3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Don't juries use opinions, personal thoughts?

 

Defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges too?

 

Child protection agencies too?

Yes when debating with rational people I guess they do. I often use opinions in some topics. When facts are hard to come by however then I tend to stick to them rather than make wild speculations when I have no experience in the event or circumstances. Why?

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes when debating with rational people I guess they do. I often use opinions in some topics. When facts are hard to come by however then I tend to stick to them rather than make wild speculations when I have no experience in the event or circumstances. Why?

You base your opinions on the facts at hand. As others do. No one is wrong. It is just their opinion.

 

The best opinion I have seen on here is that there is more to the story than has been printed. That will be down to the opinion thecauthor has about police and racial abuse, no doubt.

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You base your opinions on the facts at hand. As others do. No one is wrong. It is just their opinion.

 

The best opinion I have seen on here is that there is more to the story than has been printed. That will be down to the opinion thecauthor has about police and racial abuse, no doubt.

"The best opinion I have seen on here is that there is more to the story than has been printed."

 

Indeed, something that is pretty obvious and already stated on the first page of the topic a few times. 

2 hours ago, stoner said:

did you read the part where they tested for hard drugs ? regardless of its admissibility or time they had the drugs in their system. which means odds are it is not their first time taking the drugs. yes i know this is an assumption but i'm willing to bet the bank i'm not wrong. all of these factors don't bring into question the quality of parenting they might provide ? 

 

you're supposed to be the compassionate ones ? good grief. 

 

guns weed hard drugs bad driving. sound like tip top parents....and so many rushing to their defense. 

 

so ill ask you as well. what are your thoughts on having drugs and guns in the car with 5 children ? sound parenting choices or ? 

 

would you allow that in your family ? 

"regardless of its admissibility or time they had the drugs in their system."
Maybe, maybe not.

Looking forward to the dash cams.

6 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

"An instant hair follicle test performed on the parents at their first court appearance, about a week after the children were taken into custody, was a key element in DCS’ arguments for why the children should remain in DCS custody. However, a Coffee County court administrator, speaking to the Lookout broadly about the county’s instant hair follicle testing, said the tests are “inadmissible” in court.

Ah now the fact that the people were carrying a gun and had instant follicle testing being inadmissable is the germaine point to you. 

Did you ever think that irrespective of its admissability that it might be a very real and important fact.  What would you say to the Tennessee authorities if they released these people who based on the tests were on meth, fentanyl, and oxycodone in their system.  They crashed the car into another family killing all occupants in both vehicles but a spokesman for Tennessee said OH WE WERE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE METH, FENTANYL, AND OXYCODONE because it was inadmissable in court.  

Who ties your shoes for you? 

 

 

4 hours ago, stoner said:

did you read the part where they tested for hard drugs ? regardless of its admissibility or time they had the drugs in their system. which means odds are it is not their first time taking the drugs. yes i know this is an assumption but i'm willing to bet the bank i'm not wrong. all of these factors don't bring into question the quality of parenting they might provide ? 

 

you're supposed to be the compassionate ones ? good grief. 

 

guns weed hard drugs bad driving. sound like tip top parents....and so many rushing to their defense. 

 

so ill ask you as well. what are your thoughts on having drugs and guns in the car with 5 children ? sound parenting choices or ? 

 

would you allow that in your family ? 

Did you actually read the article?

First of all, the only person who tested positive for drugs in the system was the father. and the drug was marijuana which is hardly in the same league as methamphetamines or opiods.

What's more, unlike alcohol, the thc metabolites persists in the blood long after the effect has worn off. So it's not even clear he was driving under the influence.

As for the hair follice test, first off it's unreliable. 

Second, even if was correct, it tests for past use. It reveals nothing about the current state of the person tested.

Third, the state couldn't even produce and written documentation for the test results because they claimed that they don't keep them. Does that sound like standard operating procedure.  So how do we even know that the alleged findings are even actual?

And I noticed you turned "gun" into "guns". Do you know if the gun was loaded? Do you know where the gun was kept?

