View Full Version : Did This Officer Act Poorly.. or Properly .. Opinions?
clublights
02-01-2010, 18:16
I found this on a couple of the blogs I lurk around on and thought it might make for a nice discussion piece here
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html
Now I know there are two sides to every story.. and that this opinion piece in the paper may be "selectively" leaving out some information.
IF all of the facts were in the article then I think the officer was well out of line and needs to be "punished" in some manner.
But if the article left out some fact like.. the guy was just being a jerk to the officer.. or was being excessively aggressive or angry to the point he made the officer uncomfortable with his mental state.. then she probably acted ok all in all ...
opinions?
I'd love to hear from LEO's what they think of the officers action
and lets keep it friendly folks ...
The officer may have been within her rights, but that doesn't make it right.
IMO (worth precisely what you pay for it), she need not necessarily be disciplined for her actions, rather she should be educated about the process necessary to obtain a CCW permit. If she had a real idea what was involved in the process, she might develop the attitude that CCW holders are at worst not a threat (related to their firearms, anyhow), at best they are relatively easy to accept as good guys. In my experience, most cops that actually know the process tend to regard CCW holders that way.
clublights
02-01-2010, 18:37
here's a follow up article by the same author I just found ...
I after reading this no longer just lean to the officer acted poorly but to the fact the officer flat out screwed the pooch ...
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/do-we-think-twice-about-calling-police-83191892.html?numComments=41
The fact that she went to talk to him speaks volumes for me. It would be easy to argue this both ways, and I certainly feel that she made a few mistakes during this procedure.
1) One of the best things I've ever heard an officer say was that "Everyone knows who wear are, because of our uniforms. We don't know who ANYONE is though." I think the "was treated like a common criminal" saying gets thrown around a lot more than it should. She didn't rough him up like a common criminal, she put him in cuffs until she could figure things out. What he said about shouting from the roof tops about his permit is true, but at the same time, everyone acts as innocent as possible around the police.
2) If I were charged with the task of critiquing her performance, I would have told her that she should never leave someone in an unknown area like she did. She could have taken him outside at least and put him in her car as well to talk to him. It might not have been less embarrassing for him, but it would have been safer.
I don't like having spotlights and flashlights pointed in my face and car when I get pulled over, or having more than one officer arrive either. At the same time though, I know who they are, but they don't know the first thing about me; other than that I'm driving a beat to shit Honda Accord around in Aurora. It might make me feel embarrassed, but it doesn't mean they are treating me like a common criminal.
If it wasn't for her coming to talk to him and trying to explain her actions to him, then I'd probably have a tone closer to the article, but in this case, this is an event that doesn't really upset me at all.
That's my take. If you'd like to check my credentials, see my avatar.
clublights
02-01-2010, 18:42
IMO (worth precisely what you pay for it), she need not necessarily be disciplined for her actions, rather she should be educated about the process necessary to obtain a CCW permit. If she had a real idea what was involved in the process, she might develop the attitude that CCW holders are at worst not a threat (related to their firearms, anyhow), at best they are relatively easy to accept as good guys. In my experience, most cops that actually know the process tend to regard CCW holders that way.
It seems that is what her Captain has done... which I would include going back for more training as a " punishment" no one likes to go back to school .. esp if it is cuz you screwed up and I think this fact will show up later in her career.. maybe not tho .. I guess that depends on how Vegas Metro writes up an officers jacket.
I read the second article and I'm too irritated with how whiny and bitchy it is written to take it very seriously.
If she's so small that handcuffing a willing subject is beyond her capability, then she probably does not belong on the street patrolling alone. Think about it: Her only response to a violent or agitated subject would be to apply escalating force from a taser on up to a handgun or shotgun. The chances of her taking down a large, male subject on an adrenaline kick with control or disabling tactics are nil. Add to this her apparent fear of a calm, law abiding 61 year old man, and maybe she'd be better suited to dispatch or some other desk position.
See, that's where I think the article goes off track. Who are they to say what she was having trouble with? Maybe she was trying to hold in a fart.
That's my take. If you'd like to check my credentials, see my avatar.
Yer a Jackass![Tooth]
I agree there's 2 sides to every story, but it sounds as if she's undertrained....
clublights
02-01-2010, 18:57
Yeah the second article was a bit "whinny" but with the added facts it pointed out brought me to the officer screwed up
This guy is standing there with his wife and a paid security guard.. He's got a CCW.. he's highly unlikely to be a bad guy.
But yeah I'll agree it's a training issue, that SHOULD have been covered in her training BEFORE this incident. Not after it comes out in the paper.
Not to long ago the story was of a Lawyer handcuffed and disarmed. Also by a female officer.
Thinking this is a duplicate story..just sensationalize.
KevDen2005
02-01-2010, 19:13
I guess it is completely unlikely that a person that just broke into a construction site then pretends to be a law-abiding citizen when first officer arrives on scene. Several officers have been shot and killed because of complacency and too much trust into people they have never met. It's not like the guy was walking down the street minding his own business in the middle of the day, it is the middle of the night (where the more violent and "in-progress" calls usually take place) and the building had just been burglarized. She has no idea who this person is other than what he was saying (people never lie to the police. Because he was out there and there was a crime that just occurred she can reasonably do a pat-down without having knowledge of the CCW.
This also reminds me of Big Bear's story a little. The facts, a crime occured, he legally drew his weapon, the police arrived and detained everyone until things can get figured out. It's called a rapidly evolving situation and sometimes good guys get handcuffed for a few moments.
