CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

LongFuzzy said:
I would suggest that you do not announce that you have a gun. Don't even announce that you have a permit to carry a gun. Once the officer is at your window, you tell him you are going to reach for your ID. Hand the officer your Driver license and permit at the same time. Let him digest that. He will then ask if you are carrying. Which at that time you tell him, yes I am. Then do exactly what he asks you to do.
By telling him you have a gun or permit, then reaching for something, he is going to get very nervous. Best to not do that.
Click to expand...

Then there is a need for consistency in the law and procedure through out the USA when a driver is stopped. It could be introduced as part of the driving test.
 
Nessie said:
Then there is a need for consistency in the law and procedure through out the USA when a driver is stopped. It could be introduced as part of the driving test.
Click to expand...

These things are covered under state law, not federal law. And, yes, most states have a CCW class where you are supposed to be told the exact procedure.

The majority of drivers don't carry but most carriers drive, so it wouldn't make sense to move the training from CCW to driver's ed.
 
AdamSK said:
These things are covered under state law, not federal law. And, yes, most states have a CCW class where you are supposed to be told the exact procedure.

The majority of drivers don't carry but most carriers drive, so it wouldn't make sense to move the training from CCW to driver's ed.
Click to expand...

The lack of clarity and consistency is clearly a problem, as shown by the disagreements in this thread and what happened in the instance being examined.

I think that unarmed drivers should also be made aware of what to do. If I hire a car in the USA, I want to know what to do.
 
Nessie said:
I think that unarmed drivers should also be made aware of what to do. If I hire a car in the USA, I want to know what to do.
Click to expand...

FYI, If you rent a car* in the US, you need to understand that criminal law and police are state specific. You need to know what to do in the state where you will be driving.




*To clarify, if you are driving the car, in the US this is called "car rental." To "hire a car" generally means paying for a car and driver.
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
The lack of clarity and consistency is clearly a problem, as shown by the disagreements in this thread and what happened in the instance being examined.

I think that unarmed drivers should also be made aware of what to do. If I hire a car in the USA, I want to know what to do.
Click to expand...

Although written by a Minnesota lawyer in 2012 this advice is nearly identical to what I was taught in Massachusetts public school driver education classes in the 70s and has worked well for me over the decades.

Know Your Rights: Traffic Stop
 
3point14 said:
Are you talking about the officer or the civilian?
Click to expand...

Can we find some other term instead of civilian? Police officers are civilians, not an occupying military force. I think part of the problem is that many people, including LEOs do not see it this way.
 
Donal said:
Can we find some other term instead of civilian? Police officers are civilians, not an occupying military force. I think part of the problem is that many people, including LEOs do not see it this way.
Click to expand...

Fair point. Wasn't sure what else to use. Sam Vimes would be cross at me.
 
AdamSK said:
FYI, If you rent a car* in the US, you need to understand that criminal law and police are state specific. You need to know what to do in the state where you will be driving.




*To clarify, if you are driving the car, in the US this is called "car rental." To "hire a car" generally means paying for a car and driver.
Click to expand...

Since your life can depend on getting it right, both driver and police, a nationally agreed code of practice would reduce risks.
 
Max_mang said:
Thanks for posting that. It's equally sad and horrifying. Unfortunately, it's after the shooting and we only have her word on what happened prior to her video. Does anyone know if there is bodycam or dashcam footage of the entire stop? I can't find anything in the news articles.
Click to expand...

That was my curiosity also. There are many things that could have happened prior to the beginning of the video. She was oddly well-composed. Nevertheless, no matter what the cop says happened, the veracity of it will be questioned extensively.
 
alfaniner said:
That was my curiosity also. There are many things that could have happened prior to the beginning of the video. She was oddly well-composed. Nevertheless, no matter what the cop says happened, the veracity of it will be questioned extensively.
Click to expand...

I would be composed if I had had it drummed into me by repeated shootings that I am at high risk of being shot by the police and I was protecting myself and my daughter. She was also clearly working to the camera as she gathered evidence of what was happening. Well done her.
 
Nessie said:
Since your life can depend on getting it right, both driver and police, a nationally agreed code of practice would reduce risks.
Click to expand...

The federal government doesn't have the authority to do that. Police powers are generally left to the states. That's how our Constitution works.
 
AdamSK said:
The federal government doesn't have the authority to do that. Police powers are generally left to the states. That's how our Constitution works.
Click to expand...

Can't the feds just threaten to take the highway money away again like they did for drinking ages?
 
Wayward son said:
If I did everything wrong I would still have less chance of being shot as a black man who does everything correct.
Click to expand...

No, if you violently assault a police officer while white, you have a much higher chance of being shot than if you sit with your hands in plain sight while black.

The main difference is that, when a white man violently assaults a police officer and is shot for it, it's not news.
 
3point14 said:
Can't the feds just threaten to take the highway money away again like they did for drinking ages?
Click to expand...

They probably could not take the highway funding away, but they probably could take police funding away, yes. Note that many more states would be willing to stick to their own rules and forego the money in that case than in the case of drinking ages or speed limits and highway funds.
 
AdamSK said:
They probably could not take the highway funding away, but they probably could take police funding away, yes. Note that many more states would be willing to stick to their own rules and forego the money in that case than in the case of drinking ages or speed limits and highway funds.
Click to expand...

Funding can come with any attachments, it doesn't have to be related to the projects funded.
 
AdamSK said:
No, if you violently assault a police officer while white, you have a much higher chance of being shot than if you sit with your hands in plain sight while black.

The main difference is that, when a white man violently assaults a police officer and is shot for it, it's not news.
Click to expand...

When a white man violently assaults a police officer and is shot for it, it shouldn't be news.

When a black man is shot sitting with his hands in plain sight, it should be news.
 
AdamSK said:
The federal government doesn't have the authority to do that. Police powers are generally left to the states. That's how our Constitution works.
Click to expand...

I forgot that common sense and cooperation do not apply in the USA when it comes to guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom