PDA

View Full Version : Dealing with the police



Jeff22
05-01-2012, 08:33 PM
A tip to the unaware or unfamiliar in dealing with the police: first of all, know who the police are! Know the difference between the city police, the county sheriff's department and the state troopers. They have slightly different but overlapping jurisdictions. Their cars are probably painted differently and they probably have different colored uniforms. Know who your primary service provider is! If you live near the border of your jurisdiction, know what the uniforms and the squad cars of the neighboring town look like. That isn't too hard -- just pay attention when driving around on your normal business, and then remember what you see. Neighboring jurisdictions back each other up all the time, and if one agency gets tied up on a major incident, the department next door may end up being primary responders to calls in that town. It happens all the time, and it is NOT evidence of a particular emergency nor of a government conspiracy . . .

If you live in Hickory Hills and the Police Communications Center gets a 911 disconnect from your house, you may get the Hickory Hills PD or the Sheriff's Department or the State Police or cops from the next town or village over, depending upon the situation. It's not at all unusual.

Any time you interact with the police, be truthful, don't have an attitude nor appear to be concealing information and your day will go a lot smoother. Almost always when we the police encounter somebody with a belligerent attitude, it's because they're trying to hide something. You don't have to offer information, but answer the legitimate questions that you are asked. If you appear to be trying to hide something, cops treat that the same way that sharks treat the smell of blood in the water . . .

Just because you explained something to the call taker on the phone DOES NOT mean that information was ever passed on to the officer. If it’s really busy, they’ll just send the officer with a minimum of information and expect them to sort it out when they get there.

If you live on the boundary of multiple jurisdictions, be aware of where the incident happened and which police department you called. If you have called to report an incident, and then just flag down a passing police car, the cops inside (a.) may not have received the call yet and so have no idea what you’re talking about, or (b.) may be from another jurisdiction, possibly dispatched by a different comm center on a different radio frequency, and they may not know what you’re talking about, either.

Just because you talked to a cop once about a particular situation does NOT mean that all cops everywhere will be familiar with the situation. We are not telepathically connected!

If you reported a problem at midnight, don’t call back at eleven the next morning and expect to talk to the same officers. Individual police officers are not on 24/7. We do go home to sleep and conduct our personal lives from time to time.

Pay attention to what agency the officer works for, and ask for their name and badge number or radio number or ID number. We get issued business cards to give to people we interact with. Get a business card from officer friendly and ask for the case number of the incident (if there is one), the address of occurrence and the case title, and write down the date. That way, if at some later time you need to make an inquiry, you'll have the information that you need.

If they’re in plainclothes, feel free to ask to look at the officer’s credentials. Just keep in mind that you don't know what an authentic police ID card for that agency looks like. (I don't know what official ID cards for the surrounding agencies look like, either.)

If somebody comes to your door in plainclothes, and they're a real cop, they're used to having people ask to see an ID, and may be used to having you phone dispatch to verify their identity, depending upon where you are. BE SURE YOU CALL THE RIGHT POLICE DEPARTMENT!

If you want to make it easy for the police/fire department/ambulance to find your house, put visible house numbers someplace on the front of your house. Make sure the numbers contrast and can be read at night (with a spotlight). Turn on an outside light at night to make your house easier to find (unless there is a good tactical reason NOT to)

JHC
05-02-2012, 08:07 AM
Based on a couple of experiences getting "profiled" and run sternly through a little rigamorole - cooperate in good spirits. In several of my experiences we (LEO and I) were in very remote areas and the LEO was alone. He had to be very careful . . . very "tactical". IMO, don't begrudge him his tactics to insure his safety. He doesn't know how upstanding I am. ;)

Corlissimo
05-02-2012, 09:48 AM
Thanks for sharing some great common sense information Jeff22.

My parents always taught me to be polite, honest, and HUMBLE when dealing with police, or any authority figures. This has always served me well.

Back in my younger days (read: foolish youth) I had a run-in with some Sheriff's Deputy in Florida.
Back story: I had just finished upgrading carbs on my crotch rocket and was working out a flat spot on a lonely access road at 10PM'ish on the way home. As I rounded the bend, there were about five police cars at my apartment complex's pool/clubhouse area rousting some rowdy non-residents who had been drinking and vandalizing some property there recently.

Well, I shut the bike down as soon as I saw them and tried quietly, and quickly, making my way to my apartment in stealth mode. No joy. By the time I got off the bike, one of the deputies was right there in his car and instructing me to "Grab some paint, Slick!". After patting me down (I was in shorts & t-shirt = more foolishness :o) he put me in the back seat. While questioning me from the front seat I got the feeling that he was deliberately trying to get a rise out of me. Busting my shoes about my NY plates, how I thought I could just come down there and do what I pleased, etc. I was very polite and answered all questions asked.

Later, some of my friends came by to meet me, while I was in the car, one of whom was a local parole officer. My PO friend had a brief conversation with the deputy. After about 20 minutes, the deputy rejoined me in the car and actually apologized for his attempts to rile me up. But here's the real point: Officers are human too. It turns out that he also rode a crotch rocket, and after explaining that what I did gave all of "us" a bad name (which I agree with), I could understand how he had the reaction he did.

IF I had not reacted the way I did, I'm sure that things would have been quite a bit more expensive for me. As it was, he let me off with a warning about changing my license over to FL since I'd been there too long already, as well as registering my bike in FL. If I had gotten tickets instead, they would have cost me somewhere around $350 plus the costs of changing my ID & registration. I was 24 at the time. I'm 47 now and have only ever been pulled over twice since that night. My kids got the lesson & advice from me just like I did from my Dad. It's served them well too.

Thanks again for the insight & advice Jeff!

jlw
05-02-2012, 09:52 PM
Here is an article I wrote on jurisdictions in Georgia: http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/jurisdictional-georgia/

Not every state has a "state police" that repsonds to calls for service.

TGS
05-02-2012, 10:21 PM
Here is an article I wrote on jurisdictions in Georgia: http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/jurisdictional-georgia/

Not every state has a "state police" that repsonds to calls for service.

That's interesting to see you guys have constables. Vermont's constitution allows each locale to hire a single constable; they are not POST certified, nor do they even need to have any police training whatsoever. The state in general is moving away from them given the obvious liability and massive amount of errors they make in enforcing the law.

I have a friend who's a Sheriff's Lt. for Orange County, Vermont. Having her explain the Vermont Sheriff's offices was confusing as hell. Apparently, they're more like a private contracting company than a typical LE agency. From the way she explained it, her pay is actually determined based on how many projects she's in....so she gets paid some amount for being on a state task force, gets paid another amount for being a school guidance counselor (S.A.D.D.) and gets a little as base pay for being the Sheriff's Lt. Weird. Also for Vermont Sheriff's Deputies, only full time deputies are required to attend the police academy.

jlw
05-02-2012, 10:44 PM
That's interesting to see you guys have constables. Vermont's constitution allows each locale to hire a single constable; they are not POST certified, nor do they even need to have any police training whatsoever. The state in general is moving away from them given the obvious liability and massive amount of errors they make in enforcing the law.

I have a friend who's a Sheriff's Lt. for Orange County, Vermont. Having her explain the Vermont Sheriff's offices was confusing as hell. Apparently, they're more like a private contracting company than a typical LE agency. From the way she explained it, her pay is actually determined based on how many projects she's in....so she gets paid some amount for being on a state task force, gets paid another amount for being a school guidance counselor (S.A.D.D.) and gets a little as base pay for being the Sheriff's Lt. Weird. Also for Vermont Sheriff's Deputies, only full time deputies are required to attend the police academy.




SC, KY, TN, AR, PA, and TX all have constables in use. I am sure there are others. I have a buddy that is running for a constable position in AR.

I have never actually come across a constable in GA.

krazykiddjoe
05-11-2012, 10:35 AM
In 8 years of Full Time Law Enforcement the following is my advice to the average citizen in NC.

Most cops are not "gun guys". Don't expect them to know anything about a gun that's not the actual make/model.

Most cops hate when they walk in and someoone says "hey bo there here to arrest you" or "he did it" thinking they are original. Imagine this as a response every time you walk into a place, every day that you are at work.

I can advocate cutting most people a break on a seat belt, your grown, wear it or don't but you know as an adult that if you hit a tree/car/pole etc that you stand a chance of going thru the windshield and meeting the maker or at the least some very nice doctors/surgeons. That said, the small 3-4 year old or younger standing in the back seat. That's a FAIL, and a do not pass go, get a ticket every time offense. That child doesn't know. That child doesn't understand. That child depends on you as its parent to choose for them.

IF your child of less that 15 slaps you, back talks you, won't listen to you, etc... Calling the police to raise your child wont help. Think back how your parents made you listen? My mind recollects a belt but some are scared of abuse charges. Abuse is defined by DSS workers that Broken Skin, Broken Bones, Lasting marks or Deep Bruises. Short of that, smack that child's ass young and you wont have problems later. If your child got away with shit for 10 years and is now 13, you're going to be in for a long road.

On the other side of that coin, if your 3 to 4 year old is not listening to you in a restaurant and wont sit down and eat the vegetables, PLEASE do NOT tell them "that officer is going to get you if you don't BLANK", or "that officer is going to take you away". That just gives the child fear of the police in a NEGATIVE light.

If you pull up to an intersection or see a traffic accident, look for the Cop directing traffic, NOT at the mangled cars and the "Pretty" Lights. Think about what you are doing. You are driving a 2000 pound rolling weapon. Think about what your attention is focused on. LOOK, Roll down your windows and listen, follow cones, don't attempt to go around the cop cars in weird directions. If there are cones set up that look like a lane of travel and a police/fire in reflective vest waving a flashlight with a yellow/orange cone on the top of it. That would most likely be the area to drive your vehicle thru that lane. There will most likely be pictures of the cars on the news/web later, they will most likely be better than the ones you'll see in person.

If a cop is behind you, please don't freak out, we are not necessarily looking for a reason to pull you over. If we are we will probably find it within a few seconds. Please for the love of GOD, DON'T slow down to 5-10 under the speed limit. IF we turn the blue lights on, either we are stopping you or are about to pass you. PULL to the right when able to do so, making sure that you are not cutting off other drivers, if we follow you into that lane, stop in a safe and controlled manner, acknowledge that we are behind you by turning on your flashers or turn signal reduce speed and pull off the road when able, in an urban environment, pull onto the next side road or parking lot that's well lit. If you have a CCW or a firearm, see below. Place your hands on the steering wheel palms up and take a deep breath. Roll down the window if it works. When the officer approaches he/she will instruct you what they wish for you to do. They should be able to advise the reason that they have stopped you. IF NOT, feel free to request that they contact a supervisor and/or provide their name and badge. Notate a car number on their patrol vehicle (hint, its not 911). Be polite, be professional. Understand I have a boss, like most work places, I get told to do things that I may not agree with. Notate the agency and feel free to stop by and ask for a supervisor or someone to complain to if anything went horribly wrong with your encounter. (if you got a ticket, sorry that's not horribly wrong, that's what a court date is for).

CCW/Weapons.

If you have a firearm in your vehicle, if feasible place it on the dash as your stopped, upon approach of the officer advise them there is a firearm on the dash. DO NOT reach/point/make any quick or sudden movements. If your weapon is in the trunk or cargo area, feel free to tell them or not,
CCW holders, once you advise the officer as to the fact that you have a CCW, advise them where the weapon is and the condition of same. Ask them if they would like to see/inspect the weapon. Understand I don't normally take a weapon on a traffic stop, even one on the dash. There has to be something else telling me to check it. Other officers do take them normally.

Understand that if you call the Police to handle a situation in which you have been dealing with, We as police officers see 5 minutes of a situation, we get short 2-3 minute conversations about events that have happened possibly for years. We then formulate a plan to deal with this, if we are unable to deal with this or it doesn't fall within our scope of operation, chances are you will be even more frustrated. We don't see people in the best circumstances, we get called when shit is going wrong, its bad, no one calls us when things are going good. Its never the intent or goal of mine or the guys/girls that I work with to take people to jail. I will certainly take those that need to go or insist thru their actions/demeanor to jail. I give each and every call/situation that I respond to, my complete attention and the time and energy I would give if it were my family in need. We are human, sometimes we do get angry, sometimes we make mistakes, just accept that.

That's it for now. This is not legal advice nor is it the opinions of the city in which I am employed. Feel free to express yourself and do what you do.
Enjoy the weekend supposed to be a beautiful one.

KKJ

Shokr21
05-11-2012, 10:49 AM
KKJ Quote:
CCW/Weapons.

If you have a firearm in your vehicle, if feasible place it on the dash as your stopped, upon approach of the officer advise them there is a firearm on the dash. DO NOT reach/point/make any quick or sudden movements. If your weapon is in the trunk or cargo area, feel free to tell them or not,
CCW holders, once you advise the officer as to the fact that you have a CCW, advise them where the weapon is and the condition of same. Ask them if they would like to see/inspect the weapon. Understand I don't normally take a weapon on a traffic stop, even one on the dash. There has to be something else telling me to check it. Other officers do take them normally.
End Quote

In Iowa we are not required to notify if we are carrying. The one time I interacted with police I immediately told them that I was in possession of a firearm (don't say gun!).

My plan for a traffic stop if carrying are to have my vehicle off, windows rolled down, hands on wheel. When approached retrieve my ID, ccw license (behind my ID in my wallet), insurance and registration. When handing over the documents calmly state, I have a firearm in my possession, here is my permit along with other requested documents.

Does that sound acceptable? I cannot for the life of me think that having a weapon on my dash would be a pleasant sight for an officer in a traffic stop. It would be disconcerting to me as the person in possession to pull my firearm and place it on the dash while an officer might be approaching my vehicle.

krazykiddjoe
05-11-2012, 11:21 AM
Shocker,

Your plan seems to be well thought out. Here in NC, if you are a CCW permit holder you are required to tell us IF you are actually carrying a gun. We have a "plain view" carry which means as long as the gun is in plain view, I can't charge you with CCW if you're not a permit holder, I have no understanding of laws in other states. When I was in the academy in 03, I was taught that on traffic stops, always scan certain areas, the dash was the first after checking the suspect prior to making it to the interview area of a traffic stop. Agreed yelling "ive got a gun" as the officer is walking up is probably a really really bad idea. calmly stating, I am a concealed carry permit holder and there is a firearm in the glove box/on my right/left hip, etc.

I have been as a prior to being LEO and since being one, in my POV. My take was hands palm up on steering wheel. Trooper or cop approached the window, I advised them the following,

Prior to being LEO, "Sir, I am a NC Concealed Weapon Permit Holder, I have a firearm located on my left hip in a holster, and my wallet with the id you requested is in pocket X, how do you wish for me to proceed".

Since being LEO, "Sir, I am an off-duty cop and concealed weapons permit holder, I am in possession of my carry gun, it is located (fill in blank), My creds are in my back left pocket and my wallet with drivers license and ccw are in my back right pocket. How do you wish for me to proceed."

I have never had any issues, I routinely ask coworkers and the First Year officers that I have trained how they handle that and all agree that it was a solid proceedure and have adopted it as theirs. If I have a stop with a weapon involved, I'll advise the driver or passenger of the process I have laid out here for their benefit if they were to encounter Law Enforcement again.

DocGKR
05-11-2012, 11:32 AM
"If you have a firearm in your vehicle, if feasible place it on the dash as your stopped, upon approach of the officer advise them there is a firearm on the dash. "

You would NOT want to do this in California...

krazykiddjoe
05-11-2012, 11:34 AM
You would NOT want to do this in California...

Probably Not Doc... and Probably not in Chicago, or NY either....

jetfire
05-11-2012, 11:52 AM
Yeah, because what I want to do is be digging around in my car for a gun when I've been stopped. That seems like a good way to catch a bullet.

I have never lived in a state with a duty to inform, so my policy is just to be honest. If the officer asks me if I have any weapons in the car, I say yes and tell him I have a CPL, which I'll hand over, tell him where I'm carrying and how he'd like me to proceed. The responses I've gotten included:

"Don't worry about it, everyone's carrying guns around here"
"Take it out with two fingers and pass it to me"
"Whacha carryin'?"

Etc. Putting a gun on the dashboard of my vehicle during an active traffic stop is on the short list of things I'm never, ever going to do.

RoyGBiv
05-11-2012, 12:19 PM
Etc. Putting a gun on the dashboard of my vehicle during an active traffic stop is on the short list of things I'm never, ever going to do.

It's been 8+ years since I called NC home... but... IIRC...

In NC if you DO NOT have a CCL the gun must be in plain sight inside your vehicle.
Actually, the rule is that it cannot be both "concealed and accessible"
Specifically, the handbook says "when transporting a weapon in a vehicle, even greater care must be exercised to ensure that the weapon
is not concealed and within the ready access to an occupant of the vehicle."
http://www.ncsheriffs.org/documents/2007-NC-Firearms-gun-Laws-rev2011.pdf page 20.