Eerily coincidence,
http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18963
Pancho Villa
02-01-2010, 19:42
My criteria for judging officer actions is usually: if I did it, would I be sitting in jail right now?
Yes, I understand officers are often held to ridiculous standards on certain things, far beyond those of your average citizen. I think those things should be scaled back a bit, at least.
I think its absolutely ridiculous to give cops leeways that average citizens do not (or put them under ridiculous rules that are far and away unreasonable for an average citizen to abide by, for that matter.) I cannot go around disarming legally armed citizens because I want to "feel safe." Neither should this cop. If a legally armed person is an asshole to me, guess what? I do my job as it relates to them and get them on their way. I don't draw down on them and then say "You're acting aggressively so I need to have your gun."
I just see this as common sense. Cops are not some saintly class above common mortals. They are people like you and me, and to my mind if the rules are good enough for me, they are good enough for cops.
stupid cop is stupid.
end of story.
SA Friday
02-02-2010, 00:11
Was her detainment of the individual legal? yes
Was her temporary disarming of him legal? yes
Was her showing up to a crime scene of a break-in alone tactically sound? no, but not her call. She was dispatched, and the article doesn't say just how much the owner looked around before he called 911 or described to the cops.
Was he arrested? nope.
Did he get his gun back? yep.
He was inconvienced for a while. He should have expected it, IMO. I do when I carry and I will so until there is a law that states a sworn LE official cannot do so (good luck with getting something like that passed).
I would have handled it a little differently, but not much. I wouldn't have cuffed him, but his gun would have been locked in my car's trunk till we were done there or I could confirm he was legit. Confirmation would have happened after I had secured the scene. He is part of the scene to secure until proven otherwise.
LE officials are not common citizens, they are wardens of the state. Like it or not, they do have additional powers and responsibilities that the common citizen does not. Name one country/government on the planet that this is different? If you want it so, expect anarchy shortly after all the LE officials get killed. Affability and complaciency(sp, but you get it) in a cop usually ends up with the cop quiting after getting seriously messed up or a dead cop.
I'm still trying to figure out why the first four cops didn't at the very least terry frisk and disarm... Oh ya, affability and complaciency. I would have wanted her as my partner over the other chuckle heads. I liked going home at the end of the day. Because four other cops before her did it wrong doesn't mean she didn't do it right.
KevDen2005
02-02-2010, 01:48
Well Said SA
Pancho Villa
02-02-2010, 08:12
The US, any time before about the early-mid 20th century, had no such rules having sheriffs, police officers (who reallly didn't exist until the late 19th century,) etc as having special powers above and beyond a normal citizen. A Texas Ranger, or sheriff (even in the civilized east) could not disarm a citizen without obvious justification or really take any action a private citizen could not. Legally, they had the exact same powers as any private citizen - they just dedicated themselves full-time to justice system.
Two things from that:
1) Somehow, the sheriffs and so forth managed to not all be killed. I guess they were all high speed low drag operators back then?
2) Murder rates were actually higher, per capita, back then, leading me to believe that they were in more, not less, danger than your average cop now. There were also far fewer sheriffs, officers, etc, per capita, meaning that 1 sheriff had a much larger workload than your average Denver (or Dallas, or New York...) police officer.
I know scare tactics are all the rage today but this:
LE officials are not common citizens, they are wardens of the state. Like it or not, they do have additional powers and responsibilities that the common citizen does not. Name one country/government on the planet that this is different? If you want it so, expect anarchy shortly after all the LE officials get killed. Affability and complaciency(sp, but you get it) in a cop usually ends up with the cop quiting after getting seriously messed up or a dead cop.
Is just ridiculous. You have no reason to state such - and its a blanant appeal to emotion.
Eh, she did her job. No harm, no foul. Although some of the processes were a little... untradiational?
I've had a smallish woman pull me over before. I also wonder why they work alone. If I was agressive, a criminal, whatever, she would've been dead in one punch. There was no way she would've been able to take me to the ground without using a taser or something and she was close enough several times for me to work quick.
SAFriday, how is training done for the average street cop? Do they have awareness clases and such?
I would have handled it a little differently, but not much. I wouldn't have cuffed him, but his gun would have been locked in my car's trunk till we were done there or I could confirm he was legit. Confirmation would have happened after I had secured the scene. He is part of the scene to secure until proven otherwise.
LE officials are not common citizens, they are wardens of the state. Like it or not, they do have additional powers and responsibilities that the common citizen does not. Name one country/government on the planet that this is different? If you want it so, expect anarchy shortly after all the LE officials get killed. Affability and complaciency(sp, but you get it) in a cop usually ends up with the cop quiting after getting seriously messed up or a dead cop.
Just as a disclaimer, this is not meant as an argument, but merely as an expression of my opinion and food for your thought...
It's a sad day when disarming and handcuffing a law abiding citizen is accepted.
You argue that a less powerful law enforcement (read: government) would result in anarchy?
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
The first "police department" wasn't established in the united states until 1838 in Boston, MA. Somehow we survived 55 years without any police (although there were still sheriff's and *gasp* a citizen driven "Night Watch"), and even then, people did not respect the police forces, which were small, technologically primitive, and often laden with corruption.
the "police" as you and I know it didn't come into being until the 1920s, where it was "professionalized" by August Vollomer in Berkeley California, who promoted advances in technology and training.
So you're looking at a good 137 years (not counting the time before the revolution) where America got along just fine without modern law enforcement.
How did it do it?
In my humble opinion, a citizen driven law-enforcement system is a much better way to go.