6 hours ago, userabcd said:

Mother tested negative for all drugs at the scene. Father tested positive for marijuana. They later were given an inadmissible test which turned up positive for everything for both of them.

So the fact the test would be inadmissable in court is somehow germaine to you.  Lets see, I stopped the car illegally found that the driver was legally intoxicated and carrying a loaded 45.  However I was not sure the search was admissable so I released the person.  Sorry that he was carrying that illegal firearm when he killed your family. 

First off the windows on the car were so heavily tinted that the officers could not ascertain the occupants and that caused them to stop the car.  They found in addition to the drugs a gun.  Later it was determined that hey were on Meth, Oxycodone, and Fentanyl  But according to your logic because the 'TEST WOULD BE INADMISSABLE that would be grounds to release the children back into their custody.  Now when one of the children shows up dead from an accidental overdose of fenanyl, or the driver kills all by driving under the influence, I am sure you will be soliced by the fact that he got those children back because not that he was not under the influence of a drug, but rather that evidence could not be used against him.  

These people obviously were not upstanding parents.  I have zero idea why some out there seems to be advocates of people who would have children in a car, be driving it while on drugs and also have a gun in the car.  

 

7 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Ah now the fact that the people were carrying a gun and had instant follicle testing being inadmissable is the germaine point to you. 

Did you ever think that irrespective of its admissability that it might be a very real and important fact.  What would you say to the Tennessee authorities if they released these people who based on the tests were on meth, fentanyl, and oxycodone in their system.  They crashed the car into another family killing all occupants in both vehicles but a spokesman for Tennessee said OH WE WERE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE METH, FENTANYL, AND OXYCODONE because it was inadmissable in court.  

Who ties your shoes for you? 

 

 

The facts matter to me. The children were taken away a week before the follicle test. 

 

"Teasley said it is “egregious” for someone’s children to be taken on the basis of an inadmissible test."

 

 

The father was within his rights to have a handgun in the car, no permit needed in Tennessee for openly or concealed.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The facts matter to me. The children were taken away a week before the follicle test. 

So let me see, not the police officer but CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES who deemed the circumstances surrounding the children warranted taking the children.  

As said, the OP seem to infer the reason they were stopped was that they were black.  The fact is the reason they were stopped was that the tint on the window of their car was too dark making ascertaining the occupants in the vehicle impossible. 

Now you can challenge the Child Protective Services for their actions saying that they should not have taken the children, or that they should not have issued the order until after the follicle test.  However, we ask those agencies to excercise the utmost caution with dealing with minor children.  Being devil's advocate if the children were not taken and following that one of the children accidentally ingested and died from the fentanyl, or alternatively the driver was released and killed the family and others while driving under the influence. I suggest you and others would be blaming Child Protective Services for knowing the children were in a dangerous setting and failing to protect them.  They are d**ned if they do or d**med if they dont'  One way or another this has zero to do with race.  They were not stopped because they were black.  They were stopped because they drove a vehicle with windows tinted so much it obscured the occupants.  They were driving in the passing lane but traveling at a speed insufficient to pass slower vehicles.  Such driving is totally consistent with driving impaired where the driver slows down to compensate for their impaired condition.  

Again, to me, how someone can defend these people who obviosly have problems as parents and are a danger to other people on the road is beyond me, but then again, I recognize who I am speaking to. 

35 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

So let me see, not the police officer but CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES who deemed the circumstances surrounding the children warranted taking the children.  

As said, the OP seem to infer the reason they were stopped was that they were black.  The fact is the reason they were stopped was that the tint on the window of their car was too dark making ascertaining the occupants in the vehicle impossible. 

Now you can challenge the Child Protective Services for their actions saying that they should not have taken the children, or that they should not have issued the order until after the follicle test.  However, we ask those agencies to excercise the utmost caution with dealing with minor children.  Being devil's advocate if the children were not taken and following that one of the children accidentally ingested and died from the fentanyl, or alternatively the driver was released and killed the family and others while driving under the influence. I suggest you and others would be blaming Child Protective Services for knowing the children were in a dangerous setting and failing to protect them.  They are d**ned if they do or d**med if they dont'  One way or another this has zero to do with race.  They were not stopped because they were black.  They were stopped because they drove a vehicle with windows tinted so much it obscured the occupants.  They were driving in the passing lane but traveling at a speed insufficient to pass slower vehicles.  Such driving is totally consistent with driving impaired where the driver slows down to compensate for their impaired condition.  

