Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Oh, good. Lets practice!
Cop: "If you have nothing to hide, why do you mind answering my question?"
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Pulled over by PCSO.
- Thread starter Strike
- Start date
Oh, good. Lets practice!
Cop: "If you have nothing to hide, why do you mind answering my question?"
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
*silence*
F350
Regular Member
The reason I have now placed a piece of black tape over the serial number of my 1911 style pistol. Will it stop a cop from running the SN? NO. Will it potentially provide one more nail in his coffin in the lawsuit? Hopefully.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Your premise that innocent people should need to have a reason not to share personal info with others is faulty.
I have plenty to hide. My personal data. It belongs to me. I'll not give it away, that would be stupid.
thunderbolt
Regular Member
I don't typically push the issues or willfully put myself into tenuous circumstances, nor do I "bait" cops.
However, If I knew that it was M.O. for cops in my area to typically disarm lawful OC'ers or CC'ers during traffic or other minor interactions, I think I would be inclined to carry the (unloaded!) gun in an unusual/unfamiliar level 3 holster, with all the retention devises engaged, with a lanyard strapping the gun to my body and fully duct-taped into the holster.
Cop: "Sir, where is your firearm?"
Me: "Left hip, 3:30." (I'm a lefty)
Cop: "I'm going to remove your weapon for officer safety."
Me: "Knock yourself out....."
Cop: "What the.....?" :cuss:
I'm sure the ensuing circus there on the side of the road would look like a full-on rape from those passing by...lol. :banana:
One would hope that the cop would look at it, snicker and say "Have a good day, Sir". But the 'officer safety' Nazi's would probably actually try and extract said gun.
Hopefully, the entire process would be video recorded for future reference and comedic illustration when shown to the judge at the lawsuit hearing.
T.
However, If I knew that it was M.O. for cops in my area to typically disarm lawful OC'ers or CC'ers during traffic or other minor interactions, I think I would be inclined to carry the (unloaded!) gun in an unusual/unfamiliar level 3 holster, with all the retention devises engaged, with a lanyard strapping the gun to my body and fully duct-taped into the holster.
Cop: "Sir, where is your firearm?"
Me: "Left hip, 3:30." (I'm a lefty)
Cop: "I'm going to remove your weapon for officer safety."
Me: "Knock yourself out....."
Cop: "What the.....?" :cuss:
I'm sure the ensuing circus there on the side of the road would look like a full-on rape from those passing by...lol. :banana:
One would hope that the cop would look at it, snicker and say "Have a good day, Sir". But the 'officer safety' Nazi's would probably actually try and extract said gun.
Hopefully, the entire process would be video recorded for future reference and comedic illustration when shown to the judge at the lawsuit hearing.
T.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
No, no, no, no.
You walked into my trap. Now, you're talking to me. Plus, you've given me an angle to twist."Are you calling me stupid!?! Gimme your license and registration! NOW!!!!"
"Note to self: Said he has plenty to hide."
Back at police car: "Dispatch, this is Unit 681. Need a K9 for a walk-around. Driver says he has plenty to hide. Is argumentative, uncooperative. Advise on ETA of K9 unit."
We'll do it again.
"If you have nothing to hide, why don't you want to answer my questions."
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Great answer. Please take over drilling TwoSkins. He needs some more practice.
Hahaha. Touche.
Although in all honesty I would not have said that to a cop. It was more of a rhetorical answer to the subject of "nothing to hide". Anyone who implies I would freely give away any personal data if I weren't a criminal is not someone to try and have a intelligent conversation with.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Carry and use a recording device.
Every interaction with any LEO must be recorded, even if you initiate the contact (one person consent states only).
Never ever volunteer any information that is not directly related to the specifics of the LEO contact and then only as absolutely required under the law.
Seemingly "nice cops" are not your friend. They are not necessarily your "enemy" either. Remember what their primary purpose is, and it is not to protect you or protect your rights. Yes, the overwhelming majority of cops will do their level best to protect you and respect your rights if they can, but that is a personal choice and not a legal mandate.
The measure of a "good" outcome when contacted by a LEO is that the LEO only interacts with a citizen when required under the law and makes that interaction as short in duration as possible.
Good luck and don't provide LE any opportunities for you to have to use the information you obtain here.
Every interaction with any LEO must be recorded, even if you initiate the contact (one person consent states only).
Never ever volunteer any information that is not directly related to the specifics of the LEO contact and then only as absolutely required under the law.
Seemingly "nice cops" are not your friend. They are not necessarily your "enemy" either. Remember what their primary purpose is, and it is not to protect you or protect your rights. Yes, the overwhelming majority of cops will do their level best to protect you and respect your rights if they can, but that is a personal choice and not a legal mandate.
The measure of a "good" outcome when contacted by a LEO is that the LEO only interacts with a citizen when required under the law and makes that interaction as short in duration as possible.
Good luck and don't provide LE any opportunities for you to have to use the information you obtain here.
rapgood
Regular Member
This question has been beaten to death in several recent threads. So, to answer the question, as of today the state-of-the-law in Washington is:
In addition to gogodawgs reference to Black's Law Dictionary definition of "concealed," the term "conceal" (and by extension, "concealed") is not defined in RCW 9.41.xxx. In the absence of a statutory definition, the words used are given their ordinary and usual meaning. State v. Forrester, 21 Wn. App. 855, 861, 587 P.2d 179 (1978).
If a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must derive its meaning from the wording of the statute itself. State v. Keller, 143 Wash.2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001). Where statutory language is plain and unambiguous, a court will glean the legislative intent from the words of the statute itself. See Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 752, 888 P.2d 147 (1995); Smith v. N. Pac. Ry., 7 Wn.2d 652, 664, 110 P.2d 851 (1941).
A statutory term that is left undefined should be given its “usual and ordinary meaning and courts may not read into a statute a meaning that is not there.” State v. Hahn, 83 Wn. App. 825, 832, 924 P.2d 392 (1996). If the undefined statutory term is not technical, the court may refer to the dictionary to establish the meaning of the word. Heinsma v. City of Vancouver, 144 Wn.2d 556, 564, 29 P.3d 709 (2001).
bmg50cal
Regular Member
I should have used a smiley with my comment as it was meant to be "tongue and cheek."
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
We are not a one consent state and we don't need to inform public employees acting in their duties they are being recorded. We don't need to inform others also if there is no expectation of privacy.
Johnson vs. Sequim
State vs. Flora
amzbrady
Regular Member
7. Because you wanted to be the next cop for the Villiage People and need directions to San Fransisco.
8. Because you knew women liked a man in uniform and figured that was the only way you could get one without having to do the work the military requires...and now that it didnt work.... well I'm not interested either.
9. Because Reno 911 looked like so much fun you thought you would try too.
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
The village people are from NYC, greenwich village, not San Fran
amzbrady
Regular Member
K, sorry didnt mean to offend you.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
He must REALLY like his village people
I'm surprised no one has hit on the most obvious (and correct) answer here:
"...because I was violating one or more traffic laws and endangering all those around me."
Sharpender
Regular Member
Agreed. I would have done the same.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
He must REALLY like his village people
I'm surprised no one has hit on the most obvious (and correct) answer here:
"...because I was violating one or more traffic laws and endangering all those around me."
Damn right!
[video=youtube;oWK-zvQIl9s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWK-zvQIl9s[/video]
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Not if it's not required. If I had a legally concealed firearm in a state where there is no duty to inform I would not go about informing. however If I were ordered out of the car or what not then maybe I'd provide that information
golddigger14s
Activist Member
Well this thread is totally derailed past comprehension.