It puts the welfare of society into the hands of those participating in it, and gives a much greater incentive to know your rights, know the law, and receive proper armed training (you know that "well-regulated militia the constitution talks about? It was supposed to be us!)
I guarantee you if every law-abiding citizen was walking around open-carry, criminals would think twice before trying to rob a store, steal a car, mug a person, or rape a women.
Somehow there's a bit more of a mental check when you know every crime you'd commit is going to put you face-to-face with a gun.
Now don't get me wrong, I respect LEO and what they do, but I think it was a solution looking for a problem, and I think government controls like LEO are partially to blame for many of society's current problems.
Once you take the law out of the citizen's hands, they lose incentive to know the law, to defend the law, and to stand for the law.
Why? Because the police know the law. the police will protect you. Or at least, so the average citizen thinks.
But I can think of a thousand stories where the police are just a minute to late.
Or where the officer overstepped his bounds, or was ignorant of the law himself.
I don't doubt that many police officer's enter the force with the best of intentions, but as our former president Abraham Lincoln once said,
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Thane... it's going to be fun having you on here. Good stuff.
GreenScoutII
02-02-2010, 11:07
Ok, my take on this is that this particular officer was in the wrong. I don't believe it was an instance of a police officer being heavy handed, but rather one of the officer being ignorant. Not stupid, just ignorant. I can understand why the officer might have believed disarming this individual was the prudent thing to do, but she was still in the wrong.
I have grave concern over the increasing militarization of so many of our police departments. I do see a need for SWAT teams and the like for dealing with some types of situations and offenders, but these should be the exception and not the rule. A citizen with a valid CCW obviously has undergone an extensive criminal background check (blatently unconstitutional, but thats a topic for another thread), and as such, is obviously not a danger to the officer.
One thought I had about this situation is that this officer deprived the citizen of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms without due process of law (however briefly). Is she not guilty of violating his civil rights?
This also reminds me of Big Bear's story a little. The facts, a crime occured, he legally drew his weapon, the police arrived and detained everyone until things can get figured out. It's called a rapidly evolving situation and sometimes good guys get handcuffed for a few moments.
The big differences: The man had not drawn his weapon, he merely gave her the courtesy of informing her, in the most nonthreatening way possible. There was another uniformed, armed guard there to verify his identity and right to be there. He did not have the alleged perps at gunpoint, in fact they had already fled the scene(although she was waiting for backup to make certain of that fact). The fact that he was cuffed and disarmed while she was uncertain of the presence or absence of the perps, thereby placing him in an unknown amount of potential danger while defenseless, is poor judgment at best. As soon as she disarmed him, she became responsibly for his safety, which she was apparently not capable of guaranteeing. Also, placing the weapon in a remote location without supervision was careless, not to mention a little chickenshit. The correct way to handle that would have been to drop the magazine, verify that the chamber was not loaded, and hand it back to him. I find it hard to believe that a patrol officer in a major police department would lack the basic firearms knowledge necessary to render a GLOCK, of all possible pistols, safe.
If we are bringing what happened to me in the story, I stand by the actions the cops did to me. They were very professional. Yes I was disarmed, yes I was handcuffed briefly, but I did draw down on some idiots and it was to be expected. I would imagine that a cop does not want to worry about being shot by a citizen on a call no matter how well meaning said citizen may be. On the other hand, I do agree that in this threads story, the female officer did do things a little weird...
Agreed. They came on a situation where you were holding unknown individuals at gunpoint, and it made sense to disarm you until they got everyone sorted out. Had you called them to investigate a break in at your apartment, and informed them that you had your CCW permit and were armed, would you feel the same way about being disarmed and cuffed?
KevDen2005
02-02-2010, 12:26
The big differences: The man had not drawn his weapon, he merely gave her the courtesy of informing her, in the most nonthreatening way possible. There was another uniformed, armed guard there to verify his identity and right to be there. He did not have the alleged perps at gunpoint, in fact they had already fled the scene(although she was waiting for backup to make certain of that fact). The fact that he was cuffed and disarmed while she was uncertain of the presence or absence of the perps, thereby placing him in an unknown amount of potential danger while defenseless, is poor judgment at best. As soon as she disarmed him, she became responsibly for his safety, which she was apparently not capable of guaranteeing. Also, placing the weapon in a remote location without supervision was careless, not to mention a little chickenshit. The correct way to handle that would have been to drop the magazine, verify that the chamber was not loaded, and hand it back to him. I find it hard to believe that a patrol officer in a major police department would lack the basic firearms knowledge necessary to render a GLOCK, of all possible pistols, safe.
Well TFogger, I have to say I am very aware of the difference...I also have to say that If it were me, the handcuffing part is questionable. I wasn't there and I don't know what the average crime rate is for the area. I also don't know what the suspects look like, or the owner looks like for that matter. Criminals are only criminals until they get caught, so this guy turned out to be a law abiding citizen. The officer had no way of knowing that coming on scene. I am certainly not going to let an unknown person stay armed while I am trying to investigate a crime.
Unloading a pistol and handing it back to a person is not rendering it safe.
Unloading a pistol and handing it back to a person is not rendering it safe.
hehe, especially when we carry more than 1 mag. HAHA.
