Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Fla Man sues Lincoln County Deputies

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    53

    Default Fla Man sues Lincoln County Deputies

    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--





  2. Concealed Carry Giveaway
  3. #2
    The_Outlaw's Avatar
    The_Outlaw is offline ~The Dude Abides~
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great State of Texas "Remember the Alamo"
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Not enough information here for me to make an informed decision on this case.
    But thus far, I am leaning towards the Marine.
    MARK IT ZERO!
    ~Walter Sobchak~

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Summerville, SC
    Posts
    805

    Default

    Can't wait for Navy to jump in here. Not that it's the way it should be, but if a cop asks me if I have a gun, and I have one legally, what's the problem with just telling him.

    Yes, you don't have to constitutionally but it would have saved three people 40 minutes and a lot of aggravation if he just said yes, it's in my pack, or wherever.

    I would have said 'yes, I have a permit and I'm legal'. End of story.

    Rolling over? I don't have that many more 45 minutes left, life is short enough.

    KK

  5. #4
    Flanmedic51's Avatar
    Flanmedic51 is offline Sheepdog
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Pine Tree State
    Posts
    269

    Default

    I agree w Outlaw, some info missing probably since its being investigated. But I'd like to know why the Deputies were inquiring if he had a gun repeatedly. What led them to that line of questioning? And how cooperative was the Marine? If you're legal, it pays to cooperate. But anywho, would you keep us posted MatieA? Love to see how this pans out. Hate to see sh** like this happen to a Vet if they were really busting his balls.
    "The sheepdog, who expects the wolf and is prepared for it, thrives in the combat environment...and accepts the fact that on any given day there are bad people in the world who are able and willing to hurt you." --Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Tallahassee Florida
    Posts
    1,015

    Default

    Hmmmmmmmmm ........................
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_S View Post
    I think the chances of anyone ever getting attacked and needing a gun are pretty slim so why bother carrying one at all?
    "It's easier to avoid conflict than it is to survive it" - SGB

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    116

    Default

    I have no idea what to make of this article. Always two sides to every story. But from what I read, I'm annoyed with this lawyer's implicit insistance that somehow this vet should get special treatment. The article goes on and on about his military service and I say, what does that have to do with anything??? How is his service experience relevant at all? Does he have more constitutional rights than non-military? Pure pandering in my opinion. What's even worse is the notion that because he doesn't look like "riffraff" he's some how not subject to the same laws. What a schmuck of an attorney who would base his claims on such irrelevant evidence. Bottom line if the cops were acting inappropriately whether he's a Vet or not, then I hope he prevails. As a vet, I would suspect that he would be the first to tell you that he fought so we all have the same rights and his aren't superior to the rest of us.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keykutter View Post
    Can't wait for Navy to jump in here. Not that it's the way it should be, but if a cop asks me if I have a gun, and I have one legally, what's the problem with just telling him.
    Did I hear someone call me?

    What I think is hilarious...google "robert pierson pensacola". Most of the news reports can't even get the correct state!

    Obviously a press release was distributed by the plaintiff. No way to have enough information to form an opinion one way or the other.

    Personally, during a legitimate detainment, such as a traffic stop for a real reason, I have no problems answering the officer truthfully if I possess a gun or not (unless I knew I was carrying a firearm illegally, and then it would be the 5th Amendment). I know what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding lawful detaintments and "officer safety" rights. I won't volunteer the information without being asked, unless I am required to do so by law.

    The first step in any police encounter, however, is to ascertain whether or not the officer is actually detaining you, or attempting to initiate a "voluntary" encounter.

    BTW, I agree with Mojo57's post above; how's that for a shocker....
    Quote Originally Posted by Flanmedic51 View Post
    Again, you turn it into a rights thing when it only gives the LEO more ability to enforce laws and provide public safety.
    I am not anti-cop, I am pro-Constitution.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default

    The first question any of you yahoo's should ask is "If the deputies are to record all of their stops, and the way i read it,there were two law enforcement vehicles on the scene and there is no recording, I see all the fault starting with the deputies, and yes I can say that as I is one.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Summerville, SC
    Posts
    805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Did I hear someone call me?

    What I think is hilarious...google "robert pierson pensacola". Most of the news reports can't even get the correct state!

    Obviously a press release was distributed by the plaintiff. No way to have enough information to form an opinion one way or the other.

    Personally, during a legitimate detainment, such as a traffic stop for a real reason, I have no problems answering the officer truthfully if I possess a gun or not (unless I knew I was carrying a firearm illegally, and then it would be the 5th Amendment). I know what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding lawful detaintments and "officer safety" rights. I won't volunteer the information without being asked, unless I am required to do so by law.

    The first step in any police encounter, however, is to ascertain whether or not the officer is actually detaining you, or attempting to initiate a "voluntary" encounter.

    BTW, I agree with Mojo57's post above; how's that for a shocker....
    Not shocked Navy. I knew you had in it you somewhere:)

    The fact that Mojo uses Lawyer and scmuck in the same sentence is completely redundant. They are one in the same and synonymous with each other. Now that's redundant!

    Why is it surprising that a Lawyer will pull every chain possible to get his client out of the frying pan?

    Maybe he's setting the groundwork for PTSD. Oh oh, the soldier isn't going to like giving up his guns.

    No recording seems a little suspicious and there is more to this story than being reported, Can't wait for 'the rest of the story'.

    Get on that Navy! Ya hear?

    KK

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    53

    Default

    I am looking for more info on this, but so far, am finding nothing.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •