What we are talking about here is a CCL holder packing heat during the commission of a crime, whether it be hooking or drug dealing going on in his backseat and whether he is aware of it or not. It’s wise for even non-CCL holders to be not be parking on the side of the road of a crime infested area while serving as chauffeur (at the least) to a known pimp, drug dealer, prostitute or like element. Certainly not a good time to have a handgun tucked in your waistband when the hooker, pimp, dealer, etc. is made by the cops.

whatcat on July 24, 2011 at 4:18 AM

I saw no obvious ‘crime’ unless the crime was being black or being a known prostitute.
And as a CCW myself I can tell you that ‘area’ is precisely the place I’d want my gat on me.
YOU sir, are intentionally or not, being too ambiguous on where one is ALLOWED to carry a gun. The laws of the various states tell you where you CANNOT carry. Anyplace else is above board.
I used to live in the ‘hood and I AM a law abiding citizen. Am I hamstrung by YOUR opinion simply because at the time it was the only place I could afford?
But the one thing that supercedes all of this bullsh!t is the fact is, the LAST person the fuzz have to worry about is a citizen who jumped through the hoops to get the license in the first place.
That steroid monster punk cop is just that – a punk, as is his equally worthless partner. Both of those sacks of crap should fry in their own juices and NEVER be allowed to own weapons again as they have clearly demonstrated they are unfit to bear the responsibility.
That driver had more control than I did. After about the 4th threat to my person while handcuffed, I’da gone off on that bastard cop.
If that stupid ‘roid cop is dumb enough to think no one’s watching, he’s an idiot.

whatcat on July 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Where is it illegal to let “hookers out of car”?

I think the point is that associating with criminals is not too bright (if not a disqualifying or illegal activity) when you have a CCL.

How did the driver “know” they were criminals?
Your assuming a lot. Did you watch the clip?

conservative blog:

Who cares? Right is right, wrong is wrong.

“The woman is then questioned about whether she is soliciting sex. She is asked if she is carrying a “shooter” to which she replies in the negative”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but according to the clip, the Cop’s didn’t ask these questions until AFTER they had pulled up behind the parked car and, in effect, put all persons under arrest.
RSP (Rear Seat Passenger.)

1:32 RSP ordered to remain in car.
1:52 RSP ordered to put hand on car (outside car).
2:05 RSP told if he moves his hand he’s going to jail.
2:35 Cop ask RSP what is your name Hoss?
2:36 RSP tells cop his name is Jerry Gordon (sic).

In most of the country, the cops have to have a reason to stop and question citizens.
In most of the country, the fact that “you exist” isn’t reason enough for the cops stop and question citizens.

What was the reason?, what was the probable cause? For the interrogation?

“What we are talking about here is a CCL holder packing heat during the commission of a crime, whether it be hooking or drug dealing going on in his backseat and whether he is aware of it or not.”

What, from the clip, tells you that a crime has been committed?
From the clip, could you see hooking or drug dealing going on in his backseat?

“whether he is aware of it or not”

Now your saying the driver is guilty of not being able to read minds or see into the future?

“while serving as chauffeur (at the least) to a known pimp, drug dealer, prostitute or like element is made by the cops.”

Help me out here, the cops from 50 yards away they spot a car stopped, all break lights on (3 bright red lights), they can tell from the back of the RSP head that he is a “known pimp, drug dealer, prostitute or like element”?

BTW, from the clip did you notice the cops sent the “known pimp, drug dealer, prostitute” on their way without taking them to jail?

Kinda sorta ends any claim that…….
A crime had been committed.
The RSP was/is a “known pimp, drug dealer, prostitute”.
The female was/is a “known pimp, drug dealer, prostitute”.
Next!

whatcat on July 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM
Last time I checked, hookers and pimps who were not imprisoned were citizens as well.
It may be illegal in some states for felons to associate, but I never heard of a law where a law abiding citizen MUST give felons, ex or otherwise, a wide berth.