Bitter Clinger
02-02-2010, 12:55
Well, not being a ccw holder (yet), i probably shouldnt comment or speculate. But the way i see it she was not out of line to want to ensure her saftey. After all she had no idea what the BG's looked like or if they were still at the crime scene. However, a little bit of "elementary" may have helped her out here. The article states that the security guard introduced the officer to the victim. That says to me he knows him and knows he is the GG. But did the officer know the SG? Probably not. I do think that cuffing him, however briefly, in this particular situation, was a bit uncalled for. She could have simply asked for him to remain by her cruiser and to keep his hands where she could see them, even go as far as disarming him and not cuff him would have been acceptable I would think.
Thane, you seem to have completely forgotten about the existence of lawyers. Have you put much thought to how we are supposed to jump back nearly 150 years in time to a process that worked back when specialization and litigation were nearly non-existent in relation to the individual?
Also, I would like to hear from the LEO's on here about whether that guy did the correct thing, or even had any obligation to, by telling the officer he was armed.
I've been pulled over while carrying, and I don't say anything unless asked directly about it, or asked to step out of the vehicle. I feel like an equally whiny article could be written about this guy's actions as well. Just because a cop is present, doesn't mean you should run up and tell them you are armed. I don't understand that mind set.
Well TFogger, I have to say I am very aware of the difference...I also have to say that If it were me, the handcuffing part is questionable. I wasn't there and I don't know what the average crime rate is for the area. I also don't know what the suspects look like, or the owner looks like for that matter. Criminals are only criminals until they get caught, so this guy turned out to be a law abiding citizen. The officer had no way of knowing that coming on scene. I am certainly not going to let an unknown person stay armed while I am trying to investigate a crime.
Unloading a pistol and handing it back to a person is not rendering it safe.
I've heard of officers field stripping a weapon before returning it to the owner, but that seems a little excessive (not to mention probably beyond her capabilities, if the author can be believed). If you've determined that the CCW holder is a)not a threat, and b)the interaction is over, then the respectful thing to do would be to return the firearm to the owner, not stash it in a desk drawer as if you believe he's gonna take a pot shot at you as you drive away. Again, we may not have all of the information, but in my (limited) experience, the more experienced an officer is, the more likely they are to deal well with legally armed citizens.
A friend of mine was in a situation where he was a witness to a violent traffic accident, in which a woman was badly injured. After rendering aid, he stuck around to give his statement. The officer who was assigned to take his statement was green(in more ways than one; there was a LOT of blood). When asked for his driver's license, he handed it over, along with his CCW permit.
The officer asked, "What is this?"
to which my friend answered, "It's my concealed carry permit"
"Are you carrying?"
"Yes. It's on my right hip."
At which point, the officer tucks license and CCW permit into his belt, takes about 3 steps back,draws down on him, and shouts "GUN". Predictably, 4 of his fellow officers proceed to tackle and cuff my friend. After the dust settled, the officer in charge of the scene talked to the officer that was interviewing my friend. Not only was he immediately uncuffed and his weapon and permit returned, but they apologized profusely and asked that he not file a complaint, as the officer had only been on the street for about 4 months. Rather than end his career, my friend chose to allow it to be handled internally. Hopefully, one day, he'll be an exemplary officer.
cowboykjohnson
02-02-2010, 14:28
If you put yourself in her shoes would you want an armed stranger standing next to you at a crime scene with out back up? The cuffs were probably not neccesary for a normal sized person, though from the statments she sounded to small to detain an 8 year old. The only thing i don't agree with was putting the gun in a drawer instead of handing it back to him. She doesn't seem physically competent to handle a career in law enforcement.
When I had my gun taken and given back, they unloaded it and put it on my passenger side floor with the slide back, mag out, and just tossed the chambered round in after it.
Thane... it's going to be fun having you on here. Good stuff.
Haha, I sure hope so. My opinions are often controversial, but they are well founded.
I have a pretty strong opinion on the way this country was intended to be, and even stronger opinions on how far off course it is...
That being said, everyone is entitled to think and do what they want, and I completely understand why many people have the opinions they have.
If a few people end up thinking like I do, thats great.
If they disagree with me, thats even better.
An open conversation is what it's all about.
KevDen2005
02-02-2010, 18:05
I've heard of officers field stripping a weapon before returning it to the owner, but that seems a little excessive (not to mention probably beyond her capabilities, if the author can be believed). If you've determined that the CCW holder is a)not a threat, and b)the interaction is over, then the respectful thing to do would be to return the firearm to the owner, not stash it in a desk drawer as if you believe he's gonna take a pot shot at you as you drive away. Again, we may not have all of the information, but in my (limited) experience, the more experienced an officer is, the more likely they are to deal well with legally armed citizens.
A friend of mine was in a situation where he was a witness to a violent traffic accident, in which a woman was badly injured. After rendering aid, he stuck around to give his statement. The officer who was assigned to take his statement was green(in more ways than one; there was a LOT of blood). When asked for his driver's license, he handed it over, along with his CCW permit.
The officer asked, "What is this?"
to which my friend answered, "It's my concealed carry permit"
"Are you carrying?"
"Yes. It's on my right hip."
At which point, the officer tucks license and CCW permit into his belt, takes about 3 steps back,draws down on him, and shouts "GUN". Predictably, 4 of his fellow officers proceed to tackle and cuff my friend.
First of all, it is obvious to me that your friend was treated poorly (according to your story, however I wasn't there, and it seems to me everyone has a story like this). Although the other officers can't be blamed for going after the guy when another officer yelled gun (Again, not agreeing that is the proper procedure by any means).
