Should I be worried?
 

I stopped off at a local bagel place to grab some breakfast this morning on my way home from the gym, and there were these two cops in there eating their breakfast. They kept eyeing me suspiciously the entire time I was there. The more I think about it, the more it bothers me because I can't figure out why. I wasn't packing so it's not like my weapon was printing through my t-shirt. I was carrying my Infidel but that thing was so well concealed there's no way they'd have seen it without x-ray vision. Thing is, from where they were sitting they would have had a clear view of the car I pulled up in. So now I'm wondering if they have a bulletin to be on the lookout for a blue 370Z. Have the cops seen my videos? Have they been receiving complaints about a blue Z blasting around the area at ungodly speeds?

Am I just being paranoid here? Or is it reasonable for me to be worried about this? I'm wigging out here. :confused:

Be careful. Big brother is watching. I have to go I'm being followed right now.

why are u carry a weapon in the 1st place....lol

maybe a blue nissan has been stolen recently and so on or maybe they think u'r a punk with a sports car.... who knows

id say maybe its time to lay off the weed

Bingo my friend. The locals have called you in.

I'd peek out the window from behind the curtains right now if I were you - can't be too careful.


:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek:

Maybe they were gay.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Yes, lots of gays in England like Monterey Blue.

Might have just been admiring your car. I been getting that a lot since I got the Z.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are police officers here that have a lot to offer us, but I posted a thread formerly where they were lambasted so I do not know that they will chime in on this thread. Most of officers that I know are enthusiasts like the rest of us here and can really add insightful information.

Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches
1 hr 23 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.

The court's 5-4 decision puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence of a crime will be found.

"When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant," Stevens said.

Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, complained that the decision upsets police practice that has developed since the court first authorized warrantless searches immediately following an arrest.

"There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence," Alito said.

Even more confusing, he said, is asking police to determine whether the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. "What this rule permits in a variety of situations is entirely unclear," Alito said.

The decision backs an Arizona high court ruling in favor of Rodney Joseph Gant, who was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car. They found cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

The trial court said the evidence could be used against Gant, but Arizona appeals courts overturned the convictions because the officers already had secured the scene and thus faced no threat to their safety or concern about evidence being preserved.

The state and the Bush administration complained that ruling would impose a "dangerous and unworkable test" that would complicate the daily lives of law enforcement officers.

The justices divided in an unusual fashion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy were in dissent along with Alito.


READ below...stopped by police
http://www.the370z.com/brakes-suspen...html#post48145

they were looking for trouble

You know what? That actually makes a lot of sense. It's not like they were giving me the evil eye or anything, so maybe when I thought they were looking at me suspiciously I was just projecting my own paranoia, given some of the vid clips that I've been making lately. Yeah for all I know, they may have just been wondering what I did for a living or something like that. Nonetheless, I think I'll try to keep a low profile when driving for the next little while, just as a precaution.

^ +1 on admiring the car. another thing that would help on your vids it not putting semtex on there.

this is what i got when i talked with my law professor, police can't search your car for no reason, when they ask you to open the trunk or back seat, you can actually say 'no, i do not wish to open it.' he tells me cops will usually say that they have the right to search your car for xxx reason(s), which is BS unless they have probable cause, meaning if they saw some very suspicious from the outside looking in. at this point, if they keep asking you to open the trunk, or back seat, you must reply with "no, i do not have you consent to search my car." and don't keep talking to the cops, they are good with words and don't lie to them at all, they'll find out if you lied.

you can then ask to speak to his watch commander and if the cop says some BS like getting a warrant right now, respond with "i'll wait" since it takes days to actually get a judge to sign a warranty.

for the watch commander part, he is the person who's *** is on the line if the police officiers on his watch is being a douche. professor told me that when you file a formal complaint, it's actually the watch commander's *** on line for those complaint(s). so to speak to the watch commander and complain, most likely, if you know the law and you haven't broken it, let can let the watch commander know that you are going to file a formal complaint regarding this incident and that you'll need to have his ID (also make sure to get the police officer's ID as well). you'll most likely walk away after this.

