SOUSGT

NO MORE "GUNS AND HOSES"!

Behind The Scenes As A Fallen Warrior Comes Home, Delta Airlines Honor Guard.Something most people do not see, as it happens behind the scenes. Delta honors our Fallen as they come home with their own Honor Guard, as the Fallen is transferred from the plane. Thank you Delta for the respect you show to our Fallen Heroes.
http://guardianofvalor.com/behind-the-scenes-as-a-fallen-warrior-comes-home-delta-airlines-honor-guard/
CREDIT: http://guardianofvalor.com

When I was a road boss, I was called to the scene of a simple auto accident by a police officer who had an un-usual circumstance:
The officer was dispatched to a non injury accident to file a report. It was determined that one of the drivers had a suspended license (for failure to answer a summons). The subject had his mother-in-law in the car whom he transporting to work. As the mother in law did not have a license, the officer instructed the arrested subject that he was going to tow the vehicle. He would arrange for a cab to take the mother in law home or to work. The subject was given his Miranda warnings, frisked and handcuffed. The subject asked to speak to his mother in law before being transported to police HQ. The two then had a conversation in Italian. The subject was secured in the radio car and the officer kept a close watch over the mother in law. The officer then requested a supervisor to the scene.
The unknown to the two, the officer spoke Italian. The conversation consisted of the subject telling his mother in law to take the gun from under the driver’s seat and put it in her handbag. Upon arrival, the officer advised of the events and was unsure of we could conduct a warrantless search under the conditions. Under the circumstances I advised that the search would be valid and we then confronted the mother in law and she surrendered her handbag. In her bag was a loaded .38 caliber revolver.
The subject was advised that we had recovered the handgun and would be arresting both parties. The subject denied any knowledge of the firearm and wanted to know how we found it. The officer told him in Italian what he said to his mother in law. The expression on their faces was priceless.
Both subjects were booked and the DA accepted all of the charges. The defendant was offered a chance in court to admit the gun was his and the charges against his mother in law would be dropped. He declined.
As a side note, I received a phone call at the booking desk from the subject’s wife. I was expecting her to tear my head off for having her mother arrested. She never addressed the issue, she wanted to know what gives us the right to arrest her husband. Thinking that he had not told her what had happened, I filled her in on the days events. Her reply was “Big deal, everyone in the Bronx carries a gun”! My only reply was “this isn’t the Bronx” !
You can't make this stuff up!

When I was a road boss, I was called to the scene of a simple auto accident by a police officer who had an un-usual circumstance:
The officer was dispatched to a non injury accident to file a report. It was determined that one of the drivers had a suspended license (for failure to answer a summons). The subject had his mother-in-law in the car whom he transporting to work. As the mother in law did not have a license, the officer instructed the arrested subject that he was going to tow the vehicle. He would arrange for a cab to take the mother in law home or to work. The subject was given his Miranda warnings, frisked and handcuffed. The subject asked to speak to his mother in law before being transported to police HQ. The two then had a conversation in Italian. The subject was secured in the radio car and the officer kept a close watch over the mother in law. The officer then requested a supervisor to the scene.
The unknown to the two, the officer spoke Italian. The conversation consisted of the subject telling his mother in law to take the gun from under the driver’s seat and put it in her handbag. Upon arrival, the officer advised of the events and was unsure of we could conduct a warrantless search under the conditions. Under the circumstances I advised that the search would be valid and we then confronted the mother in law and she surrendered her handbag. In her bag was a loaded .38 caliber revolver.
The subject was advised that we had recovered the handgun and would be arresting both parties. The subject denied any knowledge of the firearm and wanted to know how we found it. The officer told him in Italian what he said to his mother in law. The expression on their faces was priceless.
Both subjects were booked and the DA accepted all of the charges. The defendant was offered a chance in court to admit the gun was his and the charges against his mother in law would be dropped. He declined.
As a side note, I received a phone call at the booking desk from the subject’s wife. I was expecting her to tear my head off for having her mother arrested. She never addressed the issue, she wanted to know what gives us the right to arrest her husband. Thinking that he had not told her what had happened, I filled her in on the days events. Her reply was “Big deal, everyone in the Bronx carries a gun”! My only reply was “this isn’t the Bronx” !
You can't make this stuff up!