Again, to me, how someone can defend these people who obviosly have problems as parents and are a danger to other people on the road is beyond me, but then again, I recognize who I am speaking to. 

Next time quote my full post, I may just respond and let me know why you think the handgun had something to do with this when no permit was needed?

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Did you actually read the article?

First of all, the only person who tested positive for drugs in the system was the father. and the drug was marijuana which is hardly in the same league as methamphetamines or opiods.

What's more, unlike alcohol, the thc metabolites persists in the blood long after the effect has worn off. So it's not even clear he was driving under the influence.

As for the hair follice test, first off it's unreliable. 

Second, even if was correct, it tests for past use. It reveals nothing about the current state of the person tested.

Third, the state couldn't even produce and written documentation for the test results because they claimed that they don't keep them. Does that sound like standard operating procedure.  So how do we even know that the alleged findings are even actual?

And I noticed you turned "gun" into "guns". Do you know if the gun was loaded? Do you know where the gun was kept?

i notice not a single one of you have addressed me asking if you think its ok parenting to be touting a gun and weed in a car. and also probably heavy drug users to boot. 

 

care to comment on that ? 

 

gun guns....does it really matter ? are they out deer hunting ? maybe shooting some duck ? 

 

americans and their guns hahahaha

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

So let me see, not the police officer but CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES who deemed the circumstances surrounding the children warranted taking the children.  

As said, the OP seem to infer the reason they were stopped was that they were black.  The fact is the reason they were stopped was that the tint on the window of their car was too dark making ascertaining the occupants in the vehicle impossible. 

Now you can challenge the Child Protective Services for their actions saying that they should not have taken the children, or that they should not have issued the order until after the follicle test.  However, we ask those agencies to excercise the utmost caution with dealing with minor children.  Being devil's advocate if the children were not taken and following that one of the children accidentally ingested and died from the fentanyl, or alternatively the driver was released and killed the family and others while driving under the influence. I suggest you and others would be blaming Child Protective Services for knowing the children were in a dangerous setting and failing to protect them.  They are d**ned if they do or d**med if they dont'  One way or another this has zero to do with race.  They were not stopped because they were black.  They were stopped because they drove a vehicle with windows tinted so much it obscured the occupants.  They were driving in the passing lane but traveling at a speed insufficient to pass slower vehicles.  Such driving is totally consistent with driving impaired where the driver slows down to compensate for their impaired condition.  

Again, to me, how someone can defend these people who obviosly have problems as parents and are a danger to other people on the road is beyond me, but then again, I recognize who I am speaking to. 

What an evidence-free comment.

Just because the car wasn't stopped because of the race of the occupants, what does that have to do with how the police reacted once they did see the race of the occupants?

 

This couple was not in possession of dangerous drugs at the time of their arrest. And the only alleged evidence was the results of unreliable follicle tests. What's more, when challenged to produce the documentation supporting that claim, the agency in question maintained that they didn't keep the documentation showing results of those tests. Which is bizarre.  So there is absolutely no existing evidence that the results of the test actually showed what the agency claimed. 

 

So share with us, what are the obvious problems these people have?

That the father tested positive for marijuana use?

A test which doesn't even show whether or not someone is currently under the influence?

A mother who tested negative for marijuana use?

A gun in the car which is perfectly legal in Tennessee?

What more, do we even know if the gun was loaded?

Do we know where that gun was stored?

You've got nothing except nonsense to support your case.

25 minutes ago, stoner said:

i notice not a single one of you have addressed me asking if you think its ok parenting to be touting a gun and weed in a car. and also probably heavy drug users to boot. 

 

care to comment on that ? 

 

gun guns....does it really matter ? are they out deer hunting ? maybe shooting some duck ? 