So... If you're pulled over in NC and have a weapon in the car and no CCL, better make sure it's on the dash or on the seat in plain view, or risk taking a ride in bracelets.

If you have a recognized CCL/CHL/CPL... Concealed is no problem and IMO, I'm not moving my gun form my waistband to my dash for any reason short of being requested to do so specifically by the officer. Hands on the wheel, calmly inform upon approach.

krazykiddjoe
05-11-2012, 12:32 PM
It's been 8+ years since I called NC home... but... IIRC...

In NC if you DO NOT have a CCL the gun must be in plain sight inside your vehicle.
Actually, the rule is that it cannot be both "concealed and accessible"
Specifically, the handbook says "when transporting a weapon in a vehicle, even greater care must be exercised to ensure that the weapon
is not concealed and within the ready access to an occupant of the vehicle."
http://www.ncsheriffs.org/documents/2007-NC-Firearms-gun-Laws-rev2011.pdf page 20.

So... If you're pulled over in NC and have a weapon in the car and no CCL, better make sure it's on the dash or on the seat in plain view, or risk taking a ride in bracelets.

If you have a recognized CCL/CHL/CPL... Concealed is no problem and IMO, I'm not moving my gun form my waistband to my dash for any reason short of being requested to do so specifically by the officer. Hands on the wheel, calmly inform upon approach.


+1, I am in no way implying or advising anyone to put a gun on the dash that has a nc or other state permit for ccw, I am stating that as a LEO in NC and NC ONLY, That I was trained to look on the dash and gunstores have advised customers thats where to put them if stopped. IF you tell me upon approach and otherwise are not acting suspicious, and you don't have it on the dash and its concealed and accessible, chances are I'm NOT going to charge you, cause I'm the gun guy, other officers that I work with WILL arrest you... and Take your otherwise legally owned gun and put it into evidence where it will sit for months until your case is finished in court. AND, if found guilty that same legally owned firearm may be ordered to be destroyed.

KKJ...

DocGKR
05-11-2012, 12:44 PM
This is why it is so important for each citizen to be aware of the specific laws pertaining to firearms where they reside...

dickmadison
05-11-2012, 01:12 PM
I live in Virginia and took my concealed carry class at the NRA. They recommended (if I remember correctly) that you should show your permit to the cop when giving him your license. They mentioned that when the cop runs your name, he will see that you have the permit anyway and that it is better to be forthcoming. Additionally, they pointed out that it may imply that you are a law abiding citizen which may result in leniency when the cop decides whether or not you get the ticket.

I honestly don't know how I feel about that. On one had, I like the idea of not divulging anymore info than necessary. But I can see where not getting all defensive might have its advantages. With all that being said, I just read this on kniferights.org...although this applies to knives, I can see where it my pertain to guns as well.

"If asked whether or not there are any weapons in the car, immediately be aware that you are in danger of becoming a victim of an anti-knife arrest. This question may be handled in many ways. However, my personal response is to ask the officer why I am being asked that question. The answer to this question goes directly to the issue of probable cause. Why are you being asked whether you have weapons in the car? Is this simply a fishing expedition on behalf of the officer or is it because spent shell casings are in plain view on the front seat? If it is a fishing expedition, then that question is clearly unjustified. If there are spent shell casings on the seat, then regardless of your answer you are probably looking at having your vehicle and person searched. The key here is not to give any excuses for a vehicle search. (E.g., items left in plain view, expired motor vehicle licenses, odd behaviors, etc.) If you obey the law and act in a practical and intelligent manner, you should be able to avoid vehicle/person searches."

It doesn't say how you should answer the question, but it infers that it may be a good idea to say nothing...

I understand the officer needs to protect himself, but I also need to protect myself as well.

What do you all think?

LittleLebowski
05-11-2012, 01:14 PM
Personally, I'll inform the officer right away that I'm lawfully carrying, where the weapon is, and that I will NOT reach towards it without being instructed to do so. IF instructed to do so, I will repeat the instructions back as I comply.

I've done this once when pulled over on the pretext of my truck's tire going over a curb. The officer told me that he liked dealing with CCW permit holders because we are lawful citizens. I then told him that my weapon that was near my belt buckle and that I was reaching for my wallet in my right front pants pocket. No problems. He ran my license and sent me on my way. I later found out from my buddy who's the training officer for that PD that the guy who pulled me over "pulls everybody over in an excuse to run their DL."

LHS
05-11-2012, 01:37 PM
Here in AZ, you are required to answer truthfully if an LEO asks if you are armed, but you are not required to volunteer the information unasked. Still, I feel it's good policy to do so. I haven't been pulled over while carrying, but I was once a witness at an accident and briefly interviewed. Because of the peripheral nature of my involvement, and not wanting to stay there any longer than I had to, I just kept my mouth shut on the subject, answered the officer's questions, and left as soon as I could. I wasn't particularly interested in having the assembled gangbangers get a peek at my loadout or taking the officer's attention away from people who were an actual threat.

DocGKR
05-11-2012, 01:45 PM
I never volunteer the information unless specifically asked.

jetfire
05-11-2012, 02:19 PM
I never volunteer the information unless specifically asked.

This, unless I'm in a state that honors one of my CPLs and has a duty to inform..

ford.304
05-11-2012, 02:23 PM
Ohio has the requirement to inform, and they drill into you in the CCW course to make sure you *practice* what you are going to tell the officer. They've had far too many people panic, get tongue tied, and just start gesturing and saying "gun."

The side effect of this is that every time I have a dream that involves getting pulled over, I now recite in my dream the specific sequence of "Officer I am a CCW permit holder and I am carrying on the right hip. My permit and my license are in my wallet which are also on my right hip pocket."

It ends up being a little pointless, though, since the license shows up when they run your plates. I've had several friends whose fathers had permits say that they were planning on getting theirs, just because every time they were pulled over the cops treated them like they were armed anyway.

LittleLebowski
05-11-2012, 02:29 PM
I don't like surprising cops so I inform if pulled over (I've been pulled over once in about 7 years) and I will record audio if I have time.

LOKNLOD
05-11-2012, 02:48 PM
Here in OK it's required to give immediate notification on first contact and failure to do so carries a pretty hefty penalty. There is a bill in the state senate right now that would change it to something about "first opportunity" instead. Unfortunately it is the same bill with open carry provisions, so I hope it doesn't get nixed because of that.

It's most problematic if you intend to be carrying in non-permissive places (signs are not legally binding here) or around people you don't want to know you are carrying. If I chose to carry at work against policy, that would get me when I had to take a ride with someone unexpectedly and then we got pulled over or stopped some how. Last week had to give some roadside assistance to a guy that works for me, after hours, and after having gone home. I almost armed up before heading back out, for obvious reasons, but chose not to because I figured we would end up dealing with LE due to the location he was stranded. Sure enough we needed help from a OHP Trooper and had I been armed I would have had to out myself in front of the employee or risk violation. It was after hours, and I was in a personal vehicle, so it may not have been a big deal, but had it been during business hours or if it would have been me in the company vehicle it could have been bad.

Joe in PNG
05-11-2012, 04:05 PM
I have a procedure I've used all the one time I've been pulled over
1) Emergency flashers on, pull over someplace the officer will have a good, safe area to do his thing
2) Window down, dome light on, engine off, hands on wheel
3) Do what he tells me to do, and tell him what I'm doing before I do it.

4) I will give him my permit with my driver's license. I don't have to, but then again, that is something I like to get out of the way early on in the process. I'll let him tell me how to take it out.
5) I also stay polite- using honorifics as apporpriate.

Then again, I think my technique of obeying traffic laws as much as possible is a bit of a cheaper, easier, and better way of avoiding the above steps...

KeeFus
05-12-2012, 09:39 AM
Seeing a gun on the dash or on the unoccupied passenger seat during a traffic is common place here in NC. I have stopped a many a folks who put it there just prior to the stop. As long as their beaters aint touching it I am cool with it. Also, this past legislative season, the politicians saw fit to honor every states CCW permit.

"Other States' Permits Honored Here

Effective December 1, 2011, North Carolina automatically recognizes concealed carry permits issued in any other state."
Copied from the DOJ website (http://www.ncdoj.com/About-DOJ/Law-Enforcement-Training-and-Standards/Law-Enforcement-Liason/Concealed-Weapon-Reciprocity.aspx). There is other applicable information on that website.

I'm cool with that as well but just remember that here in NC you have to notify that you have a concealed weapon and hand over the permit w/ your license. Then again, civillians and OC'ers dont really bother me while I'm on duty. Although I think its a tactical error, I'm not really worried about the citizen who likes to OC. As our society becomes more firearm friendly we as LEO's have to have a proper mindset to deal with the citizens that choose to exercise their 2A rights.

My mindset is this after 17 years as a LEO here. If they took the time to go through the back ground checks and spend their money on a CCP I'm not gonna sweat them as long as they are cool. I tend to give verbal warnings to CCP folks anyway. I think OCing is a mistake but there are no laws that prohibit it. If you OC and get called on by someone just be polite and deal with the officers in a respectful manner. Dont go all "2A" on them as that will tend to piss everyone off.

voodoo_man
05-12-2012, 10:28 AM
Around here we like to know. Chances are if you are a law abiding citizen and you do not give us any BS, are straight forward with everything, you will drive away with a positive experience.

The only time I have ever had an issue on this matter was with a guy who had stickers of gun companies (glock, springfield, larue, etc) on the back of his truck. I came up, asked for his info and asked him if he was carrying. He said no. I went back and ran his name to see if he had a permit to carry, which he did and did not show us. My partner went up and asked the same question he got a yes. Well he was "held up" for a good two hours while we crossed every t and dotted every i.

David Armstrong
05-12-2012, 12:39 PM
Louisiana requires us to notify, but even if it didn't I think it is a good idea. I can't see too much bad coming from it, I can see a lot of potential for trouble if you don't. I never liked surprises when I was making a stop so letting the officer know items that might be of interest reduces the chance of a misunderstanding.

htomeheb
05-13-2012, 07:28 AM
Here in OK it's required to give immediate notification on first contact and failure to do so carries a pretty hefty penalty. There is a bill in the state senate right now that would change it to something about "first opportunity" instead. Unfortunately it is the same bill with open carry provisions, so I hope it doesn't get nixed because of that.

It's most problematic if you intend to be carrying in non-permissive places (signs are not legally binding here) or around people you don't want to know you are carrying. If I chose to carry at work against policy, that would get me when I had to take a ride with someone unexpectedly and then we got pulled over or stopped some how. Last week had to give some roadside assistance to a guy that works for me, after hours, and after having gone home. I almost armed up before heading back out, for obvious reasons, but chose not to because I figured we would end up dealing with LE due to the location he was stranded. Sure enough we needed help from a OHP Trooper and had I been armed I would have had to out myself in front of the employee or risk violation. It was after hours, and I was in a personal vehicle, so it may not have been a big deal, but had it been during business hours or if it would have been me in the company vehicle it could have been bad.

I've never tried, but I've wondered how kosher it'd be to request to speak to the officer outside of the vehicle, or in your case, "In private.", then move to a location where the other party cant hear when you inform the officer that you're carrying and dont wish for others to know.

In Ohio, If they run my plates, they already know I have a CCW, but if I'm driving someone else's, manage to get pulled over, they'll have no idea until I tell them.

Im not sure how often they get asked something like that, or how well they'd respond to it. I'd have to imagine it'd depend on the officer.

jar
05-16-2012, 02:46 PM
Louisiana requires us to notify, but even if it didn't I think it is a good idea. I can't see too much bad coming from it, I can see a lot of potential for trouble if you don't. I never liked surprises when I was making a stop so letting the officer know items that might be of interest reduces the chance of a misunderstanding.

This varies greatly depending on where you are and how common LTCs/CCW permits are and the general LE attitude toward them. I was pulled over in downtown Boston. I didn't mention my gun and it never came up. I got a citation and was on my way in 10 minutes or so. There's a not insignificant chance that if I'd mentioned it, I'd've ended up proned out on the sidewalk while they took my gun and ran the serial number.

If I think the officer might discover the gun, I'll inform before he/she does. Otherwise, I'm not saying anything unless directly asked.

krazykiddjoe
05-17-2012, 07:37 AM
I've never tried, but I've wondered how kosher it'd be to request to speak to the officer outside of the vehicle, or in your case, "In private.", then move to a location where the other party cant hear when you inform the officer that you're carrying and dont wish for others to know.

In Ohio, If they run my plates, they already know I have a CCW, but if I'm driving someone else's, manage to get pulled over, they'll have no idea until I tell them.

Im not sure how often they get asked something like that, or how well they'd respond to it. I'd have to imagine it'd depend on the officer.


As a cop, This is going to be touchy. Most cops that I work with would think something is up and probably call an additional officer and it would create more headache then it would help. IF you were going to try this, DO NOT get out of the car to ask to speak with him. Simply ask, [Officer] [Trooper] [Deputy] may I speak with you at the front of your vehicle. If they grant that, just exit slowly and and put your hands calmly by your sides palms forward, IMPO if you were to exit and have your hands UP it would create more anxiety on the LEO's part. You want to mitigate any anxiety. You act calm, we act calm, you act nervous so on and such.

Under the NC statute requiring you to notify it is upon direct contact, meaning to me, if you're the passenger and I don't directly involve you in my traffic stop (ask if you have id or a drivers license or direct questions of that nature) I would argue that you have no need to inform me. If someone were helping a coworker with a disabled motor vehicle I would have simply walked up to the trooper as he pulled up and notified him of my carry and inform him that I don't advertise that fact with co-workers who you were helping. Most cops are not assholes. I am an asshole only when I need to be one. If I walked by you in a retail store or restaurant and in passing said Hi, how's it going. I would not in the least expect you to notify me of your CCW. If I walk up to you and state Hi, Sir, Can you answer a few questions if you have a second, we just had [blank] happen across the street. THEN I would expect you to notify me of the CCW.


§ 14‑415.11. Permit to carry concealed handgun; scope of permit.

(a) Any person who has a concealed handgun permit may carry a concealed handgun unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law. The person shall carry the permit together with valid identification whenever the person is carrying a concealed handgun, shall disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person holds a valid permit and is carrying a concealed handgun when approached or addressed by the officer, and shall display both the permit and the proper identification upon the request of a law enforcement officer.

RoyGBiv
05-17-2012, 09:26 AM
The person shall carry the permit together with valid identification
My TX permit has my picture on it. Back when I had a NC permit it did not have a photo. Hopefully that's changed by now.
I never could understand why a photo ID CHL is not, by itself, "valid identification".
If the permit didn't have a photo.. ok.. but.. :confused:

IMO, it's easier to get a fraudulent DL than a fraudulent CHL (CWP, CCL... whatever your state calls it).

krazykiddjoe
05-17-2012, 10:36 AM
Nope we still have a plain card laminated ccw permit with no picture.

Most agencies in my area have the ability to run your driver's license and actually view your DMV photo.
I agree that in this day it is more than overdue to have a plastic ID card/ccw with a photo.


KKJ

David Armstrong
05-18-2012, 02:01 PM
This varies greatly depending on where you are and how common LTCs/CCW permits are and the general LE attitude toward them. I was pulled over in downtown Boston. I didn't mention my gun and it never came up. I got a citation and was on my way in 10 minutes or so. There's a not insignificant chance that if I'd mentioned it, I'd've ended up proned out on the sidewalk while they took my gun and ran the serial number.

If I think the officer might discover the gun, I'll inform before he/she does. Otherwise, I'm not saying anything unless directly asked.
I think that you support my point. Why would you inform if you think the officer might discover the gun? Isn't it because you think that him finding out on his own creates more potential for trouble than if you tell him in advance? For me the balance falls more toward the "might get in trouble if I don't tell" than "might get in trouble if I do tell" side. My $.02.

jar
05-18-2012, 05:45 PM
I think that you support my point. Why would you inform if you think the officer might discover the gun? Isn't it because you think that him finding out on his own creates more potential for trouble than if you tell him in advance? For me the balance falls more toward the "might get in trouble if I don't tell" than "might get in trouble if I do tell" side. My $.02.

The scale of how much my day is going to suck is:
1. Don't say anything, gun stays concealed.
2. Say something.
3. Don't say something and the officer sees it.

1. nothing happens
2. is 50/50 felony stop vs ok sir, please don't reach toward it
3. is 90/10 felony stop or worse vs ok sir, please don't reach toward it

The tradeoff between 1 and 2 varies with the risk of 3.

David Armstrong
05-18-2012, 06:38 PM
The scale of how much my day is going to suck is:
1. Don't say anything, gun stays concealed.
2. Say something.
3. Don't say something and the officer sees it.