When I was a road boss, I was called to the scene of a simple auto accident by a police officer who had an un-usual circumstance:
The officer was dispatched to a non injury accident to file a report. It was determined that one of the drivers had a suspended license (for failure to answer a summons). The subject had his mother-in-law in the car whom he transporting to work. As the mother in law did not have a license, the officer instructed the arrested subject that he was going to tow the vehicle. He would arrange for a cab to take the mother in law home or to work. The subject was given his Miranda warnings, frisked and handcuffed. The subject asked to speak to his mother in law before being transported to police HQ. The two then had a conversation in Italian. The subject was secured in the radio car and the officer kept a close watch over the mother in law. The officer then requested a supervisor to the scene.
The unknown to the two, the officer spoke Italian. The conversation consisted of the subject telling his mother in law to take the gun from under the driver’s seat and put it in her handbag. Upon arrival, the officer advised of the events and was unsure of we could conduct a warrantless search under the conditions. Under the circumstances I advised that the search would be valid and we then confronted the mother in law and she surrendered her handbag. In her bag was a loaded .38 caliber revolver.
The subject was advised that we had recovered the handgun and would be arresting both parties. The subject denied any knowledge of the firearm and wanted to know how we found it. The officer told him in Italian what he said to his mother in law. The expression on their faces was priceless.
Both subjects were booked and the DA accepted all of the charges. The defendant was offered a chance in court to admit the gun was his and the charges against his mother in law would be dropped. He declined.
As a side note, I received a phone call at the booking desk from the subject’s wife. I was expecting her to tear my head off for having her mother arrested. She never addressed the issue, she wanted to know what gives us the right to arrest her husband. Thinking that he had not told her what had happened, I filled her in on the days events. Her reply was “Big deal, everyone in the Bronx carries a gun”! My only reply was “this isn’t the Bronx” !
You can't make this stuff up!

When I was a road boss, I was called to the scene of a simple auto accident by a police officer who had an un-usual circumstance:
The officer was dispatched to a non injury accident to file a report. It was determined that one of the drivers had a suspended license (for failure to answer a summons). The subject had his mother-in-law in the car whom he transporting to work. As the mother in law did not have a license, the officer instructed the arrested subject that he was going to tow the vehicle. He would arrange for a cab to take the mother in law home or to work. The subject was given his Miranda warnings, frisked and handcuffed. The subject asked to speak to his mother in law before being transported to police HQ. The two then had a conversation in Italian. The subject was secured in the radio car and the officer kept a close watch over the mother in law. The officer then requested a supervisor to the scene.
The unknown to the two, the officer spoke Italian. The conversation consisted of the subject telling his mother in law to take the gun from under the driver’s seat and put it in her handbag. Upon arrival, the officer advised of the events and was unsure of we could conduct a warrantless search under the conditions. Under the circumstances I advised that the search would be valid and we then confronted the mother in law and she surrendered her handbag. In her bag was a loaded .38 caliber revolver.
The subject was advised that we had recovered the handgun and would be arresting both parties. The subject denied any knowledge of the firearm and wanted to know how we found it. The officer told him in Italian what he said to his mother in law. The expression on their faces was priceless.
Both subjects were booked and the DA accepted all of the charges. The defendant was offered a chance in court to admit the gun was his and the charges against his mother in law would be dropped. He declined.
As a side note, I received a phone call at the booking desk from the subject’s wife. I was expecting her to tear my head off for having her mother arrested. She never addressed the issue, she wanted to know what gives us the right to arrest her husband. Thinking that he had not told her what had happened, I filled her in on the days events. Her reply was “Big deal, everyone in the Bronx carries a gun”! My only reply was “this isn’t the Bronx” !
You can't make this stuff up!