 

americans and their guns hahahaha

I assume you meant "toting a gun". Do you know if the gun was loaded? Do you know where it was stored. The fact is that the same right wingers who usually jump up and down in defense of the first amendment are here stating that it's a strike against this couple that there was a gun in the car. A gun which is completely legal to carry in the state of Tennessee. The fact is lots of Americans own guns.

 

What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?

Thirty-two percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 44%, report living in a gun household. Adults living in gun households include those with a gun in their home or anywhere on their property.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

 

The demographics of gun ownership

Two-thirds of gun owners say they own more than one gun, including 29% who own five or more guns. About seven-in-ten say they own a handgun or pistol (72%), while 62% own a rifle and 54% own a shotgun. Among those who own a single gun, most (62%) say that gun is a handgun or pistol, while far fewer say they own a rifle (22%) or a shotgun (16%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

 

About 75% of Americans are 18 or older. So that would number about 250 million Americans. 32% of 250 million is about 83 million Americans. So what's your point about deer or duck hunting?

 

And you're claiming that they are probably heavy drug users to boot? Really?  Based on unreliable follicle tests. What's worse, even if follicle tests were reliable, the state claims that they didn't actually keep the results of those tests. So there's now way to prove whether they're being truthful or not. That doesn't strike you as being bizarre?

 

Care to comment on any of this? Or are you just going to continue to make unsupported allegations that demonstrate only that you didn't read the article carefully and that you know very little about America.

 

Edit. I should have noted that 70 percent of those gun owners own handuns. So that would bring the total number of handgun owner to somewhere around 58 million.

An inappropriate unfunny racist comment in addition to a trolling post reported and removed.

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

So let me see, not the police officer but CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES who deemed the circumstances surrounding the children warranted taking the children.  

As said, the OP seem to infer the reason they were stopped was that they were black.  The fact is the reason they were stopped was that the tint on the window of their car was too dark making ascertaining the occupants in the vehicle impossible. 

Now you can challenge the Child Protective Services for their actions saying that they should not have taken the children, or that they should not have issued the order until after the follicle test.  However, we ask those agencies to excercise the utmost caution with dealing with minor children.  Being devil's advocate if the children were not taken and following that one of the children accidentally ingested and died from the fentanyl, or alternatively the driver was released and killed the family and others while driving under the influence. I suggest you and others would be blaming Child Protective Services for knowing the children were in a dangerous setting and failing to protect them.  They are d**ned if they do or d**med if they dont'  One way or another this has zero to do with race.  They were not stopped because they were black.  They were stopped because they drove a vehicle with windows tinted so much it obscured the occupants.  They were driving in the passing lane but traveling at a speed insufficient to pass slower vehicles.  Such driving is totally consistent with driving impaired where the driver slows down to compensate for their impaired condition.  

Again, to me, how someone can defend these people who obviosly have problems as parents and are a danger to other people on the road is beyond me, but then again, I recognize who I am speaking to. 

I am giving very little weight to the drugs and CPS should have largely discounted it as well.   The reason is there was such a small amount that it was not dangerous to the children and the drugs were in the possession of the parents and not available to the children.  The same with the gun.

 

Drugs and guns become pivotal when children are in a situation where they have easy and unsupervised access to either.  If you have a gun in an unlocked kitchen cabinet drawer, and your kids are old enough to be left home alone for a period of time, you may have a problem.  You may also have a problem if you leave your prescribed medication where it is available to a young child. 

 

CPS here is no doubt somewhat complicit in this situation, but they are far from off the hook.   When the parents are being held, CPS has little choice but to get a temporary removal order.   But the mother was not charged.  

 

CPS was in a difficult situation.  This was a family from a different state and headed to another state.   Whatever investigation or longer term assistance is needed, won't be done by Tennessee.  It will fall to maybe Georgia or maybe Illinois.   CPS and the police decided to err on the side of caution.  That however, doesn't mean the children have to be removed.  Under most temporary orders, it gives CPS the right to decide what needs to be done.  In this situation, the mother and children could have been placed in a shelter -- or even a motel room under supervision.  CPS should have then contacted the Georgia authorities to ascertain whether any reports had been filed.  They also should have had someone contact family members to find if anyone was available. 

