understand that it is hard to enforce the law if one does not KNOW the law but they can't be expected to know ALL of the law. That's what judges and lawyers are for. That being said I think the state should have to pay the guys legal fee's without a doubt.
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...

  12. #27
    Member Array Squidbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Spokane Valley, Wa
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
    I am probably in the minority on this but...Officers can't know everything. Seriously, look at the penal code for a city/state/county/etc. It's freaking massive. Cops arent lawyers. I understand that it is hard to enforce the law if one does not KNOW the law but they can't be expected to know ALL of the law. That's what judges and lawyers are for. That being said I think the state should have to pay the guys legal fee's without a doubt.
    Agreed. They can't be expected to know, understand, or even properly apply all the laws. They should, however, have an understanding of the application of whatever law they're trying to enforce on you. The rulebook that I have to follow for my profession won't fit in most binders, and is hundreds of pages long. If I question a rule or its application, I OPEN THE RULEBOOK. The same should be expected of a LEO, IMO.

    And agreed, the state should cover any/all expenses incurred in this case.

  13. #28
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Here's a common theme I see here all the time.

    "They said, 'Do you have any weapons.?'" he said. "I think out of respect for officers, if an officer says, 'Hey, do you have any weapons in your truck or your vehicle?' you should tell them. It's an officer safety thing."

    Despite how much you assure yourself of your legal rights, and all this concern for this nice officer's safety, think long and hard before you answer that question.

    Pepper spray lands Texas man in jail on felony

    by Jason Whitely / WFAA-TV

    Posted on November 20, 2009 at 8:24 AM

    WYLIE, Texas - A canister of pepper spray is now at the center of a Wylie dispute after a North Texas man found out what most people don't know, anyone who carries it can face a felony.

    ...Jason Simpkins admitted he looked suspicious when a Wylie officer stopped him while he was driving his truck with a jet ski inside his lawn mowing trailer.

    It happened early on the morning of August 22.

    "I didn't have a problem with it at first," Simpkins said. "I gave him my drivers license. I thought, 'Okay, you know, it does look suspicious.'"
    ...
    Mr. Simpkins even admits that he appeared suspicious when he was stopped. The standard for a traffic stop is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Even the defendant in this case seems to be agreeing that the police had reasonable suspicion.


    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    ...The officer then noted that Simpkins' speaker for his truck alarm positioned in his grill looked similar to a siren, though the officer never tested it to see what sound it emitted. News 8 did and heard a loud screeching sound, but no type of emergency tone.

    Simpkins had what police thought were red lights in his grill, as well. But, again, no officer activated them. The "lights" don't illuminate, but are rather part of a laser detection system.

    Officers also saw a police scanner and a law enforcement type light switch often used to activate emergency strobes. The scanner isn't illegal to have and no one tried switching on the lights, which would have illuminated nothing more than fog lights.
    ...
    All that makes it sound like Simpkins is one of those wannabe fire or police guys. If that is the case, that probably means he was known to the police (ask a cop, we all know of these people and have dealings with them), and probably isn't either a firefighter or LEO because he doesn't qualify for one reason or another. If you think that sounds like a stretch, ask yourself "Do I have a scanner, an alarm mounted to look like a siren, and a "laser detector" mounted to look like red lights on my vehicle?". The answer is probably no. If the answer is yes, you might be a wannabe. If that is the case, it explains why he got extra attention. That doesn't necessarily make the extra attention justified, but clearly we don't have all the facts there.

    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    ... A Collin County Grand Jury agreed to prosecute the case, but refused to indict.
    This particular sentence calls into question all the "facts" this reporter presented in the rest of the article. The grand jury in no way, shape, or form agreed to prosecute but refused to indict. An indictment is a check to move forward to a prosecution. A no bill (refusal to indict) is a refusal to prosecute. Clearly the reporter has no real idea what he is talking about.

    Its often said here, and other places, that one should not seek legal advice from LEOs. One should not seek information on newsworthy events from media either.

    The argument here seems to be that the police were wrong to make the arrest. They might have been, but the real problem is the statute being unclear. The legislature wrote the statute knowing that it would have to be interpreted on the side of the road by LEOs, who are not lawyers. There doesn't seem to be a disagreement that clearly the Texas legislature intended some kind or size of OC spray to be illegal, the problem is that they failed to define clearly what that kind or size should be. That leaves it open to interpretation. The grand jury in this case clearly felt it wasn't in violation. Given the same facts, another grand jury might feel differently. The solution is for the legislature to clearly define what constitutes a violation.

    The cops, or course, get blamed for the bad laws they are expected to enforce. Could the cops have made a better decision here? Maybe, it doesn't sound like a situation where I would make an arrest, given the facts presented. Of course, I don't have all the facts, and neither does anyone else responding to this thread. The reporter clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, so where does that leave us?
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Squidbert View Post
    Agreed. They can't be expected to know, understand, or even properly apply all the laws. They should, however, have an understanding of the application of whatever law they're trying to enforce on you. The rulebook that I have to follow for my profession won't fit in most binders, and is hundreds of pages long. If I question a rule or its application, I OPEN THE RULEBOOK. The same should be expected of a LEO, IMO.

    And agreed, the state should cover any/all expenses incurred in this case.
    The problem with that is how many people could understand the law even if they were to carry a copy around with them? If it were that easy to just look at it and say "Ok, got it. This is what that means" then there wouldn't be any need for lawyers.
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...

  15. #30
    Distinguished Member Array PastorPack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,572
    40 minute LEO fishing expedition followed by a bogus arrest! I'm all for respecting our Law enforcement, but this guy should have been sent on his way after proving his ownership of the Jet Ski.
    God is love (1 John 4:8)

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Are we really aware of our surroundings?
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 31st, 2009, 01:58 AM
  2. Question About Staying Aware
    By blinkstafoo1 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 24th, 2008, 04:28 PM
  3. Police Officer & Wife Arrested on Federal Weapons & Drug Charges
    By Cthulhu in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2008, 02:27 AM
  4. Pale yellow, or being aware you're not being aware???
    By Tangle in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 5th, 2005, 01:52 PM

Search tags for this page

ad for concealed weapons permit in crockett texas will not teach liberals

,

become a texas game warden oc spray

,

did jason simpkins get his record expu

,

do i have to show a police officer my permit to carry a weapon

,

do i need to make a police officer aware of my concealed weapon if he enters my place of business?

,

do you have to show your weapon to a police officer if asked?

,

do you show concealed weapon permit if stopped by tx game warden

,

florida law, cops took legally owned gun and concealed weapon permit, no arrest, no information taken, no i'd asked for

,

jason simpkins of wylie, texas

,

karolyna obrycka

,

reidk5

,

texas officer asks if you have any weapons

Click on a term to search for related topics.