What we are talking about here is a CCL holder packing heat during the commission of a crime, whether it be hooking or drug dealing going on in his backseat and whether he is aware of it or not. It’s wise for even non-CCL holders to be not be parking on the side of the road of a crime infested area while serving as chauffeur (at the least) to a known pimp, drug dealer, prostitute or like element. Certainly not a good time to have a handgun tucked in your waistband when the hooker, pimp, dealer, etc. is made by the cops.

flicker on July 23, 2011 at 1:16 PM

That pretty much sums it up.
Couldn’t possibly happen. This is America after all.

whatcat on July 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Last time I checked, hookers and pimps who were not imprisoned were citizens as well.
It may be illegal in some states for felons to associate, but I never heard of a law where a law abiding citizen MUST give felons, ex or otherwise, a wide berth.
This cop should be the recipient of his own threats.

And I wouldn’t lose ANY sleep over it.

Where is it illegal to let “hookers out of car”?

I think the point is that associating with criminals is not too bright (if not a disqualifying or illegal activity) when you have a CCL.

How do we know they were hookers?
DSchoen on July 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM

This from a conservative blog:
“The woman is then questioned about whether she is soliciting sex. She is asked if she is carrying a “shooter” to which she replies in the negative. The officer accuses her of being a prior offender, to which she responds that she had been arrested many years ago for solicitation on two occasions but was no longer working as a prostitute.”

I think the crazed cop should be criminally charged, but if you check I believe you’ll find this happened in an area notorious for gangs, guns, prostitution, drugs, etc., where you’re not likely to get too many offenders fessing up to dealing, pimping, hooking, shooting.

starman on July 22, 2011 at 6:33 PM

There’s no theoretical about it.

“wrong part of town” There is no wrong part of town. However if there were a “wrong part of town” the cops would have approached with weapons drawn, they didn’t.
“in the middle of the night” Laws and rights change in the middle of the night? That’s a new one on me.
“letting hookers out of car” Where is it illegal to let “hookers out of car”?
How do we know they were hookers?

Other problems
The car wasn’t moving so there is no moving violation that would account for the cops stopping.
It doesn’t appear to be a no parking zone, or the cops would have stated it.

What we have is a car stopped, letting people out (or in).
If that’s probable cause we are in a police state.

flicker on July 23, 2011 at 1:16 PM
Trans-fats are outlawed. Happy meals are outlawed. Raw eggs are outlawed to be served. Rare meat is outlawed.

Oy – well, at least you left Twinkies out of your conspiracy.

I’m just as bemused by those who claim a cop just simply cannot be a nutcase (LEOs are immune from mental issues? Interesting theory) – that this incident was part of some vast secret government plan – as I am by those who claim Obama simply can’t be a bad President; all criticism of him is really based on some vast and entrenched racism.

Your one “psychotic” cop is just the aberration in an otherwise happy and supportive government, huh?

Tell the truth. You’re on disability aren’t you. (smile)

If a “view” relies on imagined complex conspiracies when there is an incredibly obvious (though less feverish & glamorous) rational explanation – then, yeah, it should be rejected out of hand. Refer to the cited Manson-Beatles example. Or the aforementioned “Twinkie Defense”.
whatcat on July 22, 2011 at 3:30 PM

A vast, intricate government conspiracy? It’s hard to talk to someone, or have a meaningful discussion when one person throws poor analogies and wildly exaggerates the other’s arguments.

But do we have a vast, intricate government conspiracy? Vast? Yes, it’s pervasive and intrusive in every area of civil life. Intricate? No more than an often repeated but erroneous rumor (or urban myth, if you want. I would call it a nationally propagandized agenda).

Vast? Of the top of my head based on statements and actions from the US Government:

Trans-fats are outlawed. Happy meals are outlawed. Raw eggs are outlawed to be served. Rare meat is outlawed. Growing liberty gardens are outlawed. Children’s lemonade stands are outlawed.

