Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

Everyone is so concerned about the officer's safety, when he is the one that escalated the situation, that they completely ignore the part where he makes a scene and disarms and abandons the guy in the middle of the street. If you're going to PUT people in danger, instead of protect the streets, might as well just quit your job.


An acquaintance of mine recently quit the Thornton PD after just over a year because he refused to accept the BS involved with being an officer. They basically told him to just find reasons to pull people over, he didn't agree and quit. He did the right thing in my opinion.

Cops do, every day, things that the rest of us would get a ticket and/or go to jail for.

They can point loaded guns at us with impunity, and can kill us if we do the same to them.

any LEOs here want to comment?


well, aside from this guy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjGWu...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elhuero

Cops do, every day, things that the rest of us would get a ticket and/or go to jail for.

---

Yeah...I'll comment. On this first statement, I'd say for the most part it's probably limited to minor things like traffic issues. So what? I probably stopped 10 to 15 people and gave them a warning for every person I wrote a ticket to. Outside of traffic offenses I'd say your comment is simply a broad generalization that you can't back up.

Are there bad cops? Of course. No disagreement there from me. Are all cops bad? No. But your statement implies all cops do something every day for which anyone else would be ticketed, arrested or jailed and it's just ridiculous.

Have you ever been stopped and not received a ticket? I bet most people on this board have. Not to mention few people are in jobs where if you do get arrested, even for something very minor, their jobs will be in jeopardy. I can't tell you the number of times I made someone throw their marijuana into the wind rather than ticket or arrest them. I doubt too many cops get caught with MJ and get to keep their job.

I believe we should hold police officers to a higher standard of behavior. Not an impossible standard of behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elhuero

They can point loaded guns at us with impunity, and can kill us if we do the same to them.

---

No, cops can't go around pointing loaded guns at anyone with "impunity". You can't even say that about the officer in this story. Sure he pointed a gun at a guy. But he's had to back his actions up in court several times now and there's no telling what he's had to do in terms of explaining why he did it that we don't see in this story. I don't agree with the outcome but apparently several courts have.

And if you're in the habit of pointing guns at cops...well, maybe you need to be shot. There's a reason cops wear uniforms with distinctive patches and shiny badges and nametags and all sorts of other shit on them. There's also a reason they drive cars with reflective tape plastered all over them that identifies them as police. It's so people don't go pointing guns at them. And if they do point guns at them, they're likely to get shot...deservedly so.

Sure, cops have a lot more latitude when pointing guns at people than the average citizen. The reason is because they are obligated to put themselves into dangerous and/or unknown situations. It's what they get paid to do.

If you, personally, are not fond of cops, I don't have a problem with that. Hey...everyone's entitled to an opinion. But far too many people, especially on internet forums, see police officers as whipping boys and can't seem to find anything positive to say about them.

You want generalizations? Nothing pissed me off more when I was a cop than to have some asshole who really deserved a ticket to start pissing and moaning because I didn't have anything better to do than right his dumbass a ticket. Rather than acknowledge they were going 55 in a 35, in town, during rush hour, the average guy will blame for the cop for not having anything better to do or simply just lie through his teeth that he was speeding. If the cop doesn't stop the guy you've got Joe Citizen on the phone to the cheif bitching that the cops "aren't doing anything" about the traffic problem.

You wanna pick out a particular instance of inappropriate police behavior, fine...I'll discuss it. But if you're gonna throw around accusations that all cops are bad, or all plumbers have unsightly butt-crack issues, I for one ain't buying it.

Remember, cops are people, just like us. I run a warehouse. A cop does his beat. Maybe he has more training than I do - and there is the very real possibility that he does not. Either way, it is a gross violation of the spirit of the law to treat police officers as some kind of protected class, who may do things that no one else can (and in fact, which other people would properly be arrested and put in jail for) simply because they are a police officer.

Imagine if you were open carrying and some home owner stepped outside with a shotgun and demanded you get on the ground, took your pistol because "you might be a criminal" and told you to fuck off until he could run a background check on you. Or if you were concealed carrying and said homeowner caught a flash of a pistol or a print.

The whole thought is ludicris, and if that had occured, we would be up in arms that the home owner should be arrested and severely punished for harassing an innocent man like that. Why was this police officer treated differently?

In my opinion, having a "protected class" of law enforcement officers is a very dangerous thing. Then police officer often becomes a job that attracts power-hungry assholes, rather than the upstanding, justice-loving individuals who we would want in there. I understand he's out there doing his job every day, but I don't think that should confer onto him special privledges that essentially put him in a legal class apart from the people he is supposed to protect.

Edit: Please understand I am not saying all police officers are this or that. I know my share of swell cops - and I've met my share of meatheat cops as well.

How can you say he was treated differently, Pancho?