When I was a road boss, I was called to the scene of a simple auto accident by a police officer who had an un-usual circumstance:
The officer was dispatched to a non injury accident to file a report. It was determined that one of the drivers had a suspended license (for failure to answer a summons). The subject had his mother-in-law in the car whom he transporting to work. As the mother in law did not have a license, the officer instructed the arrested subject that he was going to tow the vehicle. He would arrange for a cab to take the mother in law home or to work. The subject was given his Miranda warnings, frisked and handcuffed. The subject asked to speak to his mother in law before being transported to police HQ. The two then had a conversation in Italian. The subject was secured in the radio car and the officer kept a close watch over the mother in law. The officer then requested a supervisor to the scene.
The unknown to the two, the officer spoke Italian. The conversation consisted of the subject telling his mother in law to take the gun from under the driver’s seat and put it in her handbag. Upon arrival, the officer advised of the events and was unsure of we could conduct a warrantless search under the conditions. Under the circumstances I advised that the search would be valid and we then confronted the mother in law and she surrendered her handbag. In her bag was a loaded .38 caliber revolver.
The subject was advised that we had recovered the handgun and would be arresting both parties. The subject denied any knowledge of the firearm and wanted to know how we found it. The officer told him in Italian what he said to his mother in law. The expression on their faces was priceless.
Both subjects were booked and the DA accepted all of the charges. The defendant was offered a chance in court to admit the gun was his and the charges against his mother in law would be dropped. He declined.
As a side note, I received a phone call at the booking desk from the subject’s wife. I was expecting her to tear my head off for having her mother arrested. She never addressed the issue, she wanted to know what gives us the right to arrest her husband. Thinking that he had not told her what had happened, I filled her in on the days events. Her reply was “Big deal, everyone in the Bronx carries a gun”! My only reply was “this isn’t the Bronx” !
You can't make this stuff up!

With regard to the search and seizure issues raised:
Was the gun on his person or in the car? If he was arrested for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (or any charge), he would have been searched proir to being secured in the troopers car and most likely the firearm seized for officer’s safety. In clearing the weapon, the amount of rounds would have been observed. Any contraband found on his person would be admissible. The courts have held that LEOs may conduct a search of the “immediate area of the subjects control” for officers safety. Again no search and seizure issues. They can also ask he exit the vehicle and the officers perform a pat down for officer’s safety if they feel it is warranted under the circumstances. If the subject was not able to turn the vehicle over to a licensed driver, the vehicle was most likely impounded and towed. Prior to towing, many departments require an inventory search of the vehicle’s contents in order to prevent lawsuits for “missing items”. Providing that it is done uniformly on all impounds, it’s been upheld as a reasonable action. Any item found in the vehicle (with certain exceptions) is admissible in court. Any item in “plain view” is also admissible. With the amount of information provided in the story, it seems that the weapon would have been lawfully discovered under a number of scenarios.
Given the limited course of events identified in the story, I am glad that the DA chose not to prosecute for the two extra bullets. I am hoping that this action sounds loud and clear in Albany. As many of you have seen, I feel that the law and the politicians that enacted this piece of trash legislation belong in the trash.

We use color coded tags with FF name , department and picture. The color indicates his function.
As our Scott packs have pack tracker,each Scott pack also has a tag with teh number of the pack on it. When a FF arrives at the scene, he removes his tag and connects it to the pack tag. Both are then secured to the command board. The safety officer moves the tags around based on assignment.
If a pack alarm goes off, we know who has what pack and this cuts down on the roll call.

With regard to the search and seizure issues raised:
Was the gun on his person or in the car? If he was arrested for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (or any charge), he would have been searched proir to being secured in the troopers car and most likely the firearm seized for officer’s safety. In clearing the weapon, the amount of rounds would have been observed. Any contraband found on his person would be admissible. The courts have held that LEOs may conduct a search of the “immediate area of the subjects control” for officers safety. Again no search and seizure issues. They can also ask he exit the vehicle and the officers perform a pat down for officer’s safety if they feel it is warranted under the circumstances. If the subject was not able to turn the vehicle over to a licensed driver, the vehicle was most likely impounded and towed. Prior to towing, many departments require an inventory search of the vehicle’s contents in order to prevent lawsuits for “missing items”. Providing that it is done uniformly on all impounds, it’s been upheld as a reasonable action. Any item found in the vehicle (with certain exceptions) is admissible in court. Any item in “plain view” is also admissible. With the amount of information provided in the story, it seems that the weapon would have been lawfully discovered under a number of scenarios.
Given the limited course of events identified in the story, I am glad that the DA chose not to prosecute for the two extra bullets. I am hoping that this action sounds loud and clear in Albany. As many of you have seen, I feel that the law and the politicians that enacted this piece of trash legislation belong in the trash.