 

Placing the children in foster care is an extremely traumatic move and should only be done when no other option is available.  There were other options and the legal basis for the removal is very weak.  

Some people may believe that tests for marijuana use are comparable to tests for blood alcohol level via a breathalyzer. But alcohol doesn't linger in the body the way marijuana cannabinoids and metabolites do.

https://www.testing.com/tests/marijuana-thc-testing/

 

Why do newspapers have to stress the color of the family? Do they write "a yellow family was arrested"  if a Chinese family is stopped? Isn't it rather common for people to carry guns because that is what the 2nd Amendment is all about? If carrying marijuana is a misdemeanor why make a big deal out of it? 

This looks so messed up. 

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

And you're claiming that they are probably heavy drug users to boot?

yes.

13 minutes ago, stoner said:

yes.

Typical inane comment.

You've got nothing.

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Typical inane comment.

same can be said for you my friend. 

Just now, stoner said:

same can be said for you my friend. 

The definition of "inane" is lacking content.

I offered actual evidence to debunk your claim.

In reply to my listing of the faults with your argument you answered with one word: "yes". That is the epitome of "lacking content".

And, once again, you offer no evidence and no reasoning. In other words "lacking content". Which means it's inane.

 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

The definition of "inane" is lacking content.

I offered actual evidence to debunk your claim.

In reply to my listing of the faults with your argument you answered with one word: "yes". That is the epitome of "lacking content".

And, once again, you offer no evidence and no reasoning. In other words "lacking content". Which means it's inane.

 

are you finished ? 

Just now, stoner said:

are you finished ? 

Now you're 3 for 3. The emptiness continues.

UPDATE: Five children taken from their parents after a traffic stop could soon be back with their family

 

 

The couple out of Georgia went before a juvenile court judge in Manchester today to regain custody of their children, sources tell NewsChannel 5, the children's mother tested negative for meth and fentanyl during a urine test today, she also submitted to a hair follicle test - those results should be back in a day or two.

 

We're told the five children have been released to a family member in Tennessee until the final drug test results are back.

 

Barring any changes, the children should be released back to the family by the end of the week if the drug test comes back negative.

 

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/five-children-returning-home-after-being-separated-from-their-parents-for-more-than-a-month

 

12 hours ago, Scott said:

I am giving very little weight to the drugs and CPS should have largely discounted it as well.  

Two comments

First and most importantly I doubt we have ALL THE FACTORS.  I doubt seriously if all of the information is disclosed to the public.  The very fact that the police ordered a follicle test in addition to the test that disclosed the marijuana use is to me indicative that they rightfully suspected the driver was on more than just marijuana.  They were right. 

Second, you and others are Monday morning quarterbacking.  Did they error.  Perhaps, but if they did it was out of an abundance of caution. 

They rightfully feared also being Monday morning quarterbacked when one of the children in the car found the gun played with it and shot someone with it.   Then all those who expect a perfect 20/20 hindsight decision would have blamed the police and child protective services saying, they knew this person was driving DUI and had a gun in the car yet they did nothing. 

I say,first off IT HAD NOTHING TO DO AS THE OP SUGGEST TO DO WITH RACE. They had a car with windows so tinted that it obscured the people inside the car.  We also don't know the ethnicity of the police officer  Recently there was outrage in about a beating in Memphis that led to a teens death suggesting it too was racial.  Here is a picture of the 5 officers charged in that beating. 

The OP and articles like it are strictly inflaming passions and race baiting for the sake of an inflamatory headline.  If the exact same thing had happened and the parents were Asians or Caucasians the media would treat it totally different.  

15 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Next time quote my full post, I may just respond and let me know why you think the handgun had something to do with this when no permit was needed?

Brian, no permit was needed and I concede that.  What I did say is that normally if heard someone 'DEFEND" people who drive with their children while under the influence of marijuana, Meth, Oxycodene, and Fentanyl while carrying a gun in the car, I would say they should go in for a psych evaluation to test their brain function and cognitive ability 

In your case such a test is not required.  Yours has already been established.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

Brian, no permit was needed and I concede that.  What I did say is that normally if heard someone 'DEFEND" people who drive with their children while under the influence of marijuana, Meth, Oxycodene, and Fentanyl while carrying a gun in the car, I would say they should go in for a psych evaluation to test their brain function and cognitive ability 

In your case such a test is not required.  Yours has already been established.  