Carbon dioxide (a gas exhaled by every human with every breath) it outlawed. Gas and oil exploration and production is severely limited. Terrorists are called peaceful Muslims and Christians are called dangerous cultists.

Handguns are outlawed. Abortion laws are outlawed by judicial fiat. Legal gun owners are portrayed as dangerous criminals. Judges give cops the benefit of the doubt over citizens in he-said-she-said encounters.

A fish shuts down the most fertile valley in the US. A lizard stops oil exploration in Texas.

Companies dictating to in what states they can build plants. Unions may organize without secret ballots. Borders remain unsecured. Illegal aliens are no longer illegal and no longer aliens but undocumented workers. Terrorist don’t exist, rather human catastrophes happen.

Businesses are taxed to the point of leaving the country. And minimum wages assure that fewer workers are paid more.

GM is ‘nationalized’ (or nearly so) and secure bond holders are cheated of their investments. The healthcare industry is ‘nationalized’ (or nearly so) and insurance companies are squeezed to provide more services than can be paid for through premiums.

The US Government secures guns for Mexican drug cartels in order to blame legitimate gun owners and dealers in the US. The US Attorney General stonewalls inquiries about the ATF abetting sending guns to Mexico. And the US AG allows the baton-carrying New Black Panthers to intimidate voters in Pennsylvania, but arrests a seventy-year-old man for talking to women outside of abortion clinics.

And every man, woman, child, baby and bedridden nursing home patient owes an average of $45,000 to the US government and its bond holders.

And now the government wants to raise the debt limit and increase taxes.

Runaway government? Nevahhh!

And that “brother crap” is a bond most will never know and thus think little of it or even demean it and call it “crap”.

CVMA-Dredd on July 23, 2011 at 12:36 AM

It becomes “crap” outside of the context of the military bond, which this is. When assclowns like this set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner of the citizenry on the pretext that their “brother” will cover for them….that’s crap.

If this guy has actually been in battle, he certainly doesn’t fit the model of calm and matter of fact that you describe. If he hasn’t, then he really has no business toddling around in the “brother” world does he?

BTW, thanks for your service to the country!!!

More and more of them (than in recent times past)have seen REAL battle action in Iraq and Afghanistan and are psychologically bent to explode in situations like this.

starman on July 22, 2011 at 6:33 PM

I’ve got three years of combat experience in Iraq. Actually leaving the wire on a daily basis and participating in REAL battle action. I’ve found that I, and my cohorts, became psychologically bent to become more calm and matter of fact in situations like that. Of course all men tend to react a little different, but for the most part I found the more time a man spent on the two way rifle range the more calm he was under fire or stressful situations. With some exceptions.

And that “brother crap” is a bond most will never know and thus think little of it or even demean it and call it “crap”.

All that aside, this police officer appears to be a self-important douche who doesn’t deserve his position as an officer of the law. He should be forced to find a new occupation.

I also carry concealed, i.e. I reserve my constitutional right to bear arms.

Being a CWP carrier myself, I’m not sure how I would respond if a cop flew into me like that except probably similarly to this poor fellow…to be followed up with some major lawsuit action.

Yup, indeed, this cop is a walking lawsuit for the city to handle.

Of course, I wasn’t in the wrong part of town, in the middle of the night, letting hookers out of car at the time either.

Yeah, probably would be wise not to make this particular guy the conceal-carry poster boy, lol.

That is the problem with People like Ed and other police sympathizers, they have no real experience with real cops, or they are family or close friends with cops which means the police community views them as “cops” and treats them as they do “their brothers” not has they would a “civilian”

the_ancient on July 21, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Most cops are products of some branch of the military…that’s where that “brother” crap comes from and the tendancy to see the lowly “civilian” population as the enemy. More and more of them (than in recent times past)have seen REAL battle action in Iraq and Afghanistan and are psychologically bent to explode in situations like this. He has no business being an officer of the peace in these United States.