haha. smetex getting scared? just outrun them haha NOT. nah man, you're just paranoid. I've had a cop roll down his window and say "nice car". its a sexy sports car in a BRIGHT color. They probably havent seen one around before. However, next time they see a bright blue 370z racing down the highway, u bet theyre gonna run your tag no. that they copied down (very discretely lol). nah. ease up on the craziness for a lil. u'll be fine. they have to catch u in the act to really do anything. just make sure u dont have semtex on your tag so they cant relate u back to the videos

As I have mentioned in the past Semtex, Its wouldn't take much effort to paint a couple of white stripes or panels on a Monterrey Blue 370Z that has been impounded. Set a group of red and blue flashers above the dash and you've got a highway cruiser that would be a ticket giving machine.

Makes me think of a sting cops did with an impounded TT MR2 a few years back. They don't always have to be domestics.

People in very liberal places (like Canada, California, and NYC) don't really have the same grasp on this issue as those of us in the rest of the US, you'll have to allow some room for being in a vastly different environment. In TX, citizens are encouraged by law enforcement officers (the good ones anyways) to own and carry guns (although carrying must be concealed, and requires a license issued by the state). I've actually gotten out of speeding tickets because the officer liked my carry piece (we're required to disclose the carry license when asked for a driver's license) and we got into a firearms conversation, etc. It's a different world down here than where you're at.

Armed citizens reduce crime, the statistics are clear. There are now few states left in the US that don't have shall-issue concealed carry licenses, and the number continues to drop. (shall-issue means they can't deny you arbitrarily as long as you meet all the basic requirements: take training, pass a shooting test, no felony record, no higher-level misdemeanors within X years, no record of mental health issues, no restraining orders, etc, etc... it's actually quite an extensive list of checks).

First off more half of my state is liberal, we have concealed weapon permits here, I have my own guns that are registered and I have absolutely no reason to uses them other than to go out and have fun shooting a a stump or set of targets.

Please don't lump Oregon in to the places you claim are so different then Canada. Canadians are not a different species from a strange planet. Have you been there? I have many times both, East coast, West coast, and in the middle. Also lots of people in Canada own guns. I support the NRA and the right to bear arms but out of control, rampant violence does not exist in my state or for that matter any state (at least that I'm aware of).

Making comments like that give people from other countries the opinion that we are ALL gun toting rednecks. Most U.S. gun owners are responsible people who aren't running around afraid of the government and crazy criminals.

The violence in our country is in no way to a point, nor has it been, where we all need guns to fight off the hordes of criminals.

Secondly where are you getting your statistics for violence reducing when more people have guns?

BTW A statistical analysis of statistical analysis said that 70% of statistics are always wrong. Wrap your brain around that. lol. Most statistical evidence is swayed or improperly recorded when doing studies. Think I'm wrong ask a sociologist. :D

Well, this isn't the thread to debate this, but (a) I didn't say anything about Oregon, (b) I disagree with you on many other points above, and (c) I take offense at you calling people who carry guns rednecks.

If you want to start a new thread, I'll be happy to supply statistical data on the subject and engage in this debate :)

Okay, can we not turn this thread into a debate on gun control/ownership? Eh, on second thought, have at it. It'll be entertaining. :tiphat:

I'm only going to say one thing on this. I never answered Nogood's question on why I carry, so here's my answer. I carry a sidearm for the same reason I wear my seatbelt -- just in case. When I drive, I don't expect to get into an accident, nor am I one of those people who drives around all nervous and fearful that I'm about to get into a wreck. But accidents do happen, often due to circumstances beyond our control, so I wear my seatbelt. Likewise, I do not live in constant fear of crime. I do not walk around expecting to get attacked at any moment, and if I have my way I will never get into a violent confrontation with anyone over anything. But just as accidents do happen, so too does violent crime. Whether we like it or not, all of us as individuals could one day find ourselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and need to use deadly force. And it's not just crime that I'm thinking of. I was walking my dog one day and a really vicious rottweiler broke out of a neighbor's yard and came at us, teeth bared and about to attack, with its owner chasing it and screaming for the dog to stop. Luckily there was a pickup truck close by so I threw my dog into the bed and jumped in. The rottweiler's owner regained control of the dog and profusely apologized. Okay, no harm no foul -- this time. Had that pickup truck not been there, and had the rottweiler's owner been nowhere in sight, I wouldn't have hesitated to shoot that dog. Anyway, I'm digressing. My point is simply that to me, carrying a sidearm is no different than wearing a seatbelt, or using smoke detectors for that matter. In the metro-Atlanta area, 1 out of every 10 cars has a gun in it. I'm not sure what the statistic is for on-person concealed carry. But either way, I'm surprised more people don't carry sidearms. It's just so basic to me. (Like wearing a seatbelt.)