I also wouldn't return a field stripped firearm to someone. However I usually use the policy of putting it somewhere near them, unloaded, and ask them not to load it until after I leave. Call that what you will, but I am not going to allow someone have a loaded firearm for a few reasons. First, they actually could use it on an officer even though the contact is almost over (it has been known to happen). Second, I am not going to let complacency get me injured (Complacency kills!). Third, I am very aware of CCW's and the laws around them. I encourage the use and carry of CCWs, I maintain two civilian CCW's as well because I believe in th system and people's rights. And because I know about CCW's I know that some people do not train or shoot often or are carrying guns that shouldn't. So even though the person is legally carrying I am not going to 'accidentally' get injured. Fourth, I don't want to put hat civilian in a position with his/her firearm that makes me all of a sudden think that they are going to hurt me with it (For instance being unsafe. I witnessed a jack ass point he loaded weapon at someone, drop the magazine, yank the slide to the rear and catch the ejected round from the chamber with his other hand while it was in mid-air like it was a movie or something. Keep in mind this was also in the middle of a store). Worse case, I may had the firearm back with the magazine and again ask him/her not to load it until I am gone.
I want to point out that the security guard is also unknown to the police officer and having worked with several security guards I will say that they are not back-up police officers and I am sorry to say that I can't always just go off of what they say (although you probably can, the key is to never say never. The first officer on scene could have probably gone with that information from the security guard).
Again I want to point out that even if the guy had not presented his CCW she would have probably done a 'Terry Frisk' and done a pat down anyway, and removed his firearm. I also agree that the handcuffs are probably a bit excessive, however, I wasn't there so I have no idea on what the tempo of the call was and what the exigency of the call was.
MichiganMilitia
02-02-2010, 18:43
I have a pretty strong opinion on the way this country was intended to be, and even stronger opinions on how far off course it is...
I like you already! [Beer]
clublights
02-02-2010, 18:58
Again I want to point out that even if the guy had not presented his CCW she would have probably done a 'Terry Frisk' and done a pat down anyway, and removed his firearm. I also agree that the handcuffs are probably a bit excessive, however, I wasn't there so I have no idea on what the tempo of the call was and what the exigency of the call was.
My problem with this theory( and why I changed from leaning that she acted ok to screwing the pooch) is according to the story ( read the second link I posted )
The officer had to have the guy's wife.. who HAD NOT been ID'ed or searched to help remove the gun. now come on ..she let "some lady" help remove the firearm .. get close to it and so forth making it easy for her to take control of the weapon and use it . when you have no clue who she is ..THAT'S OK ???
does this make ANY sense ??
My problem with this theory( and why I changed from leaning that she acted ok to screwing the pooch) is according to the story ( read the second link I posted )
The officer had to have the guy's wife.. who HAD NOT been ID'ed or searched to help remove the gun. now come on ..she let "some lady" help remove the firearm .. get close to it and so forth making it easy for her to take control of the weapon and use it . when you have no clue who she is ..THAT'S OK ???
does this make ANY sense ??
Don't be silly...female accomplices never shoot cops......[Stooge]
KevDen2005
02-02-2010, 19:21
Truthfully I have not read the second link and I will now. I think at this point I wanna make clear that I agree with many comments about this officers ability or lack thereof when it comes how this officer handled herself or the actual handling of the firearm. I am not defending her. I was making a point about Terry Stops and legal justification.
clublights
02-02-2010, 19:56
And I'll make clear when I said " what makes YOU" I didn't mean you yourself persay ..
I do not intend to personally attack anyone .....
just as I typed out my statement I got more upset and amazed at the situation.
[Bang]
SA Friday
02-02-2010, 20:31
I agree that some laws have taken us way off track from our origins, but the history of law enforcement plays little into the current thread. The current laws, current LE, and current case presidence are what matter. Historically, law enforcement has been a pendilum swinging between individual rights and social order with highs and lows on every side. Hell, law enforcement wasn't even seen as a social science until the 1900's.
Ya, I was probably too aggressive in my 'emotional' post. Then again, you severly underestimate the impact to our current society by placing total emphasis on individual rights vs social order. There has to be a balance. Meandering through those pendelum swings finds the balance.
So, ultimately we can all talk this to death and nothing will change. The officer's action were legal in accordance with the current laws (et al). I think we all agree she could have handled it better. I doubt we will ever agree where the pendelum should have stopped in this matter.
Lastly, I would be shocked if there wasn't more to this story. The article is written way too slanted for there not to be.
clublights
02-02-2010, 20:52
Lastly, I would be shocked if there wasn't more to this story. The article is written way too slanted for there not to be.
I said this in the first post because EVERY story has two sides. and they are never both completely told by one person.
I have a feeling he probably was a jerk to the officer (from being up set that for the 5th damn time his office was broken into it's 5:30 in the morning and he was grumpy from having to get up so damn early cuz his office was broken into for the 5th damn time)
Also . tho I could look it up .. whats a " terry" stop ?
SA Friday
02-02-2010, 20:56
Case presidence based on a case from 1968 Terry vs Ohio
http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/
KevDen2005
02-02-2010, 22:19
After reading SA Friday's post I also had to say that my posts are perhaps a little emotion filled. Also I agree about the Law Enforcement pendulum. The balance is truly hard to make, if there actually can be a balance.
Also SA Friday, thank you for posting Terry v Ohio, I think that provides everyone a lot of good information
theGinsue
02-02-2010, 22:42
Years ago, when I played cop, I had the privledge of working with a CSPD officer/reservist who did some training at the CSPD Academy. Occasionally, we trained with Simunition loaded firearms (Paintball capped 9mm rounds).