1. nothing happens
2. is 50/50 felony stop vs ok sir, please don't reach toward it
3. is 90/10 felony stop or worse vs ok sir, please don't reach toward it

The tradeoff between 1 and 2 varies with the risk of 3.
I'm not sure why you think there is a high likelihood of the police executing a felony stop based on you politely informing the officer that you are legally carrying a concealed handgun. Even the most rabidly anti-CCW agencies are getting the word after having some notable hand-slaps by the courts and are responding in a much nicer manner.

krazykiddjoe
05-18-2012, 06:52 PM
The scale of how much my day is going to suck is:
1. Don't say anything, gun stays concealed.
2. Say something.
3. Don't say something and the officer sees it.

1. nothing happens
2. is 50/50 felony stop vs ok sir, please don't reach toward it
3. is 90/10 felony stop or worse vs ok sir, please don't reach toward it

The tradeoff between 1 and 2 varies with the risk of 3.

Lately there has been case law that suggest [not decided or set in stone yet] that if someone is lawfully carrying a firearm and I seize that firearm during a stop for officer safety reasons. I CAN NOT run the serial number as part of that stop. Meaning that is an invasive action and therefore prolonging the stop out of the scope of my stop.

Again, I normally in day to day operations, and when I train new officers, I don't take a gun especially if it is concealed. IF I have taken a firearm from someone I have encountered. I remove the magazine unload the magazine and return the gun/mag/bullets. I do that for every gun I return. So knowing that, I don't take a gun unless I feel that it is entirely necessary and that I can defend that decision by facts that I am able to articulate to whomever has questions of the stop.


EDIT:
If someone is calm, cool, collected, not acting irrational and they tell me, "sir theres a firearm in the glove box, I didn't want to reach for it to put it on the dash when you stopped me because I'm from Oakland CA and that shit will get you shot there." IT does NOT make it a felony stop. Most likely I will laugh at the Oakland reference and advise you to leave the glove box alone. I will run your tag and insure that there is nothing wrong with the registration and send you on your way with a ticket or warning.

And one last point. When I go to stop a car, I decide "warning" or "ticket" before I turn the blue lights on, less I am doing DWI Enforcement then its "warning less drunk".



Again this apply's to NC, the case law was I believe a 4th circuit court case. I will research and provide the case if possible.

KKJ

TheRoland
05-18-2012, 10:02 PM
I'm not sure why you think there is a high likelihood of the police executing a felony stop based on you politely informing the officer that you are legally carrying a concealed handgun.

Because walking around any USPSA match in Jar's state will yield a couple of stories which go that way, and the local courts are fine with much, much worse (like also confiscating the gun).

Edit: Which isn't to say it always goes that way, obviously, but the really bad cases get talked about a lot here.

David Armstrong
05-19-2012, 09:22 AM
Because walking around any USPSA match in Jar's state will yield a couple of stories which go that way, and the local courts are fine with much, much worse (like also confiscating the gun).

Edit: Which isn't to say it always goes that way, obviously, but the really bad cases get talked about a lot here.
Exactly. You get a couple of stories (usually exaggerated a bit) out of perhaps thousands of incidents. That was my point, we often have a very distorted view of reality. Are there some officers who will react poorly? Sure. But they are going to be few and far between, and after a few felony stops for non-crime activity there is a pretty good chance they will be told the error of their ways by other officers and/or supervisors.

Gun
05-19-2012, 12:24 PM
Around here we like to know. Chances are if you are a law abiding citizen and you do not give us any BS, are straight forward with everything, you will drive away with a positive experience.

The only time I have ever had an issue on this matter was with a guy who had stickers of gun companies (glock, springfield, larue, etc) on the back of his truck. I came up, asked for his info and asked him if he was carrying. He said no. I went back and ran his name to see if he had a permit to carry, which he did and did not show us. My partner went up and asked the same question he got a yes. Well he was "held up" for a good two hours while we crossed every t and dotted every i.


Sorry, but that doesn't fly! Whether the driver said No, yes, or nothing illegal, it has nothing to do with the initial stop, and the law doesn't allow it or you would be required to ask everyone you pull over in PA.

voodoo_man
05-19-2012, 12:30 PM
Sorry, but that doesn't fly! Whether the driver said No, yes, or nothing illegal, it has nothing to do with the initial stop, and the law doesn't allow it or you would be required to ask everyone you pull over in PA.

Thanks for your comments.

Are you a LEO?

BWT
05-19-2012, 02:33 PM
I've been pulled over twice (one warning, one ticket), gone through two DUI Road blocks, and had one vehicular manslaughter (I witnessed that, I actually think it was turned into Negligent manslaughter, anyway, I gave a statement to a State Trooper about someone being killed on a moped, I forgot to tell him I had my CWP until after the statement, I wasn't carrying at the time and he didn't look like he could have cared less, but I still told him).

I've told all of them I've had my CWP, the ticket, my gun was actually sitting ontop of the registration and proof of insurance (in the dash), but all the other times, I notified them after they introduced themselves, that I had a CWP, and if/where I had the pistol at that time.

Never had an issue, I think if your respectful, allow the police officer to speak first in whatever incident, or make their request, you calmly state you have a CWP and where the firearm is, and do the things like pull over, roll down the windows, turn the car off, and if at night turn on the dome light, they will not freak out.

The important thing is, to just do what the officer asks you, be cooperative and be respectful.

I wouldn't put my hand on a gun, and I asked him if he wanted to grab my Registration/Insurance in the dash before reaching for it, and explained the firearm was in the dash with it. He declined.

Reduced the ticket significantly as a side note, he was a nice guy, I was speeding, by about 16 mph, he gave it to me for 7 over. I honestly knew I was going to get the ticket, I wasn't going to argue with him or make a scene. The other let me go on a warning.

Tamara
05-20-2012, 08:50 AM
Just as an amusing data point, I have been pulled over twice by state troopers (once in GA and once in IN) when I had a pile of handguns plainly visible on the passenger seat. Neither time did the firearms even come up in our roadside conversation.

"You realize the speed limit here is still 55; it doesn't go back up to 70 for another mile and a half."

"Oh, sorry officer." ("...and aren't you going to ask me why there are a couple of antique Smiths and a Browning 1900 sitting in plain view right next to me? No? Okay, then.")

voodoo_man
05-20-2012, 09:52 AM
Just as an amusing data point, I have been pulled over twice by state troopers (once in GA and once in IN) when I had a pile of handguns plainly visible on the passenger seat. Neither time did the firearms even come up in our roadside conversation.

"You realize the speed limit here is still 55; it doesn't go back up to 70 for another mile and a half."

"Oh, sorry officer." ("...and aren't you going to ask me why there are a couple of antique Smiths and a Browning 1900 sitting in plain view right next to me? No? Okay, then.")

Why would the trooper ask you about something which is plainly visible and legally allowed to occur..?

voodoo_man
05-20-2012, 11:17 AM
Out of curiosity, if nothing else.

Sort of like having a bag of ketchup on your passenger seat. Yea it is weird and makes the officer want to know why its there (I did), but perfectly legal.

LittleLebowski
05-20-2012, 11:26 AM
Why would the trooper ask you about something which is plainly visible and legally allowed to occur..?

Cops vary like all people. "Officer safety" is one commonly cited reason for disarming or separating an member of the public from their weapons. There's cops that just don't know the law and twitchy around armed citizens. There are cops like you and Dave Pennington that know the law. There are cops that shoot Dachshunds and chained up dogs. There was a detective in CA bragging about "proning out" open carrying citizens, shooing one if one made a move, and "getting a free two week vacation.". Of course, the inverse of that is the famous Oceanside cop that dealt with an open carrying citizen in the most professional and courteous manner imaginable and was a credit to his dept. In the same timeframe, a cop from the same dept made headlines for ticketing a parent in a skateboard park for not wearing a helmet. His kid was, he wasn't.

All in all, I think more and more cops are understanding the law as it pertains to armed citizens. Although, I can name one very large Southern CA dept where one of my former Marines serves and he reports that almost half of the cops there are anti 2A.

It just varies.

voodoo_man
05-20-2012, 12:03 PM
Cops vary like all people. "Officer safety" is one commonly cited reason for disarming or separating an member of the public from their weapons. There's cops that just don't know the law and twitchy around armed citizens. There are cops like you and Dave Pennington that know the law. There are cops that shoot Dachshunds and chained up dogs. There was a detective in CA bragging about "proning out" open carrying citizens, shooing one if one made a move, and "getting a free two week vacation.". Of course, the inverse of that is the famous Oceanside cop that dealt with an open carrying citizen in the most professional and courteous manner imaginable and was a credit to his dept. In the same timeframe, a cop from the same dept made headlines for ticketing a parent in a skateboard park for not wearing a helmet. His kid was, he wasn't.

All in all, I think more and more cops are understanding the law as it pertains to armed citizens. Although, I can name one very large Southern CA dept where one of my former Marines serves and he reports that almost half of the cops there are anti 2A.

It just varies.

As I stated previously in this thread, it depends on the area. In the NE, for the most part, you will not get much issue if you think about the "officer's safety" when giving him/her information. It is just being a professional citizen. If you want everyone to respect your rights, you have to make sure you show mutual respect for everyone's safety.

As for that certain large dept, think about where it is, CA is pretty much the liberal utopia everyone wanted, it only makes sense there are liberal officers enforcing liberal ideals. The PD should always reflect the population it serves (should, does not mean does).

LittleLebowski
05-20-2012, 12:29 PM
I think we are in violent agreement, VD Man.

Gun
05-20-2012, 02:21 PM
Thanks for your comments.

Are you a LEO?


No.



-------

voodoo_man
05-20-2012, 07:38 PM
No.



-------

Not a leo? Ok.

Just thought you were since you were posting as if you had a say on how a leo conducts his/her investigations.

David Armstrong
05-21-2012, 09:46 AM
Sorry, but that doesn't fly! Whether the driver said No, yes, or nothing illegal, it has nothing to do with the initial stop, and the law doesn't allow it or you would be required to ask everyone you pull over in PA.
Actually, as long as the intitial stop is legal, the law allows an officer to ask all sorts of questions about all sorts of things, and how those questions are answered may or may not lead to further interaction.

Coyotesfan97
05-21-2012, 03:56 PM
Why would the trooper ask you about something which is plainly visible and legally allowed to occur..?


Is that a Browning 1900?! Can I see it? :cool:

Gun
05-21-2012, 04:02 PM
Actually, as long as the intitial stop is legal,

Correct.



the law allows an officer to ask all sorts of questions about all sorts of things,

Correct.


and how those questions are answered may or may not lead to further interaction.


And that really depends on the question being asked. In the case voodoo_man cited, the motorist can lie to the police (wasn't a fed),
twice if asked again. That does not give the officer cause to search his vehicle, unless this was the premise for the stop. Though the
motorist told the second officer that he did in fact have a fireman would not give cause for the officers to detain him for two hours.
Sorry, there is no justifying this action by law, and the motorist can most certainly raise a stink about it.

Coyotesfan97
05-21-2012, 04:02 PM
Sorry, but that doesn't fly! Whether the driver said No, yes, or nothing illegal, it has nothing to do with the initial stop, and the law doesn't allow it or you would be required to ask everyone you pull over in PA.

If you tell one cop one thing and tell another a different thing when they ask the same question on the same stop that'll get you extra attention in any state.

Coyotesfan97
05-21-2012, 04:10 PM
And that really depends on the question being asked. In the case voodoo_man cited, the motorist can lie to the police (wasn't a fed), twice if asked again. That does not give the officer cause to search his vehicle, unless this was the premise for the stop.

In Arizona that could potentially get you charged with false reporting to LE and CCW. If you are carrying in Arizona under constitutional carry and an Officer asks if you are you can be charged with CCW if you lie about it.

JeffJ
05-21-2012, 05:35 PM
I think we are in violent agreement, VD Man.

I think Voodoo Man should violently protest this as an unauthorized nickname :cool:

LittleLebowski
05-21-2012, 05:40 PM
I think Voodoo Man should violently protest this as an unauthorized nickname :cool:

He's pretty tough given all of the shit he's getting at BaconSurvival :D

cclaxton
05-21-2012, 08:54 PM
Any time you interact with the police, be truthful, don't have an attitude nor appear to be concealing information and your day will go a lot smoother. Almost always when we the police encounter somebody with a belligerent attitude, it's because they're trying to hide something. You don't have to offer information, but answer the legitimate questions that you are asked. If you appear to be trying to hide something, cops treat that the same way that sharks treat the smell of blood in the water . . .

This doesn't sound like good legal advice to me. Just listen to the lawyer voice in your head saying, "Don't say anything, don't say anything, ..." I am not suggesting you should not obey a police officer's order to protect your safety or the safety of others. But you are certainly under NO obligation to say anything related to the situation unless you are truly an observer. And, even then, you should be wary of saying anything that could in any way make you a suspect.

Saying NOTHING is not supposed to be reason to arrest you or charge you or result in making you a suspect or being suspicious. You are simply protecting your legal liability in the situation. You can say just that: "With all due respect, I know my attorney would not want me to say anything until I consult with him/her. I will give you a statement once I have consulted with my attorney." The policeman/woman is NOT the judge and jury. Their job is to assess the facts, write the facts in the report, take statements (not force statements), and make a reasonable judgement as to whether a person involved MAY have broke the law. The judge and jury are there to determine guilt or innocence, not the police. That is the whole reason why we have courts. It is not disrespectful to a police officer to decline to say anything about the event.
CC

voodoo_man
05-21-2012, 10:48 PM
He's pretty tough given all of the shit he's getting at BaconSurvival :D

:D


This doesn't sound like good legal advice to me. Just listen to the lawyer voice in your head saying, "Don't say anything, don't say anything, ..." I am not suggesting you should not obey a police officer's order to protect your safety or the safety of others. But you are certainly under NO obligation to say anything related to the situation unless you are truly an observer. And, even then, you should be wary of saying anything that could in any way make you a suspect.

Saying NOTHING is not supposed to be reason to arrest you or charge you or result in making you a suspect or being suspicious. You are simply protecting your legal liability in the situation. You can say just that: "With all due respect, I know my attorney would not want me to say anything until I consult with him/her. I will give you a statement once I have consulted with my attorney." The policeman/woman is NOT the judge and jury. Their job is to assess the facts, write the facts in the report, take statements (not force statements), and make a reasonable judgement as to whether a person involved MAY have broke the law. The judge and jury are there to determine guilt or innocence, not the police. That is the whole reason why we have courts. It is not disrespectful to a police officer to decline to say anything about the event.
CC

To be blunt, and with complete sincerity, do you really believe in the "don't talk to police" motto? It is right up there with "don't snitch" in terms of logic.

If an officer is speaking with you on the street in reference to anything above a summary - meaning misdemeanor or felony - if you just shutdown and do not answer any questions that is a HUGE red flag. You want to invoke your right to an attorney when you aren't even charged yet or even in handcuffs, then by all means be my guest. It really shows the lack of understanding many people have.

Jay Cunningham
05-21-2012, 10:51 PM
With respect, you are not my friend, the police are not my friends. They are there to do a job.

I know it makes life tougher on you, but you can speak with my attorney. I'll sit in the cell, no worries.

voodoo_man
05-21-2012, 11:40 PM
With respect, you are not my friend, the police are not my friends. They are there to do a job.

I know it makes life tougher on you, but you can speak with my attorney. I'll sit in the cell, no worries.

No one ever said the police were your friends, but the police is looking out for the best interest of the public and that means locking up people who are suspected of committing a crime.

Talking with the police can only help to convince them of your innocence, especially if you are not actually under arrest or being interrogated, you only stand to benefit from conversation.

ronin0829
05-21-2012, 11:53 PM
Maybe this will clear some things up, or maybe not...

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106(1977)-The driver can be ordered out of a vehicle, without suspicion, on routine traffic stops. The officer's safety greatly outweighs the inconvenience to the driver.

This means I can get you out and pat you down for weapons before I ask you any questions.

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 US 408(1997)-This case applied the Mimms case to the passengers. The same legitimate reasons an officer has to order the driver from the vehicle also applies to the passengers.

This means I can get everyone else out and pat them down also before I ask you any questions.

US v. Rice, No. 06-5138 (10 Cir. 2007)-[Officer] Weakley did not need reasonable suspicion to request identification from Rice [driver], run a background check on him, or remove Rice or any other passenger from the car. These actions are fully justified by officer safety concerns no matter how innocuous the traffic violation and need not be supported by additional reasonable suspicion.

This case re-affirmed the previous cases.

Also there is another case that I couldn't find that allows me to "pat down" the interior of a vehicle, meaning anywhere that any occupant could reasonably be expected to reach while in the vehicle, before allowing the occupants back in the vehicle.

