Comments Thread For: Terence Crawford ticketed, held at gunpoint by Omaha police hours after his parade

[CPNUTKnockoutFreshMart]

This is wild for me as I live in the UK where guns are fully illegal, hard to come by and can only be acquired for a couple of thousand minimum if you know someone of real bad character who's supplying them. why would you need a loaded gun on the seat lol?

It's the fastest way to go. When the excrement hits the fan being first means everything. Not that I drive around thinking something will happen but stuff does happen and I'm not going to be the guy with his dlck in his hand wondering what just happened. I'm vigilant of my surroundings. I live really close to the murder capital of the US, Memphis and I conduct most of my business there.

[Coverdale]

It's the fastest way to go. When the excrement hits the fan being first means everything. Not that I drive around thinking something will happen but stuff does happen and I'm not going to be the guy with his dlck in his hand wondering what just happened. I'm vigilant of my surroundings. I live really close to the murder capital of the US, Memphis and I conduct most of my business there.

And this is the fundamental philosophical difference between our otherwise superficially similar nations. Large proportions of the US accept the murder rate, mass shootings, etc. as the price of 'freedom' (to personally own weapons). I mean, it's a post factum rationalisation as far as I can tell. The mistake of allowing universal gun ownership can't be retracted so now even more weapons are required to counter the threat.

'Freedom' is not an absolute concept in the way some Americans (libertarians in particular) like to claim it is. I'll give a less controversial example to illustrate the point. Some motorists resent speed limits and think police should focus on 'real' crimes. What about us pedestrians' 'freedom' to walk in the public space without the fear of being mowed down by some low attention span cretin speeding and staring at their smartphone?

If it was up to me, possession of a driving licence would involve a minimum IQ test but that would no doubt be considered discriminatory.

[champion4ever]

Driving recklessly at 1:30am and then having a gun visible during the resulting traffic stop are going to put any police officer on guard. If that’s what happened.

Crawford just got the biggest win of his career and should be on top of the world right now. Why even put yourself in that situation? That what I mean about being smarter.

You still don’t get it. Nebraska is a concealed, open
and open carry in vehicle without out a permit state. Therefore no laws were broken. What Crawford did was perfectly legal.

Now as far as the reckless driving charge is concerned; None of us can respond to that one because we weren’t there. Until the city of Omaha or Nebraska decide to release the video footage.

Then we all will just have to wait and see on whether or not any laws were broken.

[ShoulderRoll]

You still don’t get it. Nebraska is a concealed, open
and open carry in vehicle without out a permit state. Therefore no laws were broken. What Crawford did was perfectly legal.

Now as far as the reckless driving charge is concerned; None of us can respond to that one because we weren’t there. Until the city of Omaha or Nebraska decide to release the video footage.

Then we all will just have to wait and see on whether or not any laws were broken.

It doesn’t matter that Nebraska is a concealed or open carry without a permit state. If I’m a cop doing a traffic stop in the middle of the night for reckless driving and I see a weapon in the vehicle while doing so? You bet your ass I’m making everyone get out of the vehicle at gunpoint. Not going to risk getting blasted by some potential meth or fentanyl addicts or who knows what.

That’s just the nature of the job.

Assuming that’s what happened…we need to see the video footage to be sure, or maybe Crawford will come out and say if they were driving erratically or not. But until proven otherwise I will give the police officer the benefit of the doubt. I’m not a fan of demonizing the police unnecessarily or of the George Soros subversive “Defund the Police” bullcrap.

[ShoulderRoll]

If he was. This very well could be a case of DWB.

Shoulder stop repeating this crap about the gun being visible in a constitutional carry state.

Cops don’t get to be “on guard” in a state like Nebraska. They have to simply deal with the fact the legislature made the law.

What situation did he put himself in? He’s allowed to drive at 1:30 am dude geez. He’s allowed to carry a gun. How can one be smarter in this situation?

Saying he needs to be smarter assumes a few things. Why can’t he do all the same things every Nebraska citizen can do?

You come off as if you didn’t honestly mean it when you posted let’s see the video. All you’ve done is assume the stop was viable. The chief has called for a review.

Has it occurred to you the cops are in the wrong here?

He’s not allowed to drive recklessly in the middle of the night. Then when the cops stop the vehicle and see the gun Crawford isn’t above being told to get out of the vehicle at gunpoint.

I would expect that to happen to any Nebraska citizen in the same situation.

But by all means let’s see the video footage. Maybe that’s not how it went down at all. I simply choose to give the police the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

[The Big Dunn]

He’s not allowed to drive recklessly in the middle of the night. Then when the cops stop the vehicle and see the gun Crawford isn’t above being told to get out of the vehicle at gunpoint.