In a domestic assault training exercise I had in a public area (military lodging office/conference room), we had a 4 officers present. My (female) partner and I arrived to the scene as the "husband"/"suspect" in the scenario was being removed from the conference room. My partner stepped into the conf. rm. with the female "victim" while I was delayed for about 30 seconds outside the room. Once I entered the room I approached my partner and the victim. My partner quickly exited the room and ignored me as I asked if a "Terry Frisk" (we called them "Officer Safety Pat-downs") had been performed.
The woman playing the victim was a friend/mentor of mine and played the role perfectly for about 30 seconds. I failed to perform my own Terry Frisk because (a) I ASSUMED my partner had done her job properly (not knowing that *I* was the primary trainee in this exercise), and (b) I was concerned over patting down a female (big mistake).
After the initial 30 seconds, the "victim" switched out of the role and started remarking about how hard the individual playing the "suspect" had actually hit her. She used a feint to get me to look aways for 1, maybe 2, seconds. That's all the time it took for her to draw a hidden handgun.
Luckily, she was still working to bring the gun to bear on me and I was able to hit my duress alarm and still get both hands onto her gun. At that point, my mind told me "this is real, not an exercise". I almost broke the girls wrist getting the gun out of her hand while also using my greater body size to slam her into a wall, then down to the floor.
This was an important lesson to me that in the real world you don't know how people will react. You can't take for granted that someone is the innocent victim, bystander, etc. that they claim to be. Sometimes even victims (most notably in domestic assault situations) will assault officers - especially when they realize that their spouse is going to be arrested.
My point: While I FULLY believe in the protections afforded by the 4th Amendment, I also don't think that an officer should be restrainted from protecting themselves. Given the information we've read in the story which started this thread, I don't have an issue with the officer taking this man's CCW weapon - even to secure it in her vehicle. I do take exception to her handcuffing this individual without cause. This crossed the line and should not have occured.
Okay, that's my $.02 on this topic and it's worth exactly what you paid for it.
Pancho Villa
02-03-2010, 06:58
I (and most of us) are around legally armed people every day. Why do cops have the authority to disarm people in order to "feel safe"?
I thought that kind of thing is what most people here got into a rage about, when the Brady Bunch wants to do it. When a cop does its perfectly rational? I know its a crime scene (or potential crime scene, or incident, or whatever,) but at what point does someone's want to feel safe trump other peoples' rights?
I don't think that I need to state it, but realistically, a cop is many times more likely to be killed by someone WITHOUT a valid concealed carry permit than without (has any cop ever been assaulted by someone with a CCW permit? With or without gun.) By that token it seems like it would be far more logical to ask for CCWs and just cuff everyone without one, for 'safety' reasons.
I know we have some cops here and I understand your job is difficult and places you in awkward situations. I cannot reasonably justify disarming a valid CCW holder, though. Or someone legally open carrying. Or really anyone who clearly and politely states "I am armed, just so you know."
I had the pleasure of working with Texas Constables when I was an evictions specialist in Dallas. I was always armed (legally.) I always informed them. I was never once disarmed by a constable so he could "feel safe" and I managed to never once shoot them in a blind rage.
I (and most of us) are around legally armed people every day. Why do cops have the authority to disarm people in order to "feel safe"?
I thought that kind of thing is what most people here got into a rage about, when the Brady Bunch wants to do it. When a cop does its perfectly rational? I know its a crime scene (or potential crime scene, or incident, or whatever,) but at what point does someone's want to feel safe trump other peoples' rights?
I don't think that I need to state it, but realistically, a cop is many times more likely to be killed by someone WITHOUT a valid concealed carry permit than without (has any cop ever been assaulted by someone with a CCW permit? With or without gun.) By that token it seems like it would be far more logical to ask for CCWs and just cuff everyone without one, for 'safety' reasons.
I know we have some cops here and I understand your job is difficult and places you in awkward situations. I cannot reasonably justify disarming a valid CCW holder, though. Or someone legally open carrying. Or really anyone who clearly and politely states "I am armed, just so you know."
I had the pleasure of working with Texas Constables when I was an evictions specialist in Dallas. I was always armed (legally.) I always informed them. I was never once disarmed by a constable so he could "feel safe" and I managed to never once shoot them in a blind rage.
I completely agree.
To me, it's not a matter of whether its within the law or not.
The officer acted within legal capacity... that's fine, she should not be punished for acting within the law.
But the question is, was the action ethical? Is it right? Is it something you would want done to you?
If not, then in my opinion, the law needs to changed.
Many officers I've met and known over my life, including my own father, had an "us versus them" mentality. Everyone was a criminal until proven otherwise.
That seems a very self destructive way to operate.
Sure, it may keep the officer safer, but it creates an air of hostility between the public and law enforcement.
Most people don't really like the police. They don't know why, but they just don't.
It seems to me, that this happens because people always feel like the police are suspicious of them.
And in truth, many police are always suspicious of everyone.
I understand why they are like this, they do things and see things on a daily basis that harden them against the public.
But honestly, if you become so jaded against the very public you swore to protect and serve, what's the point?
I'd rather see a hospitable and kind police force with a supportive public. Then it would be LEO AND law abiding citizens working against criminals.
Right now, it seems to be more LEO vs. criminals, while honest people try to just stay out of the way, lest they be swept under the strong, unforgiving hand of the law.
Thomas Jefferson said "I would rather see a thousand guilty men go free, than have one innocent man imprisoned."
It's easy to pass off the prosecution of the innocent as an unfortunate necessity of justice, but how would you feel if that unfortunate necessity came knocking on your door?
Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would trade their liberty [read: freedom] for security deserve neither."
What's more important, that the guilty man receive his justice, or that the innocent man keep his freedom?
I say the innocent get preference. Every time.
SA Friday
02-03-2010, 21:03
I (and most of us) are around legally armed people every day. Why do cops have the authority to disarm people in order to "feel safe"?
I thought that kind of thing is what most people here got into a rage about, when the Brady Bunch wants to do it. When a cop does its perfectly rational? I know its a crime scene (or potential crime scene, or incident, or whatever,) but at what point does someone's want to feel safe trump other peoples' rights?
I don't think that I need to state it, but realistically, a cop is many times more likely to be killed by someone WITHOUT a valid concealed carry permit than without (has any cop ever been assaulted by someone with a CCW permit? With or without gun.)
Looks like you have a lot of research ahead of you, Pancho. Answer the questions you presented and let us know what you find.
Pancho Villa
02-03-2010, 21:28
Looks like you have a lot of research ahead of you, Pancho. Answer the questions you presented and let us know what you find.
I know (and so do you, I hope) that someone with a CCL is far, far, far less likely to commit a crime than someone who does not have it. It follows that you're safer around me (I have a CCL) when I have a gun than anyone (even unarmed) who does not.
Here's some preliminaries for you:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-13/news/17220867_1_police-officers-gun-related-mark-dunakin
(Number of police officers shot is highest in the state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation)
http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/
Note the statistic about halfway down: about 8% of officer deaths from 1994 - 2003 were from their own weapon. About 5.2 per year.
I am always wary of the VPC but here is an interesting one:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf
Gist: From 2007 - 2009 7 officers were killed by concealed carry permit owners. Of these, 2 claim they did not know they were shooting police officers (no-knock warrants at work again,) and 2 used primarily longarms but had a concealed carry permit.
If we assume this is typical (I highly suspect these two years were picked because there was an atypical rash of CCL-holder shootings, but we can be generous to the gun grabbers here) and ignore the 4 instances where the CCL was clearly not at all relevant, this means that 3.5 officers are killed by CCL holders per year. If we ignore the 4 incidents where the fact that there was a CCL involved was obviously irrelevant (mistaken identity and premeditated murder, respectively) we have a rate of 1.5 officers killed by CCL holders per year, a rate less than 1/3 that of officers killed with their own guns.
According to these stats, SA, you should probably leave your gun locked in the patrol vehicle if you think a CCL holder is enough of a threat to you to disarm them for your own safety. You will be safer that way.
Now, obviously, leaving your pistol in the patrol car is ridiculous. But so is disarming a CCL holder.
SA Friday
02-03-2010, 21:48
I know (and so do you, I hope) that someone with a CCL is far, far, far less likely to commit a crime than someone who does not have it. It follows that you're safer around me (I have a CCL) when I have a gun than anyone (even unarmed) who does not.
Here's some preliminaries for you:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-13/news/17220867_1_police-officers-gun-related-mark-dunakin
(Number of police officers shot is highest in the state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation)
http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/
Note the statistic about halfway down: about 8% of officer deaths from 1994 - 2003 were from their own weapon. About 5.2 per year.
I am always wary of the VPC but here is an interesting one:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf
Gist: From 2007 - 2009 7 officers were killed by concealed carry permit owners. Of these, 2 claim they did not know they were shooting police officers (no-knock warrants at work again,) and 2 used primarily longarms but had a concealed carry permit.
If we assume this is typical (I highly suspect these two years were picked because there was an atypical rash of CCL-holder shootings, but we can be generous to the gun grabbers here) and ignore the 4 instances where the CCL was clearly not at all relevant, this means that 3.5 officers are killed by CCL holders per year. If we ignore the 4 incidents where the fact that there was a CCL involved was obviously irrelevant (mistaken identity and premeditated murder, respectively) we have a rate of 1.5 officers killed by CCL holders per year, a rate less than 1/3 that of officers killed with their own guns.
According to these stats, SA, you should probably leave your gun locked in the patrol vehicle if you think a CCL holder is enough of a threat to you to disarm them for your own safety. You will be safer that way.
Now, obviously, leaving your pistol in the patrol car is ridiculous. But so is disarming a CCL holder.
So, questions one and two have yet to be researched, and the answer to your third question was yes.
Thanks.
Pancho Villa
02-03-2010, 22:02
So, questions one and two have yet to be researched, and the answer to your third question was yes.
Thanks.
Question three was answered and elaborated on to show just how ridiculous it is to disarm a CCW permit holder. Or are you saying that any assault on any officer by any armed citizen justifies disarming them as a matter of policy?
"Questions one and two" are normative questions. The factual answer is "when the state allows them to." Legally I can't do a thing if you forcibly restrain me and disarm me simply because you feel safer if I'm in cuffs and my pistol is in your patrol car. No court would hear me out and obviously if I resisted things would not go well for me.
My contention is that its ridiculous for the legal system to bend over backwards for anyone's feelings regarding a matter - be it Muslims being offended by infidels being all infidely or a cop feeling like if anyone is armed in his immediate vicinity his life is in immediate peril. If I have not demonstrated myself as an objective threat to you whats the ethical justification in disarming me? Or even the remotely rational one?
Those two are for you, if you plan on doing something besides being sarcastic and rude.
If you're going to be treated like a criminal anyway, why bother to get the permit?