Do I do these things on every traffic stop? No.

Could I do these things on every traffic stop? Absolutely.

If you appear more nervous than the average person does, or you give me conflicting statements, or I can articulate a reasonable suspicion based on time/place/circumstances you better believe I am going to do these things. My choice to do these things is based on the totality of the circumstances at that moment.

Gun
05-22-2012, 04:50 AM
This means I can get everyone else out and pat them down also before I ask you any questions.

US v. Rice, No. 06-5138 (10 Cir. 2007)-[Officer] Weakley did not need reasonable suspicion to request identification from Rice [driver], run a background check on him, or remove Rice or any other passenger from the car. These actions are fully justified by officer safety concerns no matter how innocuous the traffic violation and need not be supported by additional reasonable suspicion.

This case re-affirmed the previous cases.



Please reread US vs Rice. An officer has to have RAS that the motorist, or passenger(s) be armed AND dangerous, which seem to be the case for Weakley patting down Rice.

I don't recommend that pat-down without the RAS.

Tamara
05-22-2012, 06:53 AM
Why would the trooper ask you about something which is plainly visible and legally allowed to occur..?

Because not every cop is as cool as you. Yes, a lot of officers can be relaxed in the presence of of a firearm that is not under their control, and some are even firearms enthusiasts who could reasonably be supposed to enquire about the several thousand dollars in interesting and unusual antique firearms right there, but a disturbingly large number seem to have been successfully trained to react to the sight of a firearm anyplace other than in a police holster by going straight to Code Brown and Securing The Scene. It's completely understandable in light of the fact that they've had it hammered into their head that they could be the next Deputy Dinkheller any time they interact with the public.

On another tack, I personally know of more than one or two officers who make a point of running the serial numbers of any weapon they encounter in the course of their duties through the NCIC. In many urban departments, the only place officers see firearms are in the possession of cops or criminals, and the guy they just pulled over doesn't have a badge, so... While I understand why they are doing this, it did nothing to build a healthy rapport with the permit-holding citizens whose guns were cleared and taken back to the cruiser to "have their numbers run".

MDS
05-22-2012, 08:21 AM
Just as an amusing data point, I have been pulled over twice by state troopers (once in GA and once in IN) when I had a pile of handguns plainly visible on the passenger seat. Neither time did the firearms even come up in our roadside conversation.

"You realize the speed limit here is still 55; it doesn't go back up to 70 for another mile and a half."

"Oh, sorry officer." ("...and aren't you going to ask me why there are a couple of antique Smiths and a Browning 1900 sitting in plain view right next to me? No? Okay, then.")

I was about to call you a liar, but then I realized I misread GA as CA. I don't know about IN, but that's not surprising in GA.

voodoo_man
05-22-2012, 08:38 AM
In reference to vehicle investigations - during a vehicle stop ID should only be asked from the driver/operator and possibly the owner of the vehicle (if he/she is a passenger) without at least RS, but this is in combination with the already present PS for the actual stop of the vehicle. The caveat here is that you, as a drive of a vehicle or a passenger do not know what you are being stopped for, presumably. So therefore you have to comply with all commands given to you by the officers (this is a no-duh). The only times I have ever taken the passengers info during a vehicle investigation was when it was going to lead to an arrest (strong odor of alcohol/marijuana/etc), vehicle matched flash description for that involved in a crime (shooting/etc), or the passenger decided he was going to "wile out" and try to get out of the vehicle. At no time is any person allowed to exit the vehicle unless so instructed by an officer - this is #1 in all vehicle stops and it gives instant RS to frisk/handcuff.


Because not every cop is as cool as you. Yes, a lot of officers can be relaxed in the presence of of a firearm that is not under their control, and some are even firearms enthusiasts who could reasonably be supposed to enquire about the several thousand dollars in interesting and unusual antique firearms right there, but a disturbingly large number seem to have been successfully trained to react to the sight of a firearm anyplace other than in a police holster by going straight to Code Brown and Securing The Scene. It's completely understandable in light of the fact that they've had it hammered into their head that they could be the next Deputy Dinkheller any time they interact with the public.

On another tack, I personally know of more than one or two officers who make a point of running the serial numbers of any weapon they encounter in the course of their duties through the NCIC. In many urban departments, the only place officers see firearms are in the possession of cops or criminals, and the guy they just pulled over doesn't have a badge, so... While I understand why they are doing this, it did nothing to build a healthy rapport with the permit-holding citizens whose guns were cleared and taken back to the cruiser to "have their numbers run".

Please do not misunderstand over-zealousness with department policy. Locally we have to run every single gun through the checks via serial and the person via a permit system. It has to be done every time for every gun, more of a CYA/liability thing than a degradation of rights.

David Armstrong
05-22-2012, 09:13 AM
Correct.




Correct.




And that really depends on the question being asked. In the case voodoo_man cited, the motorist can lie to the police (wasn't a fed),
twice if asked again. That does not give the officer cause to search his vehicle, unless this was the premise for the stop. Though the
motorist told the second officer that he did in fact have a fireman would not give cause for the officers to detain him for two hours.
Sorry, there is no justifying this action by law, and the motorist can most certainly raise a stink about it.
Sorry, but when you tell one officer one story then tell another officer another story that directly contradicts the story you just told the first officer, that is suspicious and can provide the basis for further investigation.

voodoo_man
05-22-2012, 09:56 AM
Sorry, but when you tell one officer one story then tell another officer another story that directly contradicts the story you just told the first officer, that is suspicious and can provide the basis for further investigation.

It will provide basis for further investigation. A person who lies to the police is obviously hiding something.

Much easier if you are just honest right away - especially over something which is perfectly legal to begin with.

Jac
05-22-2012, 11:38 AM
more of a CYA/liability thing than a degradation of rights.

Those aren't necessarily exlusive...

voodoo_man
05-22-2012, 11:42 AM
Those aren't necessarily exlusive...

While that may sometimes be true, I assure you in this context there is absolutely no maliciousness. It is all about policy.

cclaxton
05-22-2012, 03:30 PM
:D
To be blunt, and with complete sincerity, do you really believe in the "don't talk to police" motto? It is right up there with "don't snitch" in terms of logic.

If an officer is speaking with you on the street in reference to anything above a summary - meaning misdemeanor or felony - if you just shutdown and do not answer any questions that is a HUGE red flag. You want to invoke your right to an attorney when you aren't even charged yet or even in handcuffs, then by all means be my guest. It really shows the lack of understanding many people have.

An officer can use "anything" I said prior to being read my Miranda Rights. Officers may also lie to me in the course of their investigation, which starts as soon as they arrive. If the officer wants to cuff me simply because I refused to say anything about the incident, then my attorney will be talking to him/her as to why. I would rather sit in a cell and wait for my attorney than be falsely charged or implicated in a crime I didn't commit.
CC

Gun
05-22-2012, 03:57 PM
The only time I have ever had an issue on this matter was with a guy who had stickers of gun companies (glock, springfield, larue, etc) on the back of his truck. I came up, asked for his info and asked him if he was carrying. He said no. I went back and ran his name to see if he had a permit to carry, which he did and did not show us. My partner went up and asked the same question he got a yes. Well he was "held up" for a good two hours while we crossed every t and dotted every i.

Let’s go back to why I stated previously that this doesn’t fly.

First, you pulled someone over, since you didn’t state it, for a traffic or vehicle violation.

Next, you see the gun related decals on the vehicle, and ask him if he is carrying.

Next, you run him for an LTCF (in PA), and find he’s been issued one.

Then, your partner ask him if he is carrying.

So tell me, what legally supports this question, (again), that legally requires a truthful response, if you are not going to place him under arrest for another action?

And what if he said “No”, the second time asked?





On another tack, I personally know of more than one or two officers who make a point of running the serial numbers of any weapon they encounter in the course of their duties through the NCIC.

This is another problem, especially in PA, where there is no database (supposedly). People have had their firearms confiscated because the serial # didn't come back to them, or even in the database, and there is a variety of legitimate reasons for this happening.

ronin0829
05-22-2012, 11:13 PM
I had a long reply typed out but decided not to post it due to it being argumentative and the fact that this discussion has gotten away from what I believe was the original intent of the original post.

I feel that the OP was trying to educate people on why some things happen the way they do that people may not understand. It seems to have turned in to something different.

As a Police Officer I have rules, laws, and ordinances that I have to follow and enforce. Some people don't like being "caught". When they are caught they are nervous. You don't think that sometimes we as Police Officers get nervous.

If we can offer to educate you on some of the things that happen and why, that should help to make all of us less apprehensive when we meet.

Coyotesfan97
05-23-2012, 02:11 AM
13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:

(a) In the furtherance of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706, a violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03 or any other felony offense; or

(b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or

Again this is Arizona but the relevant passage is italized. You lie about having a gun on you and you can be charged. If you want to play LLPOF with the Officer who stops you you takes your chances....

Maybe the better question to Voodoo is what would have happened if the driver had responded truthfully when asked? It's a lot less convoluted.

Tamara
05-23-2012, 05:32 AM
This is another problem, especially in PA, where there is no database (supposedly). People have had their firearms confiscated because the serial # didn't come back to them, or even in the database, and there is a variety of legitimate reasons for this happening.

What "database"? Huh? What? What kind of gun store rumor is that?

Running the gun through the NCIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCIC) isn't to see if the serial number "comes back to them", it's to see if the gun is one that has been reported stolen.

Jay Cunningham
05-23-2012, 06:39 AM
What "database"? Huh? What? What kind of gun store rumor is that?

Running the gun through the NCIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCIC) isn't to see if the serial number "comes back to them", it's to see if the gun is one that has been reported stolen.

PA doesn't use national insta-check; they have a state insta-check maintained by the State Police.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=4451&&PageID=461119&level=2&css=L2&mode=2

People have been arguing about this system since its implementation in 1998, and the State Police have been accused numerous times of maintaining an illegal database, since PA supposedly does not have "gun registry".

Tamara
05-23-2012, 06:53 AM
PA doesn't use national insta-check; they have a state insta-check maintained by the State Police.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=4451&&PageID=461119&level=2&css=L2&mode=2

People have been arguing about this system since its implementation in 1998, and the State Police have been accused numerous times of maintaining an illegal database, since PA supposedly does not have "gun registry".

Yes. Tennessee had likewise, with TICS.

But that is a completely separate thing from a policeman running a gun through the NCIC. NCIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCIC) is not NICS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System) , although the similar acronyms seem to confuse a lot of people.

NICS is what the people in the gun store (in those states that don't use state-level intermediaries) call to see if someone is a prohibited person. The NCIC is what the policeman on the side of the road checks a firearm's make, model, and serial number against.

Now, I can not speak with authority on Pennsylvania's state-level NICS equivalent, but in Tennessee, at the time of purchase, not only does TICS check the buyer against NICS, but they also check the firearm against the NCIC. I would assume that Pennsylvania's is broadly similar.

(This caused amusement one time when a brand new Charter Arms I just sold returned a hit as having been stolen in 1986. I patiently explained to the nice TSP people that this would have required the use of a time machine, and everybody had to take a good look at the shipping manifest before they were satisfied that it was a false alarm.)

voodoo_man
05-23-2012, 09:36 AM
An officer can use "anything" I said prior to being read my Miranda Rights. Officers may also lie to me in the course of their investigation, which starts as soon as they arrive. If the officer wants to cuff me simply because I refused to say anything about the incident, then my attorney will be talking to him/her as to why. I would rather sit in a cell and wait for my attorney than be falsely charged or implicated in a crime I didn't commit.
CC

You seem to believe that an officer will simply arrest you and that you will be "interrogated" on the street without being Mirandized. This only happens on TV.


Let’s go back to why I stated previously that this doesn’t fly.

First, you pulled someone over, since you didn’t state it, for a traffic or vehicle violation.

Next, you see the gun related decals on the vehicle, and ask him if he is carrying.

Next, you run him for an LTCF (in PA), and find he’s been issued one.

Then, your partner ask him if he is carrying.

So tell me, what legally supports this question, (again), that legally requires a truthful response, if you are not going to place him under arrest for another action?

And what if he said “No”, the second time asked?

This is another problem, especially in PA, where there is no database (supposedly). People have had their firearms confiscated because the serial # didn't come back to them, or even in the database, and there is a variety of legitimate reasons for this happening.

Lets just stop assuming things here, I am not going to go into deep description of the situation for opsec reasons.

If you want to learn how to not get into his situation it is very simple. Tell the truth and do not omit information when asked about.

The gun related decals give me RS for a weapon investigation since the normal citizen does not have gun decals everywhere on the back of their vehicle. I am allowed to ask anything I want (respectively), especially if it pertains to my safety.

Legally there is technically no legal requirement for him answering. But the resultant investigation would have determined that he was in fact carrying a firearm and lied about it when asked by a police officer - something he is not allowed to do in my AO. He would have had his permit revoked shortly thereafter for his lie.

As for database - get off it seriously. The ultra 2A right wing gun nut "wak-a-doo's" always believe someone is tracking them and everything. I have never heard someone get their firearm confiscated for the specific reason of their firearm serial # not "coming back to them" as if there is some sort of law saying you cannot carry my gun and I cannot carry your gun. You do not have to own the gun you are carrying, it just has to not be stolen.


13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:

(a) In the furtherance of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706, a violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03 or any other felony offense; or

(b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or

Again this is Arizona but the relevant passage is italized. You lie about having a gun on you and you can be charged. If you want to play LLPOF with the Officer who stops you you takes your chances....

Maybe the better question to Voodoo is what would have happened if the driver had responded truthfully when asked? It's a lot less convoluted.

It would have went something like this:

"Sir, do you have a firearm on you or in the vehicle?"
"Yes, I have LTCF and it is on my right hip, it is loaded."
"Thank you sir, please keep your hands on the steering wheel throughout this vehicle investigation."

I almost always extend courtesy to someone conceal carrying, legally. I would write whatever paperwork I need to write, let him off with a warning and DONE.


What "database"? Huh? What? What kind of gun store rumor is that?

Running the gun through the NCIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCIC) isn't to see if the serial number "comes back to them", it's to see if the gun is one that has been reported stolen.

Exactly. Two reasons why we run a serial #, to see if its stolen or to get information for a stolen gun recovered so that we can contact the original owner and know the circumstances (through the police report number attached to the stolen gun record) of the firearm.

Anything else is absolute bull.


PA doesn't use national insta-check; they have a state insta-check maintained by the State Police.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=4451&&PageID=461119&level=2&css=L2&mode=2

People have been arguing about this system since its implementation in 1998, and the State Police have been accused numerous times of maintaining an illegal database, since PA supposedly does not have "gun registry".

There is no gun registry. What there is a system that comes up when someones name is run to see if they have a good LCTF. That's it.

joshs
05-23-2012, 09:56 AM
There is no gun registry.

Pennsylvania does have a registry of handgun sales that has been maintained at least since 1931, but because the registry is incomplete, the PA Supreme Court held that it does not violate the PA statute that prohibits a firearm registry. See Allegheny County Sportsmen's League v. Rendell, 860 A.2d 10 (Pa. 2004).

voodoo_man
05-23-2012, 11:02 AM
Pennsylvania does have a registry of handgun sales that has been maintained at least since 1931, but because the registry is incomplete, the PA Supreme Court held that it does not violate the PA statute that prohibits a firearm registry. See Allegheny County Sportsmen's League v. Rendell, 860 A.2d 10 (Pa. 2004).

There is no searchable gun registry current available for use, regardless of what you have heard.

joshs
05-23-2012, 12:11 PM
There is no searchable gun registry current available for use, regardless of what you have heard.

Did the Pennsylvania State Police lie to the Court in the above cited case? I didn't claim the database was accessible to all PA agencies, but PSP went to court to defend the database in 2004. That seems like a lot of trouble to go through for a database you don't use.

krazykiddjoe
05-23-2012, 12:13 PM
With respect, you are not my friend, the police are not my friends. They are there to do a job.

I know it makes life tougher on you, but you can speak with my attorney. I'll sit in the cell, no worries.



Do you sir, truly think that all police in general are attempting to take any and all that they can to jail?
Do you think that we as police officers are out to charge any and every crime that with every question we ask is attached a criminal statute.

I say to you as you are one who instructs law abiding citizens. We are not the kgb, the gestapo, or any character you have seen portrayed as a gunning fly by the seat cops from TV.
No one likes to be lied to, simple. My folks instilled in me some core principles, you don't lie, you don't steal, you don't cheat, you, don't back talk your mother/never hit a girl.

Mr Cunningham you say on your website the following. I beg you to take the advice you give others.

Our advice to anyone attending your first formal training experience (and thereafter):


Be comfortable in your own skin.