Being a CWP carrier myself, I’m not sure how I would respond if a cop flew into me like that except probably similarly to this poor fellow…to be followed up with some major lawsuit action. I’ve been stopped twice since I’ve had mine and both times was let off with a warning BECAUSE I had a CWP…as the class instructor predicted would happen. Both times it was no big deal to the cops. Of course, I wasn’t in the wrong part of town, in the middle of the night, letting hookers out of car at the time either. Even so, it theoretically shouldn’t make a difference.

Should the officer be fired or the guy lose his CCL? No on both counts.

What a surprise. A cop think a bad cop should not be fired.

In a nutshell: guy was up to no good and decided to use the first minute of the contact to lie about why he was there instead of telling the officer about the CCL? Arrestable offense? Maybe, that’s up to the officer involved. But the officer’s behavior after the guy was cuffed and stuffed was not cool and not something I would want to see one of my charges doing. Should the officer be fired or the guy lose his CCL? No on both counts.

RedNewEnglander

I agree with you he should have flat out, right off the bat told the one of the officers “the law require me to tell you I have CCL and that I have a firearm”.

But after that, we part ways, RedNewEnglander. The cop here is a total headcase and should have been weeded out long before this. Now he should be fired and held to account for civil rights violations – not to do with the CCL question – but no one can threaten another person with violent murder and allowed to escape punishment, civil and/or criminal. Repeated murder threats goes a bit beyond “not cool”.

While it is impossible – and not desirable – to retrain the offending officer, I think the CCL guy may be re-trainable to be aware of his responsibilities – especially in encounters with LE. If he cannot learn that, then it’s no CCL for him. He gets the dunce cap, while the crazed cop get the straightjacket – that’s happily ever after.

Well, first off, the guy had approx. one minute to tell the officer of his license and weapon plus all the time prior to that when he was sitting in the car while it was being searched (more on that stupid stunt later). Instead, he opted to spend that time lying about where/how/when he knew this known prostitute. Guy should have made that CCL notification top priority and done it promptly, as required by law.

That said, it’s understandable why the officer would be upset with him. It looks, however, that the officer violated the unwritten rule of “ream ‘em or write ‘em.” You can go off on someone verbally, to a degree, if you aren’t going to charge them. However, if you’re going to charge them, it’s best to remain as calm as possible. Either the tongue-lashing or a formal charge; doing both is rare and not really advisable except under extreme circumstances. Based on what I can see in the video, these were not those extreme circumstances. Also, I feel he went on a bit too long with the scolding. Enough – your point was made after the first round of that stuff. Now, you’re really just looking like a dick – case in point, “. . .a nice witness as I executed you because you’re stupid.” *facepalm*

Then, he’s going off about the guy with the gun in the car while he’s searching it – well, that’s YOUR FAULT EITHER WAY, OFFICER! What if he didn’t have a CCL and still had the gun – would that make you feel better?!? You should be assuming everyone you encounter is armed and acting accordingly. Very, very bad tactics leaving ANYONE in a vehicle you are searching. I’ve NEVER seen that in my eleven years of law enforcement experience and hope to never see it again. Piss poor officer safety. Piss poor.

As to why the plate didn’t come back earlier, could be a computer issue of slow returns or, more likely, dispatch sucks. ;)

In a nutshell: guy was up to no good and decided to use the first minute of the contact to lie about why he was there instead of telling the officer about the CCL? Arrestable offense? Maybe, that’s up to the officer involved. But the officer’s behavior after the guy was cuffed and stuffed was not cool and not something I would want to see one of my charges doing. Should the officer be fired or the guy lose his CCL? No on both counts.

And they all lived happily ever after. . .

Whatever his reasons, I doubt he’ll ever accept another point of view.
flicker on July 22, 2011 at 2:04 PM

If a “view” relies on imagined complex conspiracies when there is an incredibly obvious (though less feverish & glamorous) rational explanation – then, yeah, it should be rejected out of hand. Refer to the cited Manson-Beatles example. Or the aforementioned “Twinkie Defense”.