I would expect that to happen to any Nebraska citizen in the same situation.

But by all means let’s see the video footage. Maybe that’s not how it went down at all. I simply choose to give the police the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

At no point did I say otherwise.

As you are no doubt aware, he wasn’t cited for speeding or dui/dwi. So it doesn’t sound like he was driving recklessly in any way. Sounds like they are trying to Cover their asses. But the video will tell us.

Well you’re wrong there. In a constitutional carry state possession of a gun shouldn’t trigger that response from cops. Now if you’re here in NJ where the laws are different, ok.

Why? Why would a cop see a gun and get alarmed in a constitutional carry state? Please explain this.

That is the problem. Even without the video, we know the gun shouldn’t have caused the response it did given the laws of the state. Why you keep failing to acknowledge this or factor it in to your assessment, that suggests this stop wasn’t fully kosher.

[ShoulderRoll]

At no point did I say otherwise.

As you are no doubt aware, he wasn’t cited for speeding or dui/dwi. So it doesn’t sound like he was driving recklessly in any way. Sounds like they are trying to Cover their asses. But the video will tell us.

Well you’re wrong there. In a constitutional carry state possession of a gun shouldn’t trigger that response from cops. Now if you’re here in NJ where the laws are different, ok.

Why? Why would a cop see a gun and get alarmed in a constitutional carry state? Please explain this.

That is the problem. Even without the video, we know the gun shouldn’t have caused the response it did given the laws of the state. Why you keep failing to acknowledge this or factor it in to your assessment, that suggests this stop wasn’t fully kosher.

Come on, Dunn. Don’t be disingenuous. A cop stops someone for driving erratically in the middle of the night, then sees a gun when he approaches the vehicle? Is he going to trust someone potentially impaired not to blast him? Hell no. Not unless he’s a dumbass.

This is a dangerous job and you better be safe than sorry. I don’t blame the police one bit.

If that’s how it all went down, of course. Maybe the cops are lying and we need to see the video to be sure. But again, I choose to give our men in blue the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

[The Big Dunn]

Come on, Dunn. Don’t be disingenuous. A cop stops someone for driving erratically in the middle of the night, then sees a gun when he approaches the vehicle? Is he going to trust someone potentially impaired not to blast him? Hell no. Not unless he’s a dumbass.

This is a dangerous job and you better be safe than sorry. I don’t blame the police one bit.

If that’s how it all went down, of course. Maybe the cops are lying and we need to see the video to be sure. But again, I choose to give our men in blue the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

You have no proof he was driving erratically.

Stop it already with the gun. It’s a constitutional carry state. My guess is the majority of stops the cop handles there is a gun visible given the law.

You keep avoiding that for reasons I wish you would be clear about.

It’s safer when you follow proper procedures and treat everyone equally. You would never blame the cops in this type of situation. You don’t know these cops so why do they get the benefit of the doubt?

Maybe. I choose to question based on the facts.

What I can’t ignore but you keep ignoring, is the reaction of the cop to a gun in a constitutional carry state. That is very telling imo.

It is obvious it wasn’t the gun he was reacting to given the cop knows the law and knows the gun is allowed under law.

So what caused this reaction?

Allegedly driving erratically doesn’t warrant pulling your firearm.

[Smash]

There's a really good book " When Welfare Was White " that's a real eye opener . Not being black or white , I used to wonder why black people were so much worse off in the U.S than white people.
.

The White Welfare State: The Racialization of U.S. Welfare Policy by Deborah Ward


is that the book?

[ShoulderRoll]

You have no proof he was driving erratically.

Stop it already with the gun. It’s a constitutional carry state. My guess is the majority of stops the cop handles there is a gun visible given the law.

You keep avoiding that for reasons I wish you would be clear about.

It’s safer when you follow proper procedures and treat everyone equally. You would never blame the cops in this type of situation. You don’t know these cops so why do they get the benefit of the doubt?

Maybe. I choose to question based on the facts.

What I can’t ignore but you keep ignoring, is the reaction of the cop to a gun in a constitutional carry state. That is very telling imo.

It is obvious it wasn’t the gun he was reacting to given the cop knows the law and knows the gun is allowed under law.

So what caused this reaction?

Allegedly driving erratically doesn’t warrant pulling your firearm.

Constitutional carry doesn’t mean the police can’t hold you at gunpoint during a traffic stop where you were driving erratically and might be impaired.

But let’s wait for video footage to see if he was driving recklessly or not.