He did what he did. He had to answer for what he did in court under direct and cross examination. Several times. It just so happens the courts agreed with his actions.

I would imagine he had some explaining to do if there was a complaint filed with his department, too.

I don't agree that what he did was right and I don't agree with the court's opinion. But my opinion on this really doesn't matter.

I really don't see where the officer in this case is getting any special treatment. He successfully argued to the court, more than once, that what he did was lawful. We just don't like the outcome.

I agree we should not treat officers as a protected class of citizen, generally.

However, they are offered more protections by law as crime victims (more than the average citizen) when in the line of duty that I agree with.

But you also need to know that officers are sometimes at risk that civilians are not...for example, when being questioned about alleged misconduct. Officers are oftentimes forced to incriminate themselves when answering questions about alleged misconduct. It may or may not be admissible in court but it can certainly lead to administrative punishment (including loss of a job). That's why the Garrity ruling came about. Even Garrity offers little protection when an officer is simply accused of misconduct and overzealous bureaucrats and administrators want to "make an example" out of him or her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

How can you say he was treated differently, Pancho?

---

Pancho is correct. If someone else did what that cop did, that person would be in jail. Thus, because he was a cop he was treated differently than an ordinary citizen would have been. That much is clear.

The question is whether the cop should have the right to do things ordinary citizens can't do. I think most would agree that they should have some ability to do so. So to what extent do we give them a pass on actions like this. I agree with Pancho's point that the more power that is given to cops in actions like this where there is no evidence anyone is in any danger, the more the profession is going to attract power-hungry ruthless types.

The job of a cop is tough. They have to put up with not only criminals but also moronic bureaucrats and politicians who have no idea what kind of dangers the cops face on the street every day. But their first duty (before any duty to obey their orders) should be to uphold the constitution. In my opinion, this cop, metaphorically speaking, whipped out the constitution and pissed all over it. He should be fired, but instead will probably get promoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eow

Pancho is correct. If someone else did what that cop did, that person would be in jail. Thus, because he was a cop he was treated differently than an ordinary citizen would have been. That much is clear.

The question is whether the cop should have the right to do things ordinary citizens can't do. I think most would agree that they should have some ability to do so. So to what extent do we give them a pass on actions like this. I agree with Pancho's point that the more power that is given to cops in actions like this where there is no evidence anyone is in any danger, the more the profession is going to attract power-hungry ruthless types.

The job of a cop is tough. They have to put up with not only criminals but also moronic bureaucrats and politicians who have no idea what kind of dangers the cops face on the street every day. But their first duty (before any duty to obey their orders) should be to uphold the constitution. In my opinion, this cop, metaphorically speaking, whipped out the constitution and pissed all over it. He should be fired, but instead will probably get promoted.

---

Jesus, here we go again. Cops enforce law, civilians don't. Cops are obligated to protect people and put themselves in danger, regardless of what any of you wikipedia guinesses look up. Proactive law enforcement activities are the difference between someone getting caught with a gun illegally and the cops finding a dead body.

Cops can also be arrogant and brash. It's an ego feeding career that results in some cops evolving into everything from narcasistic neanderthals to out right criminals. There's a fine line between having to make the decision between affable law enforcement and going home in a body bag.

I don't like the way this cop reacted to this incident. I don't like the way the courts ruled, but I'm far from suprised. Ruling the cop was out of line drawing and point his gun would have caused a lot more problems than any discomfort any CCW carrier felt or feels in the future. My ultimate concern was the lack of the LE agency to do everything possible to prove or disprove an illegal act. He seized property and denied rights without knowledge of a crime. That's called a fishing expedition and is a very dangerous road for law enforcement.

Elhuero, In my 11 years as a Fed, I was held to a standard higher than you could even fathom. I was punishable for stuff the average citizen would have walked from, and laws and regulations that didn't even apply to anyone but me and my fellow Agents. You've never been in LE, that much is obvious. It's also obvious from your consistant posts in threads like this you have an unhealthy hatred for cops. Some day you should share with the rest of us what happened to sow that seed.

This ruling shows a weakness in CCW reciprosity. Work to fix it and resolve the issue.

Thanks for your post SA Friday, lots of good points. I wish all LEO were as professional and conscientious as you. I for one greatly appreciate the work that the good guys do to get violent criminals off the streets.

1- I note the sensationalism ,,It's an assault on CCW holders.
2-This happened in the Communist state of Mass.
3-No where does it say Mr. Schubert is from Georgia,if he was, is there reciprocity to Mass?
Know where you are and going,and reciprocity laws. If he was in NY he'd be jailed.
4-Yes I believe the LEO may have overreacted,but why? Was there a previous incident in the area?
5-"Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area."

I find this statement very interesting. Why didn't the LEO escort Mr. Schubert to the station for a possible illegal firearm possession?

IMHO there are too many unanswered questions.