Be aware of your lane and try your best to remain within it.

Don't judge a book by its cover.

Extend everyone courtesy but reserve your respect for those who earn it.


Apply that to encounters with the police:
RELAX, be yourself, remain calm, collected. (Don't yell, jump up and down, etc.)
Be aware that we may tell you why we are there and we may not, your free to assume things but its not advised.
Don't assume that ALL cops are BAD...
Give the officers you meet the common courtesy and respect that the position holds, the position earned the respect long before I wore a badge, and I think before doing anything if my actions will tarnish that badge's reputation.


KKJ

voodoo_man
05-23-2012, 12:21 PM
Did the Pennsylvania State Police lie to the Court in the above cited case? I didn't claim the database was accessible to all PA agencies, but PSP went to court to defend the database in 2004. That seems like a lot of trouble to go through for a database you don't use.

The PSP did not lie.

There is too much to explain in this matter. The simple answer is that there is no database which is accessible and updated in real-time for LEO's in PA. That ability does not exist and anyone who says otherwise is lying. There are circumstances where a database of firearm purchases needs to be kept for investigative reasons, if you do not know then I am not going to explain it since some it is falls under opsec.



RELAX, be yourself, remain calm, collected. (Don't yell, jump up and down, etc.)
Be aware that we may tell you why we are there and we may not, your free to assume things but its not advised.
Don't assume that ALL cops are BAD...
Give the officers you meet the common courtesy and respect that the position holds, the position earned the respect long before I wore a badge, and I think before doing anything if my actions will tarnish that badge's reputation.


KKJ

Ohh how simple it would be if people actually applied their "polite" interpersonal communication skills to encounters with police officers. But there are those out there that just dislike and distrust the police, amazing I know.

As KKJ stated, the badge is what needs to be respected. Many who I work with and many in the LE community would consider it the gravest of infractions to disgrace the badge, it is not just a job to some of us, its the reason why we do what we do.

Coyotesfan97
05-23-2012, 12:39 PM
Again this is Arizona but the relevant passage is italized. You lie about having a gun on you and you can be charged. If you want to play LLPOF with the Officer who stops you you takes your chances....

Maybe the better question to Voodoo is what would have happened if the driver had responded truthfully when asked? It's a lot less convoluted.

It would have went something like this:

"Sir, do you have a firearm on you or in the vehicle?"
"Yes, I have LTCF and it is on my right hip, it is loaded."
"Thank you sir, please keep your hands on the steering wheel throughout this vehicle investigation."

I almost always extend courtesy to someone conceal carrying, legally. I would write whatever paperwork I need to write, let him off with a warning and DONE.

Exactly. I just won a mental bet. :cool:

Jay Cunningham
05-23-2012, 12:53 PM
Do you sir, truly think that all police in general are attempting to take any and all that they can to jail?
Do you think that we as police officers are out to charge any and every crime that with every question we ask is attached a criminal statute.

I say to you as you are one who instructs law abiding citizens. We are not the kgb, the gestapo, or any character you have seen portrayed as a gunning fly by the seat cops from TV.
No one likes to be lied to, simple. My folks instilled in me some core principles, you don't lie, you don't steal, you don't cheat, you, don't back talk your mother/never hit a girl.

Mr Cunningham you say on your website the following. I beg you to take the advice you give others.

Our advice to anyone attending your first formal training experience (and thereafter):


Be comfortable in your own skin.

Be aware of your lane and try your best to remain within it.

Don't judge a book by its cover.

Extend everyone courtesy but reserve your respect for those who earn it.


Apply that to encounters with the police:
RELAX, be yourself, remain calm, collected. (Don't yell, jump up and down, etc.)
Be aware that we may tell you why we are there and we may not, your free to assume things but its not advised.
Don't assume that ALL cops are BAD...
Give the officers you meet the common courtesy and respect that the position holds, the position earned the respect long before I wore a badge, and I think before doing anything if my actions will tarnish that badge's reputation.


KKJ

You, sir, put a lot of words into my virtual mouth that I did not utter.

I deal with police almost every day, assisting them with range facilities for their qualifications. I get along with all of them quite well. During routine interactions I advise being honest, forthright, and calm.

However, I stand by my statement when the interaction no longer becomes routine - I will be incredibly courteous when I inform police that they can talk with my attorney if and when the time comes.

krazykiddjoe
05-23-2012, 01:16 PM
However, I stand by my statement when the interaction no longer becomes routine - I will be incredibly courteous when I inform police that they can talk with my attorney if and when the time comes.


I understand your point and position and respect that, context is everything and agree that if you feel that you are a suspect then by all means contact your attorney, just understand that a cop asking if your armed on a traffic stop is 99% of the time NOT him suspecting you of criminal activity they would like to know for his/her own safety however, understand in NC, if you shut down and refuse to talk to police then we may only have the other side of the story and may charge accordingly. 85% of police work is reactive and 15% is proactive in general. When responding to a disturbance and subject 1 is babbling everything, and subject 2 says "you can speak with my attorney" The cop has few options, and you will most likely be charged and given your opportunity to speak with a judge with your lawyer. I don't know if PA is the same, but in most situations that we deal with, I listen to both sides of the story, make a ruling and most of the time advise the "wronged" party to seek warrants for misdemeanor offenses, complete a report and document the piss out of it, or if a felony is being alleged, I'll contact a detective to respond and investigate or for his/her recommended actions. As a road cop that's my job description, I am the "initial" officer.

Every dept and every officer has to consider liability and the possibility of liability in every decision and action.
Every officer is in fact human and there are unfortunately bad cops as there are bad lawyers, bad mechanics and bad doctors...


KKJ

Jay Cunningham
05-23-2012, 02:25 PM
just understand that a cop asking if your armed on a traffic stop is 99% of the time NOT him suspecting you of criminal activity they would like to know for his/her own safety

Just understand that if you're pulling me over for a traffic stop then you should simply give me my ticket or my warning and then let me go on my way. It's none of your business if I'm legally armed in my vehicle in Pennsylvania. If you ask if I'm armed I won't lie to you, but you didn't pull me over on suspicion of carrying an illegally concealed weapon. If you order me out of the vehicle and order me to hand over my firearm, I'll comply. If you want to look in my car, I'm going to tell you "I don't consent to that". If you want to press it further and detain me and get a warrant or whatever you need, then go ahead and do it.

But I'm not going to defer to you just because you have a badge. If you suspect me of a crime, then arrest me and you can deal with my attorney. Otherwise leave me alone.

I've never given a cop a hard time, but I'm not about to bend over and spread for some cop who thinks I'm not respectin' his authoritah enough.

Gun
05-23-2012, 04:07 PM
The gun related decals give me RS for a weapon investigation since the normal citizen does not have gun decals everywhere on the back of their vehicle.



So thin that 4A will poke holes thru it.


Legally there is technically no legal requirement for him answering. But the resultant investigation would have determined that he was in fact carrying a firearm and lied about it when asked by a police officer - something he is not allowed to do in my AO. He would have had his permit revoked shortly thereafter for his lie.

Since the resultant investigation isn't supported by law, the LTCF would not be revoked. But Phillie is a different story, and a real problem.


As for database - get off it seriously. The ultra 2A right wing gun nut "wak-a-doo's" always believe someone is tracking them and everything. I have never heard someone get their firearm confiscated for the specific reason of their firearm serial # not "coming back to them" as if there is some sort of law saying you cannot carry my gun and I cannot carry your gun. You do not have to own the gun you are carrying, it just has to not be stolen.

Sorry, again violates 4A.



If you order me out of the vehicle and order me to hand over my firearm, I'll comply.

An officer can not legally confiscate a firearm from someone in PA, or for that matter any where else, unless he has RAS of some crime about to be committed, or has been committed by that person carrying the firearm. Having decals doesn't count.

*********************

I live in PA. If I travel to Ohio, I know I must inform, immediately, to the officer of a firearm in my possession. If I travel to any other state, I will likewise know the laws concerning firearms for that state. This is a no-brainer.

Police officers deserve respect, but we don't live in a police state, and we don't have to surrender our possessions, just for scrutiny and the hunch of it being stolen.

Jay Cunningham
05-23-2012, 04:33 PM
I know how the law reads in PA; I'm stating that I'm willing to comply with that directive in that instance. I'm not some kind of nut looking to wave a flyer in a cop's face in the hopes of "educating" them.

Gun
05-23-2012, 04:38 PM
I don't carry flyers.

voodoo_man
05-23-2012, 06:02 PM
@gun, I am sorry for your misinformation, but I am going to stop responding to you. I have been in many situations where there was no violation of 4A for the exact reasons of RS stated, this is not just my AO, its everywhere. Believe it or not, I am not going to be responding to you again.

Jay Cunningham
05-23-2012, 06:10 PM
voodoo, there's no need for melodramatic statements that you're not going to respond to someone.

Just don't respond to them.

voodoo_man
05-23-2012, 06:12 PM
voodoo, there's no need for melodramatic statements that you're not going to respond to someone.

Just don't respond to them.

I want him to at least know why. It's better than me insulting him. I prefer straight to the point posting, definitely zero drama included.

fixer
05-24-2012, 06:19 AM
:D



To be blunt, and with complete sincerity, do you really believe in the "don't talk to police" motto? It is right up there with "don't snitch" in terms of logic.

If an officer is speaking with you on the street in reference to anything above a summary - meaning misdemeanor or felony - if you just shutdown and do not answer any questions that is a HUGE red flag. You want to invoke your right to an attorney when you aren't even charged yet or even in handcuffs, then by all means be my guest. It really shows the lack of understanding many people have.


Once any information leaves your mouth, for use by the police, it has lost your control in how it will be used. And it will be used against you.

For an officer it may be a red flag, but for the rest it is necessary to keep from being entangled in the miserable experience of our justice systems.

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 07:13 AM
Once any information leaves your mouth, for use by the police, it has lost your control in how it will be used. And it will be used against you.

For an officer it may be a red flag, but for the rest it is necessary to keep from being entangled in the miserable experience of our justice systems.

If you have committed no crimes, and are not under direct investigation, speaking with an officer on the street can only help to you.

Jay Cunningham
05-24-2012, 07:18 AM
If you have committed no crimes, and are not under direct investigation, speaking with an officer on the street can only help to you.

Dude - I'm not buying what you're selling.

ford.304
05-24-2012, 08:20 AM
If you have committed no crimes, and are not under direct investigation, speaking with an officer on the street can only help to you.

If the officer on the street thinks you have committed no crimes, then speaking with an officer can help you.

There's a difference.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for the patent on my police officer mind reading device. So I will be polite and helpful within the bounds of my 4th amendment rights. No, sir, you may not search my car or my house without a warrant. But I will happily provide my driver's license, insurance paperwork, and CCW ID, as required by law. I will also happily discuss the weather, how you would prefer I pull to the side of the road to maximize your safety, and whether the new issue M&P's are any good.

I treat law officers like what they are - mostly decent people, just like most, who are doing an important job, but who have the power to make my life very, very difficult if they think I did something wrong.

Thankfully, out where I live most of my interaction with the police has been helping them track down a neighbor's loose horse, so it's not too much of an issue.

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 08:48 AM
Dude - I'm not buying what you're selling.

I am not trying to sell anything.

Just trying to interject a little bit knowledge on those who are stuck in a particular mindset.

Guess I am wasting my time.

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 08:49 AM
If the officer on the street thinks you have committed no crimes, then speaking with an officer can help you.

There's a difference.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for the patent on my police officer mind reading device. So I will be polite and helpful within the bounds of my 4th amendment rights. No, sir, you may not search my car or my house without a warrant. But I will happily provide my driver's license, insurance paperwork, and CCW ID, as required by law. I will also happily discuss the weather, how you would prefer I pull to the side of the road to maximize your safety, and whether the new issue M&P's are any good.

I treat law officers like what they are - mostly decent people, just like most, who are doing an important job, but who have the power to make my life very, very difficult if they think I did something wrong.

Thankfully, out where I live most of my interaction with the police has been helping them track down a neighbor's loose horse, so it's not too much of an issue.

No one said you have to do anything other than talk. If you are suspected of a crime you will be arrested regardless of what you say.

ford.304
05-24-2012, 09:24 AM
No one said you have to do anything other than talk. If you are suspected of a crime you will be arrested regardless of what you say.

The arrest isn't the concerning part, though, it's the trial afterwards. I'm actually completely happy to talk to police once I have a lawyer present and everything goes on a written record.

I don't think officers go out of their way to twist lawful people's words against them. I think they do everything they can to put bad people behind bars. However, the "bad person" detector obviously isn't perfect if it's managed to pick up me, so I'll be careful what I talk about ;-) I don't think there needs to be any malice involved on anyone's part for that to be a good idea.

RoyGBiv
05-24-2012, 09:31 AM
I don't think officers go out of their way to twist lawful people's words against them. I think they do everything they can to put bad people behind bars. However, the "bad person" detector obviously isn't perfect if it's managed to pick up me, so I'll be careful what I talk about ;-) I don't think there needs to be any malice involved on anyone's part for that to be a good idea.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Exactly.png

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 09:50 AM
The arrest isn't the concerning part, though, it's the trial afterwards. I'm actually completely happy to talk to police once I have a lawyer present and everything goes on a written record.

I don't think officers go out of their way to twist lawful people's words against them. I think they do everything they can to put bad people behind bars. However, the "bad person" detector obviously isn't perfect if it's managed to pick up me, so I'll be careful what I talk about ;-) I don't think there needs to be any malice involved on anyone's part for that to be a good idea.

See the issue is that people do not walk around with massive neon arrows pointing down saying "Drug Dealer" or "Rapist" or whatever. So when we come across someone, while it requires some sort of interpersonal communication/interaction it becomes very easy to see what type of person they are and what will happen next. The nicer you are and the less BS you put the officer through the easier the interaction will be.

RoyGBiv
05-24-2012, 10:12 AM
See the issue is that people do not walk around with massive neon arrows pointing down saying "Drug Dealer" or "Rapist" or whatever. So when we come across someone, while it requires some sort of interpersonal communication/interaction it becomes very easy to see what type of person they are and what will happen next. The nicer you are and the less BS you put the officer through the easier the interaction will be.

And police officers, similarly, don't walk around with neon signs saying "always open minded", "ready and able to evaluate the evidence on it's merits", "possessing perfect knowledge of the law and perfect ability to apply it", "capable of forming an unbiased, rational opinion, even though my wife just left me for the gardener and they want to take my kids with them when they move to Brazil"...

You need to realize that YOU possess ALL the authority in that situation. That badge gets you my respect, but not necessarily my TRUST. Would you TRUST any stranger, even one with a badge, to correctly interpret all the possibly conflicting information at the scene and render a perfect decision that could affect the rest of your life? Of course not.

You decide whether I'm taking a ride today. The only thing I can control is how much rope I give you to twist.
If I think that you might be looking at me for a crime, I'll need to decide on the spot whether I'm better off keeping quiet or trying to convince you of my innocence by giving you facts that might be "used against me in a court of law".

Sure.... maybe it's too much TV. Or the fact that YouTube only has one "positive" example of a LEO responding professionally to OC.
Maybe it's also grounded in some reality.

You have all the authority. Don't be so suspicious of an otherwise squeaky-clean guy that prefers to keep quiet in the face of an imperfect decision maker (we all are) with the ability to put them in prison on a bad decision.

LHS
05-24-2012, 10:23 AM
See the issue is that people do not walk around with massive neon arrows pointing down saying "Drug Dealer" or "Rapist" or whatever. So when we come across someone, while it requires some sort of interpersonal communication/interaction it becomes very easy to see what type of person they are and what will happen next. The nicer you are and the less BS you put the officer through the easier the interaction will be.

This is true for both sides of the street.

A police officer who makes a 'routine' traffic stop will take certain actions to help ensure his safety. He'll approach the vehicle in an alert manner, ask about weapons, and keep his eyes open. At least in my AO, it's also permissible for the officer to take control of any weapons present, regardless of CCW permit, etc. This is to promote officer safety during a short interaction, because the officer doesn't know if the guy he pulled over is Average Joe or Michael Platt. Thus, the officer has to treat everyone with a fair degree of caution.

Now turn that around to the civilian's point of view. The vast majority of police officers are professionals doing a job. They aren't looking to trick us into revealing some technicality that they can use to put us in jail. However, the police officer has the capability to completely ruin our lives if he decides to abuse his power, and once that genie's out of the bottle, it's very very hard to put it back. I've seen what happens when a good person is railroaded by overzealous police and/or corrupt prosecutors. It's a rather rare occurrence, but the consequences are dire enough that you have to take them into account despite their relative rarity. Good intentions are worthless when the county prosecutor decides he wants your ass on a platter, evidence (or lack thereof) be damned.