With regard to the search and seizure issues raised:
Was the gun on his person or in the car? If he was arrested for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (or any charge), he would have been searched proir to being secured in the troopers car and most likely the firearm seized for officer’s safety. In clearing the weapon, the amount of rounds would have been observed. Any contraband found on his person would be admissible. The courts have held that LEOs may conduct a search of the “immediate area of the subjects control” for officers safety. Again no search and seizure issues. They can also ask he exit the vehicle and the officers perform a pat down for officer’s safety if they feel it is warranted under the circumstances. If the subject was not able to turn the vehicle over to a licensed driver, the vehicle was most likely impounded and towed. Prior to towing, many departments require an inventory search of the vehicle’s contents in order to prevent lawsuits for “missing items”. Providing that it is done uniformly on all impounds, it’s been upheld as a reasonable action. Any item found in the vehicle (with certain exceptions) is admissible in court. Any item in “plain view” is also admissible. With the amount of information provided in the story, it seems that the weapon would have been lawfully discovered under a number of scenarios.
Given the limited course of events identified in the story, I am glad that the DA chose not to prosecute for the two extra bullets. I am hoping that this action sounds loud and clear in Albany. As many of you have seen, I feel that the law and the politicians that enacted this piece of trash legislation belong in the trash.

Did you notice that one of the ladders had stopped spraying water and the cab was tilted up

With regard to the search and seizure issues raised:
Was the gun on his person or in the car? If he was arrested for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (or any charge), he would have been searched proir to being secured in the troopers car and most likely the firearm seized for officer’s safety. In clearing the weapon, the amount of rounds would have been observed. Any contraband found on his person would be admissible. The courts have held that LEOs may conduct a search of the “immediate area of the subjects control” for officers safety. Again no search and seizure issues. They can also ask he exit the vehicle and the officers perform a pat down for officer’s safety if they feel it is warranted under the circumstances. If the subject was not able to turn the vehicle over to a licensed driver, the vehicle was most likely impounded and towed. Prior to towing, many departments require an inventory search of the vehicle’s contents in order to prevent lawsuits for “missing items”. Providing that it is done uniformly on all impounds, it’s been upheld as a reasonable action. Any item found in the vehicle (with certain exceptions) is admissible in court. Any item in “plain view” is also admissible. With the amount of information provided in the story, it seems that the weapon would have been lawfully discovered under a number of scenarios.
Given the limited course of events identified in the story, I am glad that the DA chose not to prosecute for the two extra bullets. I am hoping that this action sounds loud and clear in Albany. As many of you have seen, I feel that the law and the politicians that enacted this piece of trash legislation belong in the trash.

Did you notice that one of the ladders had stopped spraying water and the cab was tilted up

Did you notice that one of the ladders had stopped spraying water and the cab was tilted up

With regard to the search and seizure issues raised:
Was the gun on his person or in the car? If he was arrested for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (or any charge), he would have been searched proir to being secured in the troopers car and most likely the firearm seized for officer’s safety. In clearing the weapon, the amount of rounds would have been observed. Any contraband found on his person would be admissible. The courts have held that LEOs may conduct a search of the “immediate area of the subjects control” for officers safety. Again no search and seizure issues. They can also ask he exit the vehicle and the officers perform a pat down for officer’s safety if they feel it is warranted under the circumstances. If the subject was not able to turn the vehicle over to a licensed driver, the vehicle was most likely impounded and towed. Prior to towing, many departments require an inventory search of the vehicle’s contents in order to prevent lawsuits for “missing items”. Providing that it is done uniformly on all impounds, it’s been upheld as a reasonable action. Any item found in the vehicle (with certain exceptions) is admissible in court. Any item in “plain view” is also admissible. With the amount of information provided in the story, it seems that the weapon would have been lawfully discovered under a number of scenarios.
Given the limited course of events identified in the story, I am glad that the DA chose not to prosecute for the two extra bullets. I am hoping that this action sounds loud and clear in Albany. As many of you have seen, I feel that the law and the politicians that enacted this piece of trash legislation belong in the trash.