SA Friday
02-04-2010, 18:17
Question three was answered and elaborated on to show just how ridiculous it is to disarm a CCW permit holder. Or are you saying that any assault on any officer by any armed citizen justifies disarming them as a matter of policy?
"Questions one and two" are normative questions. The factual answer is "when the state allows them to." Legally I can't do a thing if you forcibly restrain me and disarm me simply because you feel safer if I'm in cuffs and my pistol is in your patrol car. No court would hear me out and obviously if I resisted things would not go well for me.
My contention is that its ridiculous for the legal system to bend over backwards for anyone's feelings regarding a matter - be it Muslims being offended by infidels being all infidely or a cop feeling like if anyone is armed in his immediate vicinity his life is in immediate peril. If I have not demonstrated myself as an objective threat to you whats the ethical justification in disarming me? Or even the remotely rational one?
Those two are for you, if you plan on doing something besides being sarcastic and rude.
Look, there are more than one post here pointing you and a few others to the current law. What I've gotten in return has been just as scarcastic as you got, slick, and if you go back and look you threw the first attack. Stop believing it should be the way you think it should be in the real world and deal with the empirical reality.
More than a few are simply saying Waaaaaaa, I want it the way it was 100 years ago.... Too bad. Society changes and the laws change with it. Historical laws and the futuristic laws don't mean crap in modern day law enforcement. The only thing that is relevent in this scenario are the current laws. You don't like the current laws, pack you shit and haul ass to another country or try to get the laws changed.
You can point out completely irrelevent facts all day long, and you will end up at the current laws on the book of the states and the Fed Govt. If this guy is upset over the incident, file a civil law suit and see where it get him. That's the recourse currently built in to our legal system for matters like this. One of you guys goes through the same treatment, sue the officer and and their PD and see where it goes in civil court.
Look, there are more than one post here pointing you and a few others to the current law. What I've gotten in return has been just as scarcastic as you got, slick, and if you go back and look you threw the first attack. Stop believing it should be the way you think it should be in the real world and deal with the empirical reality.
More than a few are simply saying Waaaaaaa, I want it the way it was 100 years ago.... Too bad. Society changes and the laws change with it. Historical laws and the futuristic laws don't mean crap in modern day law enforcement. The only thing that is relevent in this scenario are the current laws. You don't like the current laws, pack you shit and haul ass to another country or try to get the laws changed.
You can point out completely irrelevent facts all day long, and you will end up at the current laws on the book of the states and the Fed Govt. If this guy is upset over the incident, file a civil law suit and see where it get him. That's the recourse currently built in to our legal system for matters like this. One of you guys goes through the same treatment, sue the officer and and their PD and see where it goes in civil court.
I'm not sure who you are referring, but many people in this thread are not saying the officer acted out of line,
rather they are saying they are dissatisfied with the laws that allowed her to do so,
and the fact that people seem ok with those laws.
You seem to be more in favor of those laws... which is fine,
but luckily the 1st amendment gives the rest of us the right to disagree.
I would encourage you to treat that disagreement with civility, and not telling them to "haul ass to another country"
SA Friday
02-04-2010, 23:25
I'm not sure who you are referring, but many people in this thread are not saying the officer acted out of line,
rather they are saying they are dissatisfied with the laws that allowed her to do so,
and the fact that people seem ok with those laws.
You seem to be more in favor of those laws... which is fine,
but luckily the 1st amendment gives the rest of us the right to disagree.
I would encourage you to treat that disagreement with civility, and not telling them to "haul ass to another country"
Are you serious? I'm the bad guy in your view? I need chastising publicly by you like I'm your child?
When you're a Mod you can send me a PM and chastise me all you want. Until then, don't correct me.
I'm very done with this thread. My appologies to the rest of the posters.
Pancho Villa
02-05-2010, 17:29
Look, there are more than one post here pointing you and a few others to the current law. What I've gotten in return has been just as scarcastic as you got, slick, and if you go back and look you threw the first attack. Stop believing it should be the way you think it should be in the real world and deal with the empirical reality.
More than a few are simply saying Waaaaaaa, I want it the way it was 100 years ago.... Too bad. Society changes and the laws change with it. Historical laws and the futuristic laws don't mean crap in modern day law enforcement. The only thing that is relevent in this scenario are the current laws. You don't like the current laws, pack you shit and haul ass to another country or try to get the laws changed.
You can point out completely irrelevent facts all day long, and you will end up at the current laws on the book of the states and the Fed Govt. If this guy is upset over the incident, file a civil law suit and see where it get him. That's the recourse currently built in to our legal system for matters like this. One of you guys goes through the same treatment, sue the officer and and their PD and see where it goes in civil court.
"The state allows me to do it, so shut up and take me to court if you don't like it."
Nice argument there, slick.
I think the CCW holder's first mistake was telling the cop he was carrying. He wasn't required to do so and all he did was get himself treated like a criminal. I know I never volunteer any info to a cop I don't have to, it's just asking for trouble.
I know quite a few of you here are LE, so no offense intended. I've just come to the conclusion that most cops aren't interested in being 'my friend' and view me as a potential perp and not a law-abiding citizen. Keeping my mouth shut is in my best interests. It's a dangerous job, so I get it.
The biggest concern here is the fact the cop viewed the CCW holder as a threat and treated him as such. A guy who goes through hoops to carry (even though he shouldn't have to, but that's a different conversation) and then tells you so you can be aware, isn't a threat. She should have never treated him in that manner. Asking him to perhaps give her the firearm, maybe. Cuffing him like a common thug, out of line IMHO.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.