Very few cops try to screw over Average Joe... but very few people (compared to the total population) try to murder cops who pull them over in a traffic stop. That doesn't stop police officers from logically and correctly implementing procedures to limit that chance even further, and it shouldn't stop civilians from doing the equivalent. After all, we don't know if the cop walking up to our vehicle is voodoo_man or this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc.

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 10:26 AM
And police officers, similarly, don't walk around with neon signs saying "always open minded", "ready and able to evaluate the evidence on it's merits", "possessing perfect knowledge of the law and perfect ability to apply it", "capable of forming an unbiased, rational opinion, even though my wife just left me for the gardener and they want to take my kids with them when they move to Brazil"...

You need to realize that YOU possess ALL the authority in that situation.
That badge gets you my respect, but not necessarily my TRUST.
You decide whether I'm taking a ride today. The only thing I can control is how much rope I give you to twist.
If I think that you might be looking at me for a crime, I'll need to decide on the spot whether I'm better off keeping quiet or trying to convince you of my innocence by giving you facts that might be "used against me in a court of law".

Sure.... maybe it's too much TV. Or the fact that YouTube only has one "positive" example of a LEO responding professionally to OC.
Maybe it's also grounded in some reality.

You have all the authority. Don't be so suspicious of an otherwise squeaky-clean guy that prefers to keep quiet in the face of an imperfect decision maker (we all are) with the ability to put them in prison on a bad decision.

Again, I will reiterate.

On a street-level, non-mirandized, police/citizen interaction/communication none of this applies.

If I am walking down the street on my beat and see you walking down the street, I say "hello" are you going to tell me "fuck you cop I ain't talking to you unless I get a lawyer!"

Sure you are well within your right to, but is it the right course of action?

If I show up to your house because of a domestic violence call from anyone but you, are you going to not talk to me? If I stop you for a traffic violation and ask for your information, then spark up a conversation about where you are going, are you not going to talk to me? If you call the police to report an accident, burglary, etc and I show up and start asking you questions, are you not going to talk to me without a lawyer present?

Good, law abiding citizens, very rarely - if ever - get jammed up for something they did not do. Its EXTREMELY difficult to get arrested, and then during the course of an investigation get charged by a DA's charging unit when the investigation and charges has nothing holding it together.

I'll give you another scenario and see how you answer. If I stop you for a motor vehicle violation, while I am asking you for your license, insurance and registration I smell an odor of alcoholic beverage or burnt marijuana, maybe you appear drowsy/sleepy with some sort of slurred speech and watery, bloodshot eyes. Are you not going to answer my questions? What if yo just worked a double and have not slept in two days and you just dropped someone off at home who you picked up from a bar that was drinking. You are completely innocent (until proven guilty in a court) during this interaction, are you going to sit there and not say a single word other that which you are required?

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 10:32 AM
This is true for both sides of the street.

A police officer who makes a 'routine' traffic stop will take certain actions to help ensure his safety. He'll approach the vehicle in an alert manner, ask about weapons, and keep his eyes open. At least in my AO, it's also permissible for the officer to take control of any weapons present, regardless of CCW permit, etc. This is to promote officer safety during a short interaction, because the officer doesn't know if the guy he pulled over is Average Joe or Michael Platt. Thus, the officer has to treat everyone with a fair degree of caution.

Now turn that around to the civilian's point of view. The vast majority of police officers are professionals doing a job. They aren't looking to trick us into revealing some technicality that they can use to put us in jail. However, the police officer has the capability to completely ruin our lives if he decides to abuse his power, and once that genie's out of the bottle, it's very very hard to put it back. I've seen what happens when a good person is railroaded by overzealous police and/or corrupt prosecutors. It's a rather rare occurrence, but the consequences are dire enough that you have to take them into account despite their relative rarity. Good intentions are worthless when the county prosecutor decides he wants your ass on a platter, evidence (or lack thereof) be damned.

Very few cops try to screw over Average Joe... but very few people (compared to the total population) try to murder cops who pull them over in a traffic stop. That doesn't stop police officers from logically and correctly implementing procedures to limit that chance even further, and it shouldn't stop civilians from doing the equivalent. After all, we don't know if the cop walking up to our vehicle is voodoo_man or
this guy.

The occurrence of abuse of power to this level is so rare that you have a better chance of getting hit by lightening 3 times while winning the lottery, twice. I have never known this to happen, I have never heard of this aside from a news article a few years back about how an officer and a DA conspired to charge this one guy up (because they wanted to bang his wife or something) and it didn't work.

So in short, it simply does not occur even close to enough to warrant this type of action. Your comparison about guns in vehicles and shootouts does not compare. I have had multiple situations where I have these types of experiences (can't get into it for opsec). It happens, officer safety is #1 for many of us and anything we can do to mitigate risk we will.

David Armstrong
05-24-2012, 10:42 AM
If you have committed no crimes, and are not under direct investigation, speaking with an officer on the street can only help to you.
I'm not one of those who advocates "never talk to the police" and instead do offer the idea that limited discussion is more likely to help than hurt, however anytime you talk with the police there is the potential for it creating a problem for you. The trick is figuring out how much to say to assist and inform the officer without saying something that may cause the flags to go up.

EMC
05-24-2012, 10:43 AM
I think the title of this thread is a bit divisive. I think it should be titled: "Working with the police". "Dealing" makes it sound like their services aren't appreciated.

Jay Cunningham
05-24-2012, 10:54 AM
Good lord this conversation has gone on for a long time.

This is a discussion forum.

LHS
05-24-2012, 11:25 AM
The occurrence of abuse of power to this level is so rare that you have a better chance of getting hit by lightening 3 times while winning the lottery, twice. I have never known this to happen, I have never heard of this aside from a news article a few years back about how an officer and a DA conspired to charge this one guy up (because they wanted to bang his wife or something) and it didn't work.

So in short, it simply does not occur even close to enough to warrant this type of action. Your comparison about guns in vehicles and shootouts does not compare. I have had multiple situations where I have these types of experiences (can't get into it for opsec). It happens, officer safety is #1 for many of us and anything we can do to mitigate risk we will.

Rare or not, I've seen it happen, and it nearly ruined my best friend's life. It cost him three years and thousands of dollars tied up in legal battles over a "crime" that was purely a figment of the prosecutor's imagination.

I don't ever want to give anyone the chance to put me through that. That means I'll be friendly, courteous and respectful to LE, but I won't give up anything that could be twisted against me. It doesn't mean I'll be a pompous dickhead when a cop pulls me over, it just means I'll be cautious, the same as you.

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 11:32 AM
Rare or not, I've seen it happen, and it nearly ruined my best friend's life. It cost him three years and thousands of dollars tied up in legal battles over a "crime" that was purely a figment of the prosecutor's imagination.

I don't ever want to give anyone the chance to put me through that. That means I'll be friendly, courteous and respectful to LE, but I won't give up anything that could be twisted against me. It doesn't mean I'll be a pompous dickhead when a cop pulls me over, it just means I'll be cautious, the same as you.

Sounds interesting, is there a news article related to this or a docket I can look up?

Like I have repeatedly stated. Speaking with the police on a street level can only help you. When you are being formally interviewed, its up to you if you want a lawyer or not.

David Armstrong
05-24-2012, 12:51 PM
Sounds interesting, is there a news article related to this or a docket I can look up?

Like I have repeatedly stated. Speaking with the police on a street level can only help you.
Sorry. I spent a career in LE and as a blanket statement that is just not accurate. Speaking with the police on any level can sometimes hurt you. Sometimes not speaking with them can hurt you. The trick is knowing which time you are involved with.

ford.304
05-24-2012, 01:46 PM
See the issue is that people do not walk around with massive neon arrows pointing down saying "Drug Dealer" or "Rapist" or whatever. So when we come across someone, while it requires some sort of interpersonal communication/interaction it becomes very easy to see what type of person they are and what will happen next. The nicer you are and the less BS you put the officer through the easier the interaction will be.

I *completely* agree with this statement. I have not meant to imply anything different with anything I have said.

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 03:01 PM
Sorry. I spent a career in LE and as a blanket statement that is just not accurate. Speaking with the police on any level can sometimes hurt you. Sometimes not speaking with them can hurt you. The trick is knowing which time you are involved with.

It is not meant as a blanket statement.

If a police officer is talking to you, and its more than a mere encounter, you can talk or you can choose not to talk. Not talking will not help you, then again if you talk yourself into a hole then that is your issue.

I advise anyone who rambles on to not to speak to police because you will get yourself jammed up - IF you are guilty of something ;)


better?

CMG
05-24-2012, 04:01 PM
Not being a LEO, I don't see how asking someone if they are armed has anything to do with officer safety. If I say "I have a valid CCW and am carrying my gun [at this location]" with my hands on the steering wheel in a calm voice is the officer somehow now less safe? Or the flip side, if I answer "No" does the officer feel more safe because he believed me? I believe someone on this forum or another said something to effect of "Have a plan to kill everyone and dial it back from there". Would it not be more prudent to assume everyone is armed and ready to kill you and then based on their actions dial back your response based on their actions? Of the incidents that officers were harmed how many of the people that attacked them with weapons answered "Yes" to if they were armed? My unscientific wild ass guess would be that almost all them answered "No".

I have no problem giving the police correct information but I have issue with being treated like a potential criminal if I answer "Yes"** and for their safety they decide to disarm me and potentially run the serial number of my gun. To get my CCW I had to submit finger prints and go through a FBI background check. If anything the fact the I have a CCW would make me LESS likely to be a bad guy. I don't see how a person with a valid CCW would need to be disarmed for officer safety if they are behaving in a calm manner with their hands visible at all times.

This kind of reminds me of DRM on movies/books/music. While the purpose of the DRM is to reduce "piracy" the practical effect is the people who actually purchase the product go through more hassle than people who just steal it from the get go.

**In my state there is no duty to inform so I do not to tell them if they don't ask.

cclaxton
05-24-2012, 04:15 PM
Let's try this scenario:

Two cars and a motorcycle are involved in a car accident on a major thoroughfare and the motorcyclist died and the motorists were uninjured. No one in law enforcement witnessed the accident and there is no video footage. There is the potential that one or both drivers will be charged with a serious charge, such as motor vehicle negligent homicide (or whatever they might call it in another state).

1) Should either of the drivers say anything to the police about what happened?
2) If the answer is Yes, then what information should be shared?
3) How would a person protect those statements from being used against him/her in a court of law?
4) If the person is later charged, what is stopping the prosecutors from using those "innocent statements" against them after they re-evaluate the accident and decide to charge them?

I still submit that the best course of action is to respectfully say that you would need to speak to an attorney before making any statements.

CC

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 04:53 PM
Let's try this scenario:

Two cars and a motorcycle are involved in a car accident on a major thoroughfare and the motorcyclist died and the motorists were uninjured. No one in law enforcement witnessed the accident and there is no video footage. There is the potential that one or both drivers will be charged with a serious charge, such as motor vehicle negligent homicide (or whatever they might call it in another state).

1) Should either of the drivers say anything to the police about what happened?
2) If the answer is Yes, then what information should be shared?
3) How would a person protect those statements from being used against him/her in a court of law?
4) If the person is later charged, what is stopping the prosecutors from using those "innocent statements" against them after they re-evaluate the accident and decide to charge them?

I still submit that the best course of action is to respectfully say that you would need to speak to an attorney before making any statements.

CC

Any fatal vehicle-related collision on any road will be held as a "scene" (in my AO at least) this means crime scene tape, an accident reconstruction expert/officer will come to the scene and take pictures, ask questions, etc. Who ever the officer is who is going to write up the paperwork or whoever the investigator is (sometimes its two different officers) will be asking the questions and figuring out if there is going to be charging or not.

In terms of collisions, the only time a person is charged in a fatal accident is when there is, statements (his or witnesses) and corroborating evidence which shows one end or another.

So to answer your list.

1) You do not have to say anything if you do not want to, but that will work against you because that officer/investigator will now have to rely on the words of other drivers and witnesses. The investigator will also need to rely on physical evidence. So the first arriving officer may see the two drivers of the two vehicles and observe them for a short period of time, maybe one has symptoms of DUI (which may be confused with adrenaline after a serious/fatal accident) - do you want him to make up his own mind or are you going to talk to him and answer any questions he may have to put yourself in the right?
2) You should share whatever information is required. There is no reason for you to go into how you beat your wife three weeks back and you were thinking about it while driving, therefore got distracted. You should respond to all questions naturally and clearly - "just the facts."
3) Any and all statements, movements/actions, circumstances should and will be recorded (many times because the first arriving officer has an NVR (video) and/or a good/experienced investigator will document every detail). You will be interviewed right away on the scene (unless you are injured then at the hospital) and a good investigator will interview you again two or three days later, then again a week or two later. Temporary memory loss is very common in collisions, especially fatal collisions as those involved have huge adrenaline dumps, hence the reoccurring interview.
4) Nothing will stop the prosecution from using any statements they made against them. What you say will always be held against you in a court of law.

The issue that I have come across during my travels is that people misunderstand the legal concepts and believe that they absolutely need a lawyer. If you are driving the expressway, and someone slams into you, causing you to spin out of control and you run over a motorcycle, killing the operator you have no fault, no liability. It is an unfortunate circumstance for sure, but unless you are DUI, have a suspended/revoked/no license/are legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle, and you stick around to give your statement to the police you have literally nothing to worry about. I have been the "investigator" for about two to three dozen fatal accidents and have helped other officers in well over fifty fatal collisions and the only time a person was charged was when they were DUI, unlicensed or attempted/did flee the scene.

Coyotesfan97
05-24-2012, 07:12 PM
Let's try this scenario:

Two cars and a motorcycle are involved in a car accident on a major thoroughfare and the motorcyclist died and the motorists were uninjured. No one in law enforcement witnessed the accident and there is no video footage. There is the potential that one or both drivers will be charged with a serious charge, such as motor vehicle negligent homicide (or whatever they might call it in another state).

1) Should either of the drivers say anything to the police about what happened?
2) If the answer is Yes, then what information should be shared?
3) How would a person protect those statements from being used against him/her in a court of law?
4) If the person is later charged, what is stopping the prosecutors from using those "innocent statements" against them after they re-evaluate the accident and decide to charge them?

I still submit that the best course of action is to respectfully say that you would need to speak to an attorney before making any statements.

CC

Why is there a potential they might be charged? Are they intoxicated, impaired by drugs, driving on a suspended license, drag racing, running a light at double the speed limit? We just had an accident where an autistic child wandered out on the freeway and was struck and killed. The driver who hit him wasnt impaired and stayed at the scene. He isn't being charged with anything.

1. That's a decision you have to make. Let's say you are stopped at the light are doing everything legally and the motorcyclist fails to stop and slams into the back of your car. He's flung off and the second driver runs over him. What's the reasoning behind not saying anything?

2. What did your driving instructor tell you and what does your insurance agent tell you? Never admit fault.

3 and 4. There isn't any guaranteed way. A supression hearing is one way. But you probably knew that already. You could record your statement while you make it.

Our vehicular crime guys who reconstruct the accident usually don't talk to anyone until they've viewed the crash scene looking at vehicles, scuff marks , tire marks, and debris. They usually have a pretty good idea of what happened.

I'll bet it's a higher percentage than the general population but how many of you who say you won't make a statement until you speak to your attorney actually have one on retainer or have his number on your cell phone.

For a DUI or vehicular crime we have specific telephone rooms with yellow pages where you can call your attorney. But thats at the DRE/blood draw room and you're in custody at that point.

krazykiddjoe
05-24-2012, 07:29 PM
First Off, The police don't have the power or authority to put you in PRISON, that's for the courts to decide.


In the above scenario, Lets put it this way, I'm on duty, driving my patrol car, I hit a drunk homeless man dressed in all dark dirty clothing stumbling out from an alleyway in a dark area of our downtown area. I immediately stop my vehicle and attempt to render aid. The subject is now deceased and I have supervisors, investigators, traffic units, internal affairs and the Chief all on my scene. My vehicle is photographed, my PERSONAL phone will be seized (to see if I was texting while driving or otherwise using it while driving), I will be photographed, the vehicle will be towed the computer will have a tech run programs to track what keys were pressed just prior to the incident and I will be lastly offered an Interview. I will decline and contact my attorney and/or if I am a member of a Union I will contact that third party and request their attorney. Not that I did anything wrong, but I am now the "Suspect" in a "Death Investigation". Same difference if I had shot the suspect minus the computer and phone part....

I agree with VOODOO, talk to us to an extent and I have options, don't talk and you limit those options.