With regard to the search and seizure issues raised:
Was the gun on his person or in the car? If he was arrested for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (or any charge), he would have been searched proir to being secured in the troopers car and most likely the firearm seized for officer’s safety. In clearing the weapon, the amount of rounds would have been observed. Any contraband found on his person would be admissible. The courts have held that LEOs may conduct a search of the “immediate area of the subjects control” for officers safety. Again no search and seizure issues. They can also ask he exit the vehicle and the officers perform a pat down for officer’s safety if they feel it is warranted under the circumstances. If the subject was not able to turn the vehicle over to a licensed driver, the vehicle was most likely impounded and towed. Prior to towing, many departments require an inventory search of the vehicle’s contents in order to prevent lawsuits for “missing items”. Providing that it is done uniformly on all impounds, it’s been upheld as a reasonable action. Any item found in the vehicle (with certain exceptions) is admissible in court. Any item in “plain view” is also admissible. With the amount of information provided in the story, it seems that the weapon would have been lawfully discovered under a number of scenarios.
Given the limited course of events identified in the story, I am glad that the DA chose not to prosecute for the two extra bullets. I am hoping that this action sounds loud and clear in Albany. As many of you have seen, I feel that the law and the politicians that enacted this piece of trash legislation belong in the trash.

With regard to the search and seizure issues raised:
Was the gun on his person or in the car? If he was arrested for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (or any charge), he would have been searched proir to being secured in the troopers car and most likely the firearm seized for officer’s safety. In clearing the weapon, the amount of rounds would have been observed. Any contraband found on his person would be admissible. The courts have held that LEOs may conduct a search of the “immediate area of the subjects control” for officers safety. Again no search and seizure issues. They can also ask he exit the vehicle and the officers perform a pat down for officer’s safety if they feel it is warranted under the circumstances. If the subject was not able to turn the vehicle over to a licensed driver, the vehicle was most likely impounded and towed. Prior to towing, many departments require an inventory search of the vehicle’s contents in order to prevent lawsuits for “missing items”. Providing that it is done uniformly on all impounds, it’s been upheld as a reasonable action. Any item found in the vehicle (with certain exceptions) is admissible in court. Any item in “plain view” is also admissible. With the amount of information provided in the story, it seems that the weapon would have been lawfully discovered under a number of scenarios.
Given the limited course of events identified in the story, I am glad that the DA chose not to prosecute for the two extra bullets. I am hoping that this action sounds loud and clear in Albany. As many of you have seen, I feel that the law and the politicians that enacted this piece of trash legislation belong in the trash.

With regard to the search and seizure issues raised:
Was the gun on his person or in the car? If he was arrested for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (or any charge), he would have been searched proir to being secured in the troopers car and most likely the firearm seized for officer’s safety. In clearing the weapon, the amount of rounds would have been observed. Any contraband found on his person would be admissible. The courts have held that LEOs may conduct a search of the “immediate area of the subjects control” for officers safety. Again no search and seizure issues. They can also ask he exit the vehicle and the officers perform a pat down for officer’s safety if they feel it is warranted under the circumstances. If the subject was not able to turn the vehicle over to a licensed driver, the vehicle was most likely impounded and towed. Prior to towing, many departments require an inventory search of the vehicle’s contents in order to prevent lawsuits for “missing items”. Providing that it is done uniformly on all impounds, it’s been upheld as a reasonable action. Any item found in the vehicle (with certain exceptions) is admissible in court. Any item in “plain view” is also admissible. With the amount of information provided in the story, it seems that the weapon would have been lawfully discovered under a number of scenarios.
Given the limited course of events identified in the story, I am glad that the DA chose not to prosecute for the two extra bullets. I am hoping that this action sounds loud and clear in Albany. As many of you have seen, I feel that the law and the politicians that enacted this piece of trash legislation belong in the trash.