Edit: Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I'm not trying to imply that if one chooses not to carry a sidearm that s/he's dumb or irresponsible or anything like that. It's a choice, and I completely respect someone choosing not to carry as much as I respect someone for choosing to carry. To each his own.

Im a motor cop and and drive a slammed G:eekdance:

US CODE: Title 18,922. Unlawful acts


(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. = guns rights lost!

Okay, A: when you lump places like California, and NYC together as "very liberal" you lump the rest of the country into the other category ie. Oregon.
My home is not vastly different than NYC, California, Canada or any other state for that matter. I would argue that Texas isn't that much different either. I've been there and I like it. Houston is a great city.

B: Its okay to disagree. It would be a pretty boring place if people didn't.

C: Don't take offense as I was not calling anyone a Gun toting redneck. I was saying that certain comments can make people in other countries who are viewing our country from the outside in think that we are gun toting rednecks. Stereotypes are real and most often incorrect. The world stereotypes Americans as fat, lazy, uneducated and gun crazy. We need to take caution when addressing issues like this because we want to remove stereotypes not reinforce them.
When you make a comment like: It gives the outside world the impression that our country is taken over by criminals and gun toting rednecks. It wasn't an attack and if it was it would be pretty hypocritical because as stated before I am a gun owner.

P.S.: Thanks Semtex for allowing debate in your thread.

BTW: Like my horrible Paint skills?

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...es/policeZ.jpg

LOL! :confused:
How ******* random is that?! LOL :bowrofl:

I specifically spelled out California and NYC because those localities have gun laws on the books that would never fly in most of the rest of the country (for that matter, Chicago and Washington, DC are the other two big names on that list). AFAIK, Oregon doesn't have bad gun laws. Bad gun laws do come from the liberal side of the fence. So from my perspective, my short list of "places with bad gun laws and generally bad attitudes towards guns", which also happens to be a pretty concise list of "the most liberal places in the country" is pretty ok.

First off, let's cover the "redneck" issue. It's basically the equivalent of the N-word, but it's for poor white people. Believe me, if you threw around the black equivalent as casually as you have "redneck" so far, you'd be banned in a heartbeat. It's an offensive race/class-slur, do you get that?

Second, I think it's actually *you* who are advancing the idea that anyone who carries a gun in this country and isn't a cop is either a criminal, or a "fat, lazy, uneducated redneck", and/or "running around afraid of the government and crazy criminals". You also imply that carrying a wepaon is irresponsible. You're painting a very nasty picture of people who choose to carry here, and it's irrational and baseless. Licensed concealed carry permit-holders, regardless of the state they live in, tend to be among the most upstanding and responsible citizens in their area. They're professionals, they've never committed major crimes, they've subjected themselves to extensive background checks, etc. I feel comfortable speaking on their behalf because I'm one of these many upstanding citizens.

Now, on to your specific misstatements about guns in the US..
Copied from the gun facts page at: QUICK GUN FACTS:

FACT: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are Prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.

* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.

FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.

* Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

You don't think the use of a gun every 13 seconds on average to prevent a crime indicates a crime level that justifies carrying a gun?

FACT: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:

* Murder rates drop 8%

* Rape rates fall 5%

* Aggravated assaults drop 7%

More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right -to -carry laws.