Lastly, as a training officer, I was taught and teach all new recruits that I have to use the following process. FOR TRAFFIC enforcement, NEVER ask if the driver knows why you stopped them, its the gayest question ever. UNLESS you pull over the Physic there is no chance that they really understand the reason you stopped them.
I also ask them prior to our approach if they are issuing a ticket or a warning. (more on that later)

"Hi, I'm Ofc [Blank]
The reason I stopped you is [Blank]
May I have your License and the Registration to this Vehicle Please.
Is your address correct on the license, if not what is your current address.
Understand it will be a [Citation/Warning] for the reason I stopped you today/tonight
I will be right back with you please remain in your vehicle at all times.


The reason I decide what I am issuing prior to contact, I pull a vehicle for 73/45 (common on a local freeway) I decide Citation, I approach and its an 83 year old lady never had a ticket a day in her life, she still gets a ticket, (heartless I know), I then stop a vehicle for 60/45, decide Warning, its Johnny B Bad Thug, I have arrested him 4 times, he assaulted me once prior, I have fought him once and chased him twice, he is known to sell narcotics and use narcotics and has had a revoked license previously. I have no indications that he is involved in further criminal activity today other than the speeding. His license was restored recently and I will STILL ISSUE a warning ticket. [Caveat]- Had his license been revoked or there was a more serious crime that is the only time that initial decision has changed in 8 years.


KKJ

EDIT to add:

Remember also, to stop you and detain/question you, I need Reasonable Suspicion, to charge a crime I need Probable Cause, to convict you of a crime in the Court of Law, I need beyond a reasonable doubt.

The way its been taught to us til this point,

Reasonable Suspicion = 33% chance (Look at something and think, hmmm somethings not right)
Probable Cause = 51% most officers want more, its individual decision, (Look at something, hmm did you see that shit)
Court = 85% and win 12 minds/hearts or one very self impressed judge.

Just my .02

Coyotesfan97
05-24-2012, 07:33 PM
Not being a LEO, I don't see how asking someone if they are armed has anything to do with officer safety. If I say "I have a valid CCW and am carrying my gun [at this location]" with my hands on the steering wheel in a calm voice is the officer somehow now less safe? Or the flip side, if I answer "No" does the officer feel more safe because he believed me? I believe someone on this forum or another said something to effect of "Have a plan to kill everyone and dial it back from there". Would it not be more prudent to assume everyone is armed and ready to kill you and then based on their actions dial back your response based on their actions? Of the incidents that officers were harmed how many of the people that attacked them with weapons answered "Yes" to if they were armed? My unscientific wild ass guess would be that almost all them answered "No".

Officers are trained to ask. You'd be surprised what criminals will tell you. I've taken guns off people carrying illegally who answered yes and who've told me where they are carrying. Maybe I ask the driver any weapons on you or in the car? He answers not that I know of. Huge red flag. Generally it means yes but I dont want to say so.

Are far as the guy who is armed and is thinking maybe or is formulating a plan by asking I might see something. Do you have any weapons on you? He answers no but touches his waistband or pocket to confirm his guns still there. Hopefully youvare heads up to pick up the cue.

On the street you survive by thinking what if. If this happens what then. I can be perfectly civil through a whole encounter and still have a plan formed.

fixer
05-24-2012, 07:33 PM
If you have committed no crimes, and are not under direct investigation, speaking with an officer on the street can only help to you.

How exactly can it help? I need specifics here...

Doesn't change the fact that I have an unmitigated right to not incriminate myself. The Constitutional protections against this aren't there for show. Again, once the information has left my mouth, whether truthful or not, I have zero control over how it will be used. Miranda promises it will be used against me.

Ok...so I ask if I'm under arrest, or "off the record", or if "I'm being recorded", to make sure I don't have to invoke my Miranda rights.

What if I forget to ask? What if I say something that the officer finds suspicous? How do I know what he is or isn't investigating? How do I know what he is or isn't suspicous of? Now I've unleashed a watershed of legal misery upon myself that if I had kept my mouth shut wouldn't have happened. Again, even in a casual encounter, I have zero protection against the misuse or mistaken use of information I have provided an authority.

The whole issue comes from the fact that Police have authority and legal power to investigate anyone. They can arrest anyone once there is sufficient proof for it. That proof can come from lots and lots of places including casual interactions with people.

Like others have said, the police don't have a duty to inform me that they are or they are not investigating me unless I ask.

My whole point is it is crucial for your own sovereignty to be absolutely clear on what information you are comfrotable giving police. If you aren't sure of the accuracy of the information, especially if it pertains to yourself, then it is best to remain silent.

Voodoo, Coyote: I know I'm being a hard-ass about this. I'm not here to pick a fight. I'm here to learn as much as I can from others on this site. I simply want to point out that giving information to police in any circumstance should not be taken lightly or half hearted.

Thanks for providing your perspective. I can assure you that if I sense that I have a casual encounter with an on-duty officer i try to be helpful as possible.

fixer
05-24-2012, 07:39 PM
You have all the authority. Don't be so suspicious of an otherwise squeaky-clean guy that prefers to keep quiet in the face of an imperfect decision maker (we all are) with the ability to put them in prison on a bad decision.

+1.Said better than me.

Coyotesfan97
05-24-2012, 08:24 PM
On a traffic stop I tell people why I stopped them and I'll need to see D/L etc and then I'll ask for an explanation.

Hello the reason I stopped you tonight is speeding. I clocked you at 60 in a 45 zone. I need to see your license, registration, and insurance. Is there a reason you were going that fast. If its funny or something I haven't heard before maybe you get a warning instead of a cite. If you don't want to answer whatever. As long as you give me what I need to complete the stop it's all good. I don't write a lot of tickets and I give a lot of warnings but traffic enforcement is down the list of what my job description is.

I hope you guys realize a lot of us don't get upset if you don't want to talk. I respond to a lot of major incidents and emergency calls every shift. I get paid to follow a dog around. If I'm talking to you and you say I want to talk to my attorney you probably just saved me writing a page or two in my supplement. I'll just tell the case agent I talked to Mr Smith and he wants to talk to an attorney. What happens next is on the case Officer or the Detectives. I go to my Tahoe and leave. That gets me out on the road quicker with my dog so we can find bad guys.

Shockingly I'd rather be searching with my dog then interviewing someone. :D

voodoo_man
05-24-2012, 08:37 PM
@fixer - You are not being a hard ass, you are trying to gain knowledge on how to better prepare yourself for interaction with the police. I wish all citizens were like this. You do not know what the officer is talking to you for, but you can ask, just like we can ask. Sure the officer does not have to tell you and chances are if you are going to be arrested for something you probably know it already as you have committed a crime. We are not going into "details" because, even though it is difficult to believe, there may be members/people reading this thread and loving it because they commit crimes and want to know everything they can so they can get out of it.

@coyotefan97 - I "was" a training officer until I transferred to where I work now (different unit) and when I taught rookies I always told them that you have "change it up" when it comes to tickets and arrests. The main reason for this was because we did far more pedestrian investigations than we did vehicle investigations and, even though, the area is mostly black/hispanic, you cannot always stop black/hispanic people and write them tickets. So 81yr old grandma gets a ticket, she doesn't have issues with that, she will thank us and go about her business. I also always ask the "do you know why I stopped you" question. I enjoy it because one out of every five or so vehicle stops the operator will give me something completely different, like "ohh my license is suspended" or my favorite "you saw me smoking that joint." Yes, yes I did. ;)

LittleLebowski
05-24-2012, 08:46 PM
I'll bet it's a higher percentage than the general population but how many of you who say you won't make a statement until you speak to your attorney actually have one on retainer or have his number on your cell phone.


My lawyer is listed prominently on my phone; both his personal cell and email. He reads this forum and is a libertarian/conservative shooter who competes and trains. He has instructed me to STFU in case I'm involved in a defensive shooting and that's the plan but otherwise, I don't worry too much about cops. Might be different if I could tell I was being inveigled only to fish for possibly compromising information. However, that is a judgement call on my part and I can tell when a cop is being friendly and when he might be fishing for information.

That being said; I don't have any interactions with the police other than the cop that housesits for me and watches my dog :D

I also count Coyotesfan and VoodooMan as friends. One knows dogs, one knows good sandwiches.

MEH
05-24-2012, 08:56 PM
I also always ask the "would you like to confess to something I may have missed" question.

There I fixed it for ya. ;)

Just kidding, I would not want your job for all the money in the world. Thanks. (I must mean it, as my wife just got a ticket this morning.)

LittleLebowski
05-24-2012, 09:00 PM
Insane wolf meme strikes!

795

LHS
05-24-2012, 11:11 PM
voodoo_man: I'll try and find some old newspaper articles (very little info in the ones I saw, as the town newspaper is basically written by illiterates) or a court case docket number. In this case, it wasn't that my friend talked to the cops and got railroaded, it was more that the cops got mislead by the prosecutor, but it has still colored my perception of the legal system quite negatively. Even if the cop is a great guy (and let's be honest, most of them are!), if he's not, you could end up with a dickhead prosecutor that decides it's a great time to make some headlines to gin up support for his re-election. I'd rather not take the chance.

That said, for your average traffic stop, I think there's nothing wrong with talking to the police. I'm not suggesting that every traffic stop should result in "I want my attorney" on the part of the driver. But I do think that "You mind if I look around?" should be met with a polite, yet firm, denial.

I've been around cops all my life. I think it's one of the hardest, most under-appreciated jobs in the world, and I have a lot of respect for the 95% or so who do it professionally and fairly. I've personally had great interactions with law enforcement on the few times I've encountered them in their professional capacity, mainly because most of them are decent folks, and because I treated them with respect from first contact. But you can't know what kind of person is coming up to your window. You don't know if they're one of the 95% or one of the 5%, or if they had a bad day, or what. Cops are human like anyone else. So it behooves the average citizen to be a little cautious around people who have the capacity to really screw up your life if they decide to abuse their power.

cclaxton
05-24-2012, 11:17 PM
Why is there a potential they might be charged?
Because the person who died may have relatives who want to make *someone* responsible. This is exactly the same as what happened with the Zimmerman case....*the community* wanted to hold Zimmerman responsible...they wanted "justice" to be done.


Our vehicular crime guys who reconstruct the accident usually don't talk to anyone until they've viewed the crash scene looking at vehicles, scuff marks , tire marks, and debris. They usually have a pretty good idea of what happened.

Then there is no reason for anyone to make a statement.

Of course this could have been a situation where a guy is shot instead of a motorcycle death.

Policemen/women are NOT the judge and jury. I want police to write down the facts, collect evidence, and not try to trick people into making statements or expect them to make statements that can later be used by a prosecutor who has a career to build and he is going to use my case as a way to make it ahead.

In the end it is the physical evidence that should be used to make a case and not the twisting of statements by prosecutors who are interested in getting ahead. No police should ever hold it against someone because they choose not to make a statement until they speak to an attorney.

CC

Coyotesfan97
05-25-2012, 01:15 AM
Then there is no reason for anyone to make a statement.

In the end it is the physical evidence that should be used to make a case and not the twisting of statements by prosecutors who are interested in getting ahead. No police should ever hold it against someone because they choose not to make a statement until they speak to an attorney.
CC

I wouldnt go that far. Someone will be talking to the drivers. Our fatal accidents are worked as a team. The guys doing the diagram are assisted by others taking statements and others checking for impairment. At some point the guys doing the reconstruction and the guys taking statements will compare notes to see how the physical evidence and the statements match up.

See my last post. I don't care one way or the other and I don't hold it against you.

Coyotesfan97
05-25-2012, 01:19 AM
That being said; I don't have any interactions with the police other than the cop that housesits for me and watches my dog :D

I also count Coyotesfan and VoodooMan as friends. One knows dogs, one knows good sandwiches.

Housesitting with Nacho would be fun!

:cool: vice versa LL

Tony Muhlenkamp
05-25-2012, 10:23 AM
I haven't read this entire thread; so this may be a repeat of information already posted. Cato Institute has started a site dealing with police misconduct, http://www.policemisconduct.net/

In browsing their site I came across Flex Your Rights http://flexyourrights.org/; which has produced videos on how to conduct yourself when being interviewed by the police.

I have no opinion about whether this is GOOD advice, but thought that people interested in the topic might find this useful.

Best regards,

Tony Muhlenkamp

David Armstrong
05-25-2012, 12:09 PM
It is not meant as a blanket statement.

If a police officer is talking to you, and its more than a mere encounter, you can talk or you can choose not to talk. Not talking will not help you, then again if you talk yourself into a hole then that is your issue.

I advise anyone who rambles on to not to speak to police because you will get yourself jammed up - IF you are guilty of something ;)


better?
Far better than "Speaking with the police on a street level can only help you." I still would take exception to the idea that as long as you are not guilty of something you can't ever get in trouble by talking with the police or that you can only get jammed up if you are guilty of something as anything other than a general guideline. I would also add that a LOT of the STFU advice is not based on guilty/not guilty criminal court issues, but on potential civil court issues.

Tamara
05-25-2012, 12:10 PM
I also always ask the "do you know why I stopped you" question.

"If it's for anything more than nine over, then my GPS is busted" got a laugh from the trooper.

NickA
05-25-2012, 01:12 PM
The last time I got pulled over was in a small town in north Texas. The sole cop was also the local Elvis impersonator. No rhinestones on the uniform, but he did have on the shades and the muttonchops were in full effect :)

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Shellback
05-25-2012, 04:26 PM
I haven't read this entire thread; so this may be a repeat of information already posted. Cato Institute has started a site dealing with police misconduct, http://www.policemisconduct.net/
They actually took over www.injusticeeverywhere.com and changed the name due to the owner of the site not having enough time to compile the information. All of their searchable database is due to the previous owners efforts.

voodoo_man
05-25-2012, 05:13 PM
I posted on a different forum the real reason why websites that document police misconduct are bias and lie by omission, which is because they do not document when an officer does anything correct.

Find me on anyone of those websites a dozen links to police commendation cemeronies where the police are praised.

Also those websites harp on information which is sometimes not factual, based solely on media reports and when that information is proven not accurate they do not fix their mistakes by stating they were incorrect.

But by all means look at those websites and gain whatever small amount of knowledge they give you. The real point of those websites is create discord and an us vs. them(the police) mentality.

Tamara
05-25-2012, 07:25 PM
Also those websites harp on information which is sometimes not factual, based solely on media reports and when that information is proven not accurate they do not fix their mistakes by stating they were incorrect.

Nonsense! Look at how unbiased and factual the media reporting has been in, say, the Zimmerman case! ;)

(Google "Gell-Mann Amnesia" for a complete description of this effect...)

cclaxton
05-25-2012, 09:09 PM
The real point of those websites is create discord and an us vs. them(the police) mentality.

By default, the US versus THEM relationship is created by the fact that Police enforce laws. You can't get around that except through working with Law Enforcement and realizing that LE are normal people just doing a job. The resentment is created through the enforcement of those laws. The police don't make the laws and end up taking the brunt of the unfairness of some laws.

This is what I like to say about police: I fear them when I see them on the road, but love them when I need to report a crime or suspicious person.

CC

David Armstrong
05-25-2012, 11:18 PM
I posted on a different forum the real reason why websites that document police misconduct are bias and lie by omission, which is because they do not document when an officer does anything correct.

Find me on anyone of those websites a dozen links to police commendation cemeronies where the police are praised.
Pretty much by definition a website focused on LE misconduct is not going to post police doing good things. Sort of like how DUI websites don't post sober drivers, the "ghetto prom" sites don't post pictures of the militaray ball, etc.

But by all means look at those websites and gain whatever small amount of knowledge they give you. The real point of those websites is create discord and an us vs. them(the police) mentality.
I hate to do this at times, but the "us versus them" mentality has been shown to be far more a creation of the police than non-LE, and not only more of a creation of the police we find that police consistently have a stronger us versus them mentality as well as much higher beliefs in how strong it is.


from cclaxton:
By default, the US versus THEM relationship is created by the fact that Police enforce laws.
Not really. The biggest part of the us versus them is a by-product of assorted elements of the police subculture and conditioning during training.

voodoo_man
05-26-2012, 06:06 AM
Can't say I agree with you, David. From my experience being non-le for more of my life than le, I can say that without a doubt the culture of "us vs them" is mostly a byproduct of citizen resentment of the police. When I was in my early teens I disliked the police, but respected them and never committed any crimes. The simple fact that an officer could take my freedom away gave me an us vs them mentality. As I matured I began to understand that the mindset is unfounded and bias, how can I make a judgement about a profession simply on the fact that they are given a responsiblity I do not (yet) possess? This was me at 15. Fast foward to when I got on the job I completely understood why people do what they do, and act the way they act. The majority of people never got over that mindset of us vs the police because they never gave it much thought, only some opinion laced posts on some forum without having to backup their claims in person.

