Page 3 of 3
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:22 am
by KingofChaos
No where did I say that drunks are only out at night. I know lots of people who get drunk during the day, but my point was that if there was going to be a checkpoint it's much more likely to occur during the peak times for DWI. There's no flaw there at all. Thanks for the information about identifying yourself though. And a car accident isn't the best example, since the officer is basically being called to find fault and write someone a ticket. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't, but accidents usually get caused by someone violating traffic law, and the officer is basically conducting an investigation.
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:21 am
by b322da
KingofChaos wrote:speedsix wrote:...absolutely wrong...you need to research the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause"... here's a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ...if we're going to excercise our rights under the law, we must first know the law...
I may have gotten the term incorrect, but from your own source you proved my point.
"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".[2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop."
They still have to think you're doing something illegal, which was my original point. If you want to engage in semantics, you're on your own
With respect, it is not semantics. The difference between "a reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" is a serious matter of a legal definition, which can can be the difference between one being arrested or not; it can be the difference between one going to jail or not; it might even be the difference between a routine legitimate LEO encounter and one being killed or seriously wounded during that encounter. A complete analysis of the difference, and its potential consequences, can be a good-sized portion of a law library, and to say that the materal provided by speedsix bolsters an earlier blatantly incorrect statement is laughable.
Here on this forum this long-time member hears much too often words akin to, "I may have gotten the term incorrect, but so what?" When one puts his views down on paper, or even expresses them orally, and he "gets the term incorrect," invalidating a critical element of his argument, his entire conclusion generally becomes incorrect, and should his incorrect conclusion then be spread around the internet and picked up by another person equally unfamiliar with the subject, that other person is poorly served, often to his disadvantage.
By way of comparison, I am not competent to discuss nuclear physics, therefore I do not pretend to know anything about nuclear physics. If one does not know the law on some subject, including the meaning of legal language having to do with that subject, I would submit that he has no business giving legal advice on that subject to the world.
Similarly, to express a personal opinion as being a fact is intellectual dishonesty. If one has an opinion he should express it as an opinion, which honestly and candidly admits that he may be wrong.
Elmo
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:25 am
by gigag04
KingofChaos wrote: Unless some officer is just asking EVERYONE for ID, which would be harassment.
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:02 pm
by rm9792
Beiruty wrote:Yes, while doing an investigation, filing an accident report, checking who is riding in car (maybe, not sure), taking a statement from witness, or a victim, all of those cases maybe considered lawful contact while discharging the officer duties.
If you are just riding in the car and not carrying, you need no id.
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:31 pm
by speedsix
...I know I come off here as a jerk sometimes...but my motivation is to educate...I'm an old ex-training officer who's pretty blunt most of the time...but I figure folks are here to learn and help each other...and when something's posted contrary to law and noone says anything about it...folks tend to embrace it as truth and go with it...that can be life-changing and not for the better...I would rather have everyone here mad at me and state the law clearly than have that happen to anyone...I don't try to be obnoxious...just want to steer folks right so they have a smooth trip...details matter...correctness matters, when it comes to laws...I don't care if you call it a magazine, clip, or bullet thingy...that doesn't get someone in jail or dead...I do get kinda adamant when the law's misrepresented...we gotta get that right to stay free...and I like free
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:52 pm
by bilgerat57
Beiruty wrote:In TX, the LEO has the right to ask for ID, CHL and potential disarm in CHLer in any "lawful contact". My understanding, if the LEO while conducting his work, not randomly stopping and asking for ID anyone he sees on the street.
§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A peace
officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1,
1997.
The way I understand it, A LEO is not required to return the weapon if he believes you are too upset or disturbed to handle the weapon responsibly. I understand that he can require you to retrieve your weapon at a later time after you have "cooled-off". Time and place such as at the police station in the morning.........Am I mistaken here?
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:59 pm
by speedsix
...you are right...
"...shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual..."
...that's enough to keep our cool for, and not seem outraged and vindictive...blowing off can be very inconvenient to a CHL..
...if we seem too wild, he can file a request for a review to see if we lose our license or not...so grit your teeth, but smile while you're doing it!!!
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:26 pm
by bkj
srothstein wrote:KingofChaos,
If a Texas officer stops you for anything other than an arrest or while driving, you do not have to identify yourself. You do have to provide your DL and CHL if you are driving, and think of a car accident as one example of when you must identify with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. And, under Texas law, if you have a CHL, the officer may disarm you for the duration of the contact. In Texas, is you are a witness or suspect in a crime, you do not have to identify but cannot falsely identify. The Supreme Court has also ruled that in states where you are required to identify, that is constitutional. That was a Nevada case where the man was suspected of having been involved in a disturbance.
GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. (a) If a license
holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's
person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license
holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license
holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the
department and the license holder's handgun license.
I would read this as anytime an officer asked a CHL holder for ID and they have their weapon they must show
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:33 pm
by speedsix
...I think he's got a point...the fact that he's a peace officer and asks for ID, the CHL law kicks in for us and we must display both, where another non-CHL citizen might be legally able to refuse...regardless of which is true, I'm willing to identify for any LEO and politely so...why set the stage for a nit-picking argument...nothing can be hurt by my being who I am...unless the nursing home's lookin' for me...again...
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:37 pm
by Beiruty
I do not understand why people who OC or even CC or not carry at all refuse to ID themselves in lawful contact? I know privacy and etc.. but what harm can happen if the one state his name if has a clean criminal record like a white page.
Re: Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:57 pm
by koolaid
KingofChaos wrote:The real question in all of this is, why did he paint the tip of it orange?
*crickets*