TYPE OF CRIME HOW MUCH HIGHER IN RESTRICTIVE STATES

Violent Crime ……………………81% higher

Murder ………………………….. 86% higher

Rape …………………………… 25% higher

Assault…………………………… 82% higher

Robbery………………………….. 105% higher

Auto Theft……………………….. 60% higher

* John Lott, David Mustard: This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S. from 1977 through 1992. During this time, ten states adopted right-to-carry laws. It is estimated that if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws, in 1992 the U.S. would have avoided 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes, 12,000 robberies, 60,000 aggravated assaults- and would have saved over $5,000,000,000 in victim expenses.

I could go on with the quotes, but it will get long-winded. If you want more data, head to GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues, and check out the statistics info on the right-hand side of the page (the left side is mostly about constitutional and legal issues). Specifically, these are good ones:

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

A.) All those places have exceptionally high crime rates especially D.C. They are not enacting gun laws because liberals hate guns. People have a knee jerk reaction to violent crime. They need something to scapegoat (Marilyn Manson, video games, gang culture, etc.) People call their congress person because they want something done about it. They call their friends and because its on the back of lets say a dead child, it makes it hard to argue against. Generally gun laws aren't being enacted because people hate guns, its because they hate dead kids.

B.) Why do you think I am against people that carry concealed gun permits?

C.) Wow I never thought of rednecks necessarily as "poor" but thanks for defining the term you refer to as offensive. Also you think that redneck is equivalent to the N word.
You are welcome to your opinion but I think there are many that would disagree and I am one of them.
Lets see: Comedy central constantly airs "The redneck comedy tour". In fact the guys in it proudly say they are rednecks and named the tour. My big fat redneck wedding is another example. There is no N-word comedy tour that I am aware of, neither is there a "My big fat N-word wedding". The African American community(for the most part) has embraced the N-word in order to change its meaning and slowly disassemble its negative connotation within their community. They are allowed to use the word.
I'm not rollin' in the cash, and I'm one of the palest people I know, but I am not able to use the term redneck? What if I want to turn it into a positive like Ron White or Jeff Foxworthy? I don’t see a lot of picketers outside of their shows being reported on.


I never implied that carrying a gun is irresponsible. It was your response to Nogood that I disagreed with. I am an advocate for concealed gun permits and have never said I wasn't, yet some how you conjured that out of my statement earlier. Can you elaborate on how I reinforced negative stereotypes of Americans with the comment that said it is a common opinion of people living outside the U.S.A.? I don't like the mentality of out of sight out of mind(i.e.: if I don't listen to it, it doesn't happen).



Statistical analysis is constantly being revisited, because as months, years and decades move on, these studies become irrelevant because society changes. That's why studies are constantly being performed, and every once in a while they will release a study in the media and people go, "Didn't they already show that in a study a couple of years ago?" One year statistics say eggs are bad, the next year they "find" that eggs are good for you, (other examples include: coffee, wine, etc.) most likely these are due to inside interest contaminating the study.


When you live in a nation of over 300 million citizens, violence occurs. Ever seen a cage full of rats? Higher populations in cities means more violence. The Cities like D.C. that have stricter gun laws, are attempting to prevent a naturally occurring tide.

I support responsible gun ownership. I think responsible gun owners should treat the second amendment like a privilege not a right. Rights can be abused, so can privileges but the problem with rights is they tend to be more abused than privileges. People that are given something that they earn are generally more appreciative of the gift, than people that are handed that gift. Drivers licenses are a privilege, and because its a privilege people are more likely to be responsible because that privilege can be taken away. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of crummy drivers out there but generally people that are in charge of dangerous things are required to have training and pass some form of requirement in order to operate that piece of equipment.


All in All that's okay though. I agree to disagree. I try to find a happy medium between being a responsible gun owner and my second amendment right to own a gun. The problem is I think far too few try to do the same thing. When you lump 90% of the country into one group I disagree with that, especially when people from other countries may be viewing you as a a representative for our country. I don't wish to attack you and I think you get that impression. I enjoy argumentative discourse and I prefer to to remain civil.

Cheers! :tup:

yes, you can just say no. if they had PC they wouldnt be asking you anyway. and I can tell you right now that a search warrant can be written and signed within an hour. they have judges on call for that.

No

^Oh come now, I think that would make an awesome looking police car!

I agree- I'm just suggesting that it can be done better...


http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g7...echiefscar.jpg