No other Option is possible to stop/prevent the crimeĢ. When a person took his action, he had to take that action right then, right there and without delay, otherwise he may have suffered harm or injury.ġ. A person with all of my knowledge and experience would do the same thing in these circumstances. The US Supreme Court has defined the reasonableness standard for all states in:įorce that is not excessive and that is appropriate for protecting oneself or propertyĭetermined by Jury unless Castle Doctrine. When and to the degree the actor (you) reasonablyīelieves the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other’s use of unlawful force. But nothing wrong with that.if done with the intent (and for sake of) of accuracy.A person is justified in using force against another It is well to preface the correction with "EDIT" so that others know the post has been changed. The responsible thing to do (when learning of a mistake) is to make a correction/edit if possible. Please change your name to CRAWFISH, as you went back and edited your text from "they have to secure the weapon" to "the officer can secure your firearm". I really appreciate it, Sir!ĭo us a favor, don't ever post on this forum again. Thanks, again for the correction and explanation. Believe it or not, some of the worst legal interpretations I've ever heard came from lawyers, particularly criminal defense lawyers. Consequently, their assertion that an officer can search the whole car even if no crime is suspected is completely false. By definition, probable cause to search means the officer has probable cause to believe there is contraband (something illegal to possess under those circumstances) or evidence of a crime in the vehicle. In order to search a vehicle without a warrant or consent, the officer must have probable cause. "During a traffic stop, if an officer is told there is a gun in the vehicle, even if no crime is suspected, under the pretext of officer safety, the officer could search an entire vehicle." Officers can disarm a person during the contact if they choose, but this part is way off: The article linked is just the interpretation of a law firm and part of it is 100% incorrect. Just trying to learn so I avoid making anymore jack-arse statements in the future about this.
#DUTY TO INFORM TEXAS LTC CODE#
Here's an interesting article about Texas Government Code 411.207, which states that the officer can secure your firearm, and that they can legally go through your vehicle to do so. There are a lot of misinterpretations of the law out there. This is one of the worse cases I have ever seen of misinformation on this forum, and that's saying a lot. Or medical advice either for that matter. Streater you really have no idea wtf you’re talking about. Wow… this is why you don’t ask for legal information on a forum. The info I got was from the guy at the Plano Gun Club when I took my LTC class. If an officer made that statement to a magistrate to justify a search, that officer should probably find another line of work. Legally carrying a firearm does not even come close to probable cause to search a vehicle. We do not have to secure the weapon and most that I know of do not in a traffic stop scenario. You do not give up any part of your 4th Amendment rights with an LTC. "I thought he had another firearm in the vehicle and i was trying to secure it for the safety of the defendant and the public" is all a judge needs to hear. Even if you give them your sidearm, they can search the vehicle with probable cause. When a police officer knows you have a firearm, or thinks you do, they have to secure the weapon, which is probable cause to search. Basically, you give up your 4th amendment right when you get a LTC.
0 kommentar(er)