With regard to the search and seizure issues raised:
Was the gun on his person or in the car? If he was arrested for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (or any charge), he would have been searched proir to being secured in the troopers car and most likely the firearm seized for officer’s safety. In clearing the weapon, the amount of rounds would have been observed. Any contraband found on his person would be admissible. The courts have held that LEOs may conduct a search of the “immediate area of the subjects control” for officers safety. Again no search and seizure issues. They can also ask he exit the vehicle and the officers perform a pat down for officer’s safety if they feel it is warranted under the circumstances. If the subject was not able to turn the vehicle over to a licensed driver, the vehicle was most likely impounded and towed. Prior to towing, many departments require an inventory search of the vehicle’s contents in order to prevent lawsuits for “missing items”. Providing that it is done uniformly on all impounds, it’s been upheld as a reasonable action. Any item found in the vehicle (with certain exceptions) is admissible in court. Any item in “plain view” is also admissible. With the amount of information provided in the story, it seems that the weapon would have been lawfully discovered under a number of scenarios.
Given the limited course of events identified in the story, I am glad that the DA chose not to prosecute for the two extra bullets. I am hoping that this action sounds loud and clear in Albany. As many of you have seen, I feel that the law and the politicians that enacted this piece of trash legislation belong in the trash.

By going to the site its more confusing than the law.,For example:
Q: I own a handgun, is that an assault weapon?A: Most handguns are not assault weapons and are not affected by this law. A traditionally designed handgun is not an assault weapon. For example a single shot pistol or a revolver cannot be an assault weapon. To confirm that your handgun is not an assault weapon and to see common models and characteristics click here. Yet they reference magazines. Do they apply to hand guns or just long guns? If the magazine section applies to handguns, then almost all semi automatic handguns are affected by the law. They can’t even be truthful about something they passed yet don’t even know what they passed. Sounds like Pelosi’s statement, “we have to pass it to see what’s in it”.No they have to cover thier tracks by providing inaccurate information.

By going to the site its more confusing than the law.,For example:
Q: I own a handgun, is that an assault weapon?A: Most handguns are not assault weapons and are not affected by this law. A traditionally designed handgun is not an assault weapon. For example a single shot pistol or a revolver cannot be an assault weapon. To confirm that your handgun is not an assault weapon and to see common models and characteristics click here. Yet they reference magazines. Do they apply to hand guns or just long guns? If the magazine section applies to handguns, then almost all semi automatic handguns are affected by the law. They can’t even be truthful about something they passed yet don’t even know what they passed. Sounds like Pelosi’s statement, “we have to pass it to see what’s in it”.No they have to cover thier tracks by providing inaccurate information.

By going to the site its more confusing than the law.,For example:
Q: I own a handgun, is that an assault weapon?A: Most handguns are not assault weapons and are not affected by this law. A traditionally designed handgun is not an assault weapon. For example a single shot pistol or a revolver cannot be an assault weapon. To confirm that your handgun is not an assault weapon and to see common models and characteristics click here. Yet they reference magazines. Do they apply to hand guns or just long guns? If the magazine section applies to handguns, then almost all semi automatic handguns are affected by the law. They can’t even be truthful about something they passed yet don’t even know what they passed. Sounds like Pelosi’s statement, “we have to pass it to see what’s in it”.No they have to cover thier tracks by providing inaccurate information.

Next time spend the $2.00 for the cleaning rod.

A few questions for you.
1) what is an "assault weapon"?
2) what are all the law abiding citizens who own weapons that have magazines with 10 rounds (or11, 12 or 13) supposed to do with their guns now? Magazines that hold 7 rounds don't exist. This law makes law abiding citizens instant criminals. How does that help?
This legislation is simply feel good political junk. There were laws in place before Newtown. Did the law against THEFT stop Lanza? How about the law against BREAKING AND ENTERING? Oh, and don't we have laws against MURDER? Did any of those laws stop him? NO. Not one.
I don't understand how you think new laws will stop people like him? He obtained the guns illegally. Why do you think restricting me will prevent this from happening again?