Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Use this forum to post your experience with encounters with law enforcement, criminals, or other encounters as a result of your firearm or potential to be carrying one.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Postby schmieg » Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:07 am

pk47 wrote:
Ole_grizzly wrote: [snip] ... my wallet was close enough that’s what made him decide. I will use a different pocket in the future. [snip]


Whatever one's view is of notification, given it is a reality, this should be one's standard operating method anyway. No sense giving any officer concern, or reason to want to remove your firearm, by carrying the two close to one another. After all, women are often instructed to keep the wallet and firearm separate if they are carrying a purse - don't put the two in the same compartment.

For me, it's weapon right side, ID left side (and in the shirt pocket if I have one). I bought a small wallet just for the ID purposes and easy shirt pocket carry - very thin and little bulk (Slimline brand).

(I am in favor of removing notification, so I'm with most of you posting on this thread)

I think of the instance a few years ago that I read on a different forum about a person being stopped and the officer took possession of his 1911, dismissed the person's offer to instruct the officer on how to unload it, thought the safety was the decocker and then put a round through the fender of the person's car when he dropped the hammer after "decocking."
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5356
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Postby WY_Not » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:20 pm

Minor quibble but... Words matter. Words have specific meanings.

The officer's actions were not within his rights. They were within his authority/powers. Individuals have rights. Governments and their agents have authorities, powers, duties, responsibilities, obligations; they have NO rights.

WhyNot wrote:
...and most of the rest don't know or care, but listen to the media which is among those who are opposed to gun rights. The money and power are all on the other side. All we have is ourselves.


...ourselves and, THE TRUTH. Or for the lesser minds of the unwashed masses, opinions rooted in fact, not feelings, conjecture, superstitions; unfounded fear.

Kudos to the cyclist OP for how you handled the traffic stop and the overall results. Officer was within his rights to remove pistol, was ALSO within his rights to ticket you. Sounds like the teeter totter balanced out on this one :)
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.

Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH

Re: Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Postby Mr. Glock » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:16 pm

Notification adds additional stress to an already stressful situation. Many law-abiding folks don’t interact with LEOs often, and might gesture toward the gun when saying where it is. This is an unnecessary risk on both sides.

With many LEOs not being gun people, removing a gun from a CHL holster introduces the ability to make errors in gun handling. Many LEOs only meet minimum qualifications levels, which makes unfamiliar gun handling even more dangerous to all involved. Just because I carry a knife daily does not make me a knife expert.

And no LEO in their right mind would ever think there are only guns in the car only if the driver notifies, so the officer safety argument is not correct.

It’s all about the higher probability of errors.
“Without dignity there is no liberty, without justice there is no dignity, and without independence there are no free men.”
- Patrice Lumumba
OFCC Patron, NRA Benefactor Life & Hot Stove League Member
User avatar
Mr. Glock
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 8788
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Re: Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Postby steves 50de » Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:35 pm

WhyNot wrote:
...and most of the rest don't know or care, but listen to the media which is among those who are opposed to gun rights. The money and power are all on the other side. All we have is ourselves.


...ourselves and, THE TRUTH. Or for the lesser minds of the unwashed masses, opinions rooted in fact, not feelings, conjecture, superstitions; unfounded fear.

Kudos to the cyclist OP for how you handled the traffic stop and the overall results. Officer was within his rights to remove pistol, was ALSO within his rights to ticket you. Sounds like the teeter totter balanced out on this one :)

More and more i hear CHL holders are not given tickets compared to none chl folks.
Black Rifles Matter
steves 50de
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:26 pm
Location: n.e. ohio

Re: Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Postby WhyNot » Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:56 pm

The officer's actions were not within his rights. They were within his authority/powers.


I agree, and yes words have meanings. Until it's my unique form of engerish (expresso related, sometimes added sugar :P )
Acquisitions thus far:

Slingshot
Butter knife
Soda straw and peas
Sharpened pencil
Newspaper roll
water balloon (diversionary)

Yeah, I'm that good
WhyNot
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Postby 3FULLMAGS+1 » Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:02 pm

AND when we DO get rid of notification, I can still see carriers getting hassled for not notifying because they, (law enforcement), won't be aware of the law change.
Darrel
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
3FULLMAGS+1
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.

Re: Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Postby Anders » Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:57 pm

I don’t think that notification is an independent issue. As long as they have my CHL status come up in their computers, a lack of notification will always create stress and uncertainty for the LEO. It hardly matters whether I must notify if armed if they think I’m probably armed anyway. If they are going to see that I hold a CHL when they run my car, then I am going to notify of my status whether required to or not... whether carrying or not. Anything else puts me in the position of the LEO suspecting I have a gun while being unsure of my intentions, and I don’t want to be interacting with a nervous, armed person in a position of authority over me. If they did away with required notification AND the computer tag about my CHL, then I would be comfortable only informing if they asked or ordered me to step out of the vehicle. If ordered to exit the vehicle while armed, I would inform whether or not it was required.
Anders
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 9:15 pm

Re: Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Postby Ghost Recon » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:06 pm

pathetic...absolutely pathetic
Ghost Recon
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:08 am
Location: Geauga County

Re: Geauga Sheriff A+ traffic stop.

Postby schmieg » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:31 pm

Anders wrote:I don’t think that notification is an independent issue. As long as they have my CHL status come up in their computers, a lack of notification will always create stress and uncertainty for the LEO. It hardly matters whether I must notify if armed if they think I’m probably armed anyway. If they are going to see that I hold a CHL when they run my car, then I am going to notify of my status whether required to or not... whether carrying or not. Anything else puts me in the position of the LEO suspecting I have a gun while being unsure of my intentions, and I don’t want to be interacting with a nervous, armed person in a position of authority over me. If they did away with required notification AND the computer tag about my CHL, then I would be comfortable only informing if they asked or ordered me to step out of the vehicle. If ordered to exit the vehicle while armed, I would inform whether or not it was required.

There is no penalty for notifying if you are not required to, though you should be aware that in states where notification is not required, some have reported that officers stopping them there were a bit upset at the notification because they weren't used to it. Any officer that concerned about a CHL showing up on the LEADS should be asking whether you have a gun anyway.

You may not have a problem with it, but some officers seem to use it as a gotcha which can be very effective with someone not used to dealing with the police and who may be very nervous about the stop. If they are reviewing in their minds why they were stopped as the officer approaches, notifying may slip their minds. Some people react that way, even when they have done nothing wrong.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5356
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Previous

Return to Real Life Encounters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests