• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man arrested with cache of guns, explosives

Depends on how the court rules. If they rule the officer had probable cause for the stop, he's on the hook for the charges. If no probable cause is found for the stop, EVERYTHING they found as a result of the stop is off the table.
 
That still has no bearing on if it is a violation of the driver's rights for the officer to ASK the question if he had guns in the car. He was pulled over for a traffic offense.

No it ****ing isn't.
 
Depends on how the court rules. If they rule the officer had probable cause for the stop, he's on the hook for the charges. If no probable cause is found for the stop, EVERYTHING they found as a result of the stop is off the table.

The probable cause for the stop was speeding. Hence the speeding ticket.
 
No it ****ing isn't.

Agreed, officer safety is probable cause enough to ask the question. At issue is whether or not there was PC for the stop in the first place.
 
Let's say he did not have a sticker on his car, is it okay for the officer to ask then?

Yes. It is. Cops get to ask you questions like that.
 
Agreed, officer safety is probable cause enough to ask the question. At issue is whether or not there was PC for the stop in the first place.

No, that is not at issue and never has been. The probable cause for the stop was speeding. Nobody has challenged that fact.
 
Do not know, what should have happened to him?

I think he should still be around. Hang up the jackboots, give the gov the MRAPs back, that sort of thing.

this
norman-rockwell-the-runaway.jpg


vs

boston_police.jpg



I like the first. Not nervous about approaching and asking for directions....don't have to worry about them executing your dog....
 
I like the first. Not nervous about approaching and asking for directions....don't have to worry about them executing your dog....
You understand that first one is a fictional representation, yes?
 
That still has no bearing on if it is a violation of the driver's rights for the officer to ASK the question if he had guns in the car. He was pulled over for a traffic offense.

As already stated by a couple of people, he wasnt pulled over for the bumper sticker.

And he did see a weapon in the car.

In some states, you must inform an officer if you have a loaded (maybe even unloaded) firearm in the vehicle, whether asked or not.

In other states, you must confirm you have a firearm if the officer asks but you do not have to volunteer the information.

So right there, the officer probably had the right to arrest him, since one or the other of those probably applies (cant say for sure tho).
 
Let's say he did not have a sticker on his car, is it okay for the officer to ask then?

In many states, the fact that you have a cc permit comes up when the cops run your license plates...they can know before they even approach your car.


But in this case....he saw the weapon.

I'm not sure if this clarifies it at all for you? Maybe I am missing your point.
 
In many states, the fact that you have a cc permit comes up when the cops run your license plates...they can know before they even approach your car.


But in this case....he saw the weapon.

I'm not sure if this clarifies it at all for you? Maybe I am missing your point.

I understand all that Lursa, as I told Deuce, I think you are misunderstanding my posts.
 
Merely asking if you have any weapons in the vehicle isn't a violation of a person's rights. Now, if he had asked to search the vehicle based on those bumper stickers that could be an infringement.

Every time I've ever been pulled over by the police I've always been asked this question. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, sometimes I've forgotten and have to amend my statement. The last usually ends with another 15 minutes of hassle but for the most part, how you interact with the officer is the most clear indicator of how the officer will interact with you.

This dimwit holding a piece between his legs shows me he deserves to be arrested. For being stupid. If you've already told the officer "No" and have no intention of amending your statement it's best to leave that weapon wherever you had it. If it was always in between his legs he could have found numerous ways to better conceal it after the officer went back to his cruiser. So as it is he was dumb.
 
You understand that first one is a fictional representation, yes?

I do, but the attitude was VERY different.

I can tell you one thing, the bottom picture is not a fictional representation.
 
Now, if he had asked to search the vehicle based on those bumper stickers that could be an infringement.

That is still no 4th AM violation.
 
No, that is not at issue and never has been. The probable cause for the stop was speeding. Nobody has challenged that fact.

Okay, then he's on the hook for the charges. My point wasn't to quibble about the question of weapons once he was stopped.
 
That is still no 4th AM violation.

Speeding while having provocative signs on your vehicle I don't see as probable cause. That would allow the police a much broader license than perhaps you're realizing.
 
In many states, the fact that you have a cc permit comes up when the cops run your license plates...they can know before they even approach your car.

They can also run plates even before they stop you, no Constitutional violation there.
 
Speeding while having provocative signs on your vehicle I don't see as probable cause. That would allow the police a much broader license than perhaps you're realizing.


Speeding is all the cause the cop needed. WHY he pulled him over is the officer's discretion, and even if profiled, subjective intentions play no role in ordinary fourth amendment analysis, that is the law.
 
Speeding is all the cause the cop needed. WHY he pulled him over is the officer's discretion, and even if profiled, subjective intentions play no role in ordinary fourth amendment analysis, that is the law.

Speeding is a violation of the law. Speeding in and of itself offers no other reason to go past issuing a citation. To believe it does is the subjective determination.

The law is sophistry.
 
Back
Top Bottom