"What I did say is that normally if heard someone 'DEFEND" people who drive with their children while under the influence of marijuana, Meth, Oxycodene, and Fentanyl"

 

Here you go again with unsubstantiated claims.

 

The mother had a negative urine test. The father had a positive urine test for cannabis only. It was a misdemeanor. 

 

There is no evidence that the father had anything other than that in his bloodstream at the time. The hair follicle test was carried out around a week later.

 

Hair drug tests do not identify recent drug use. They do identify drug use up to 90 days before but cannot determine when in that 90 day period, however because of hair growth, that is why they cannot detect it for recent use. The follicle test is actually a test carried out on a strand of hair.

 

Besides which, the children were taken away from the mother before the hair test was taken. Including a 4 month old baby who she was breast feeding.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health/hair-follicle-drug-test#vs-urine-test

 

Anyway, with the recent news above its now being resolved barring any last ditch problems. Hopefully they'll be able to make a claim against C.P.

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"What I did say is that normally if heard someone 'DEFEND" people who drive with their children while under the influence of marijuana, Meth, Oxycodene, and Fentanyl"

 

Here you go again with unsubstantiated claims.

 

The mother had a negative urine test. The father had a positive urine test for cannabis only. It was a misdemeanor. 

 

There is no evidence that the father had anything other than that in his bloodstream at the time. The hair follicle test was carried out around a week later.

 

Hair drug tests do not identify recent drug use. They do identify drug use up to 90 days before but cannot determine when in that 90 day period, however because of hair growth, that is why they cannot detect it for recent use. The follicle test is actually a test carried out on a strand of hair.

 

Besides which, the children were taken away from the mother before the hair test was taken. Including a 4 month old baby who she was breast feeding.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health/hair-follicle-drug-test#vs-urine-test

 

Anyway, with the recent news above its now being resolved barring any last ditch problems. Hopefully they'll be able to make a claim against C.P.

I'll be charitable and assume Longwood has me on ignore since ince I've debunked all his claims. First off, even if a marijuana test is positive, it doesn't mean someone is under the influence Traces can persist in the blood for up to 7 day, in urine for 3 days, and in the hair for 90 days as I noted above.

Not only is the hair follicle test unreliable, but the authorities have no proof that's what the test showed. They claim they didn't keep the results. And hair follicle tests, even if they were accurate, don't show that someone is currently under the influence. It only tests for past use.

On 3/20/2023 at 1:34 PM, stoner said:

did you read the part where they tested for hard drugs ? regardless of its admissibility or time they had the drugs in their system. which means odds are it is not their first time taking the drugs. yes i know this is an assumption but i'm willing to bet the bank i'm not wrong. all of these factors don't bring into question the quality of parenting they might provide ? 

 

you're supposed to be the compassionate ones ? good grief. 

 

guns weed hard drugs bad driving. sound like tip top parents....and so many rushing to their defense. 

 

so ill ask you as well. what are your thoughts on having drugs and guns in the car with 5 children ? sound parenting choices or ? 

 

would you allow that in your family ? 

Earlier someone remarked that the testing methodology gave too many false positives, so if true that testing would have to be confirmed by other more reliable tests to have any relevance on custody issues. Also note that the testing was at a later hearing and not at the traffic stop, so only the immediate evidence should be considered as to whether the removal of the children was warranted.

16 hours ago, stoner said:

i notice not a single one of you have addressed me asking if you think its ok parenting to be touting a gun and weed in a car. and also probably heavy drug users to boot. 

 

care to comment on that ? 

 

gun guns....does it really matter ? are they out deer hunting ? maybe shooting some duck ? 

 

americans and their guns hahahaha

In the South a lot of people feel the need for a gun in the car. Sixty years ago I went to visit a highschool classmate living in Dallas. He told me that his father, general counsel of a large oil industry company, always kept a gun in his car.