Dui websites, ghetto prom websites, etc are not directed specifically at the police. Its like this forum have a section for how to be a barrista, its not something that would work well. When a website/forum, like many media outlets, focus on police misconduct but then never give any good examples (which would heavily outweigh the bad) they are bias and lying by omission. Regardless of your personal feelings
about the police you have to admit that objectively viewing a website that is negative in nature without an ounce of positivity is pretty bias.

As for the training as conditioning, I have never been trained that the evil citizens/public is going to try to kill us at every turn or that we have to hate the public. I love my fellow citizens, however gay that sounds notwithstanding, I enjoy the interactions I have with the public and detest having to take action against the average law abiding citizen. Its the shitbird career criminals that should be afriad, id like them to rott in a cell. ;)

LittleLebowski
05-26-2012, 08:57 AM
I trust many individual LEOs but I won't trust all until they all have personal video and audio recorders as part of their uniforms. Helps both the citizen and the officer.

Shellback
05-26-2012, 12:04 PM
I posted on a different forum the real reason why websites that document police misconduct are bias and lie by omission, which is because they do not document when an officer does anything correct.

Find me on anyone of those websites a dozen links to police commendation cemeronies where the police are praised.

Also those websites harp on information which is sometimes not factual, based solely on media reports and when that information is proven not accurate they do not fix their mistakes by stating they were incorrect.

But by all means look at those websites and gain whatever small amount of knowledge they give you. The real point of those websites is create discord and an us vs. them(the police) mentality.

There are plenty of websites that do nothing but praise the police and their actions without showing any negative examples of police behavior. Do you criticize them in the same way? Are they biased and lying by omission as well?

The website that was mentioned has praised police officer's actions in the past and has also made corrections, public apologies and removed news articles that were later determined not to fit the criteria for which the website was established.

Making blanket statements about "those types of websites" is on par with making blanket statements about the police.

Serpico1985
05-26-2012, 02:42 PM
So whats the take away from this thread? Citizens, don't trust the cops as a whole. Cops, don't trust citizens as a whole. Everyone record everything and take it court. If you need to speak with me go through my lawyer. I guess the cops need to protect themselves to so why not have a police attourny or a district attourny assigned to each officer to ride with them on their partorl shift. I like where this is headed.

LittleLebowski
05-26-2012, 03:05 PM
I think recording audio/video makes it easier for everyone.

Serpico1985
05-26-2012, 03:20 PM
I think recording audio/video makes it easier for everyone.


Your probably right. I just think it's a sad state of affairs that this is where we're at.

David Armstrong
05-26-2012, 05:42 PM
Can't say I agree with you, David.
That's fine, you don't need to agree with me at all. I'm just reporting what 50 years of research has found repeatedly, that the "us versus them" mentality is far more an LE phenomenom than a non-LE, and that LE tends to think there is far more of it than there actually is on the part of non-LE.

Dui websites, ghetto prom websites, etc are not directed specifically at the police.
Didn't say they were. The point is that any website that is focused on a particular issue is probably going to focus on that particular issue. Cop watch type sites are no different.

When a website/forum, like many media outlets, focus on police misconduct but then never give any good examples (which would heavily outweigh the bad) they are bias and lying by omission. Regardless of your personal feelings about the police you have to admit that objectively viewing a website that is negative in nature without an ounce of positivity is pretty bias.
No, I don't. Again, if the website focus is on misconduct that is what you expect them to focus on, police misconduct. If I want to run a website about misconduct by the Obama adminsitration I doubt you would think I should put good things about the Obama administration on the website.

As for the training as conditioning, I have never been trained that the evil citizens/public is going to try to kill us at every turn or that we have to hate the public.
As it turns out that has very little to do with developing the police personality.

mje
05-26-2012, 06:43 PM
All good advice, except for "smack your children." All that teaches them is how to bully weaker kids. There are plenty of ways to discipline children that are more effective than hitting them. Hitting a child is the lazy way to get them to pay attention to you.

I know, I know, you were smacked as a child, and it didn't do you any harm. It just turned you into someone who hits children.

MDS
05-26-2012, 07:30 PM
[...]50 years of research has found repeatedly, that the "us versus them" mentality is far more an LE phenomenom than a non-LE, and that LE tends to think there is far more of it than there actually is on the part of non-LE.[...]

I've posted elsewhere about how my relationship with LE has evolved over my lifetime so far. The idea that there's actual research around the "us versus them" mentality has never occurred to me, though. I don't suppose you could point me in the right direction to find some such studies? My google-fu is not what it could be...

voodoo_man
05-26-2012, 08:41 PM
Well this is going in a circle. One side said one thing, another says something else. Who gets to determine who is right and who is wrong? Who knows.

Who cares.

LittleLebowski
05-26-2012, 09:40 PM
Well this is going in a circle. One side said one thing, another says something else. Who gets to determine who is right and who is wrong? Who knows.

Who cares.

The recorder.

Gun
05-27-2012, 09:06 AM
I jumped into this thread because of the stated actions of the officer voodoo man. I gave my reasons for why I thought his actions during that stop were not merited. I have also reviewed the cases posted by another officer.

In the case Rice vs. U.S.,


The record discloses a number of facts justifying the pat-down search:
(1) Rice was one of three people in a car driving around a high crime area of Tulsa at 2:30 on a Tuesday morning, a time when there were no other cars or people around;
(2) the car proceeded along two residential blocks, slowing intermittently in a manner that an observing officer thought consistent with preparing for a burglary or drive-by shooting;
(3) the car did not have a tag light, which in the observing officers' experience could indicate a desire to avoid identification;
(4) the passenger in the backseat had given Weakley what he, based on his experience, believed were false names intended to conceal her true identity;
(5) the computer check Weakley ran confirmed his suspicions about the back seat passenger when his search revealed no information on the names she gave;
(6) the computer check identified Rice as “known to be armed and dangerous”;
(7) Rice had a lengthy and violent criminal record;  and
(8) Rice immediately assumed the position for a weapons search upon exiting the car.
there are considerable RAS for pulling Rice out of the vehicle, especially #’s 6 and 7.

Voodoo man’s stop of the motorist lack the other prong necessary to investigate further whether the motorist was armed, even after the knowledge that the motorist held an LTCF, which should clearly indicate that the motorist was most likely not dangerous. Without any RAS of any other criminal activity, other than this traffic violation, questioning the driver, again, about weapons in the vehicle could appear to be harassment, and a 4A issue. If there were other issues involved, but not disclosed in the post about this traffic stop, then voodoo man should state those factors as well.

What bothered me, was asking the motorist a second time, the same question. Of course, not being there, I would not have seen how the motorist responded to the firearms question the first time. The motorist’s (nervous) response might have been an indicator that the motorist was lying. Had the motorist confidently stated twice ‘’No’’, then voodoo man would have had no RAS to ascertain whether the motorist had firearms in the vehicle (in my opinion).

After the motorist admitted to being armed, and knowing that the motorist was not dangerous (according to the background check), voodoo man could have told the motorist that it was not necessary to lie about this fact, when asked, thus reassuring the motorist that he wasn’t going to be prone out, have his firearm confiscated, etc., and not prolong the stop unnecessarily, as stated. But, will this always the case when being stopped by a different officer, in another jurisdiction, the actions just described not happening.

Why did the motorist lie, about having a firearm? The Us vs. Them mentality has been raised, and this could very well have been the reason the motorist lied about having a firearm. The motorist could have read, or been told of events where others have had there firearms confiscated, firearms not returned, etc. Maybe the motorist is just plain intimidated by the police. Why does one blood pressure go up while sitting in the doctor’s exam room?

On the Us vs. Them mentality, I think the real issue is that people think they shouldn’t be stopped (inconvenienced) for doing something that they see many other drivers do, but aren’t being pulled over for, which causes them to be argumentative with the officer. From my own recollection, I’ve been pulled over ten times, as a driver. I only argued once ( and very demonstratively as I recalled), and the FSP agreed with me. The judge dismissed the ticket, because of a faulty speedometer. The FSP suggested I check the speedo.

If asked if I have any firearms (yet to happen) at a traffic stop, my response will be,

‘’I will surrender my firearm if you find reason to place me under arrest.’’

LHS
05-27-2012, 12:35 PM
If asked if I have any firearms (yet to happen) at a traffic stop, my response will be,

‘’I will surrender my firearm if you find reason to place me under arrest.’’


That depends on the local laws. IIRC, here in AZ, the officer is allowed to take control of the firearm for the duration of the stop if they so choose. If that's the law, then that's the law, and I'm not going to argue with the officer on that. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. The cop doesn't know me from Adam, and the 'routine' traffic stop is probably the most dangerous interaction they have (other than maybe domestic violence calls). As long as my gun is returned at the conclusion of the stop, and not mistreated, I'm ok.

voodoo_man
05-28-2012, 02:43 AM
That depends on the local laws. IIRC, here in AZ, the officer is allowed to take control of the firearm for the duration of the stop if they so choose. If that's the law, then that's the law, and I'm not going to argue with the officer on that. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. The cop doesn't know me from Adam, and the 'routine' traffic stop is probably the most dangerous interaction they have (other than maybe domestic violence calls). As long as my gun is returned at the conclusion of the stop, and not mistreated, I'm ok.

As are most normal people, because they understand that the officer is putting everyone's safety first, which is allowed.

What our buddy "Gun" is missing, very clearly, is that he is not a police officer and his understanding and interpretation of what he believes the law to be is not going to make things go his way when he comes across an officer who tells him to do something he has posted on here he will not do. Also his assumptions make him out to be something less than what he trying to put himself off as.

Lots of people like to talk, especially on forums, when it comes time to actually put their anonymous words into action they lack the courage.

It is very humorous.

Tamara
05-28-2012, 06:04 AM
As are most normal people, because they understand that the officer is putting everyone's safety first, which is allowed.

Gotta disagree with you there.

If the officer was really putting everybody's safety first, then we'd leave my loaded gun safely in its holster instead of jacking around with a live heater on the side of the road. Instead, the officer safety programming has everybody so keyed up that every interaction with the public is going to go all Constable Lunsford and so we engage in a lot of unnecessary gun-handling.

David Armstrong
05-28-2012, 02:20 PM
I've posted elsewhere about how my relationship with LE has evolved over my lifetime so far. The idea that there's actual research around the "us versus them" mentality has never occurred to me, though. I don't suppose you could point me in the right direction to find some such studies? My google-fu is not what it could be...
Don't know about google-fu, as I get most of that kind of stuff from books and journal articles. As it is summer and I don't have to work for a few months I'm not at my office, but as a "give it a try" process you might look for research that compares what LE says non-LE feels about issues in comparison to what non-LE actually feels. The other avenue is to compare officer attitudes and beliefs before they are brought into the system to their attitudes after training and their attitudes at other time periods (3 years, 7 years, etc.)

David Armstrong
05-28-2012, 02:37 PM
from Gun:
Voodoo man’s stop of the motorist lack the other prong necessary to investigate further whether the motorist was armed, even after the knowledge that the motorist held an LTCF, which should clearly indicate that the motorist was most likely not dangerous. Without any RAS of any other criminal activity, other than this traffic violation, questioning the driver, again, about weapons in the vehicle could appear to be harassment, and a 4A issue.
Sorry, that is not even close to being correct. First, simple questions for informational purposes do not necessarily constitute an investigation. Officers are allowed to ask pretty much anything they want. What they can do with the information afterward may be restricted, or the conditions in which they are asking, but they can ask pretty much anything they want and the other party is free to answer or not. Second, an LTCF is not a clear indicator the motorist is not dangerous, it is simply a clear indicator the person has an LTCF. The officer has no way to know what has happened since the LTCF was granted. Third, simple questioning is not harassment, no way no how, and if so would not be a 4th Amendment issue, but more likely a 5th Amendment issue.

What bothered me, was asking the motorist a second time, the same question.
A fairly common practice and nothing out of the ordinary.

and knowing that the motorist was not dangerous (according to the background check)
Again, that is not true. Some very dangerous people have been just fine up until the moment they snap and decide to become violent.

If asked if I have any firearms (yet to happen) at a traffic stop, my response will be,
‘’I will surrender my firearm if you find reason to place me under arrest.’’
Then you should expect a simple traffic stop to become far more troublesome, as most jurisdictions give the officer significant leeway in controlling the situation during a traffic stop, to include removing firearms.

voodoo_man
05-28-2012, 02:42 PM
Gotta disagree with you there.

If the officer was really putting everybody's safety first, then we'd leave my loaded gun safely in its holster instead of jacking around with a live heater on the side of the road. Instead, the officer safety programming has everybody so keyed up that every interaction with the public is going to go all Constable Lunsford and so we engage in a lot of unnecessary gun-handling..

"officer safety programming"

Is that like "cake-eating civilian programming" by any chance?

Neither term does anyone any good. Also if you believe that "gun handling" in its very nature is unsafe then maybe everyone needs to take a step back and talk about skill sets.


Don't know about google-fu, as I get most of that kind of stuff from books and journal articles. As it is summer and I don't have to work for a few months I'm not at my office, but as a "give it a try" process you might look for research that compares what LE says non-LE feels about issues in comparison to what non-LE actually feels. The other avenue is to compare officer attitudes and beliefs before they are brought into the system to their attitudes after training and their attitudes at other time periods (3 years, 7 years, etc.)

This type of "study" would not make much sense. LE and non-LE attitude varies very greatly by demographic and location. What would be true on the west coast may not be true on the east coast (which is the case often times).

David Armstrong
05-28-2012, 02:45 PM
.
This type of "study" would not make much sense. LE and non-LE attitude varies very greatly by demographic and location. What would be true on the west coast may not be true on the east coast (which is the case often times).
Without seeing it or knowing how it was done, to say it wouldn't make much sense indicates a rather questionable understanding of science and research.

voodoo_man
05-28-2012, 02:58 PM
Without seeing it or knowing how it was done, to say it wouldn't make much sense indicates a rather questionable understanding of science and research.

The first step in understanding science and research to determine if the "study" is even worth doing and if any knowledge will be gained from it which we do not have already.

But, of course, I could be wrong.

Tamara
05-28-2012, 03:28 PM
.

"officer safety programming"

Is that like "cake-eating civilian programming" by any chance?

No. No, it's not. And nobody who knows me would suggest otherwise. Some of my best friends have been cops since before you (or I) were whelped, and managed to conduct traffic stops telling lawful CCW toters "That's nice. You don't show me yours, and I won't show you mine." The person in line behind me at the convenience store may have a gun, and I don't disarm them for "everybody's safety". The person across the counter from me at a gun store definitely had a gun, and I didn't disarm them for "everybody's safety". Hell, I worked without a net from '93 to '07; I've had more loaded guns pointed at my midriff than I can count off the top of my head.

Anybody who thinks that the (broadly necessary) revolution in "officer safety" hasn't contributed to the rift between armed citizens and peace officers is just plain ignorant of history. Officer safety tactics are easily taught, while personal judgment can only be learned through experience, and that's too bad for all concerned.


Also if you believe that "gun handling" in its very nature is unsafe then maybe everyone needs to take a step back and talk about skill sets.

Anybody who thinks handling a loaded gun is as inherently safe as leaving it unmolested in its holster needs to take a long, hard look at their judgment skills.

David Armstrong
05-28-2012, 03:32 PM
The first step in understanding science and research to determine if the "study" is even worth doing and if any knowledge will be gained from it which we do not have already.

But, of course, I could be wrong.
Yes, you could be. Determining if the study is worth doing is not a science/research step, it is a philosophy step, And determining if any new knowledge will be obtained is generally not an issue, as replication of study or findings is generally considered fairly important to science and research.

Coyotesfan97
05-28-2012, 03:44 PM
If asked if I have any firearms (yet to happen) at a traffic stop, my response will be,

‘’I will surrender my firearm if you find reason to place me under arrest.’’

Please let us know how that plan works out when you implement it...

Jay Cunningham
05-28-2012, 05:06 PM
Let's not devolve into sniping at one another.

Coyotesfan97
05-28-2012, 06:34 PM
OK point taken. Honestly I see nothing but potentially bad things occurring in that scenario. As an Officer it is not something I would recommend.

Tamara
05-28-2012, 09:03 PM
That depends on the local laws. IIRC, here in AZ, the officer is allowed to take control of the firearm for the duration of the stop if they so choose. If that's the law, then that's the law, and I'm not going to argue with the officer on that.
And here, Washington v. Indiana says that there had better be "an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed (http://www.indygunsafety.com/Washington.htm)" or nobody gets to go pawing at my heater once they've seen my LTCH. The mere presence of a pistol, in and of itself, is not grounds for any fishing expeditions in my neck of the woods.

Coyotesfan97
05-28-2012, 10:32 PM
From Arizona Title 13-3102 Misconduct Involving Weapons:
K. If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact

It's always interesting to compare laws and court rulings from different states.

Did Washinton have a medical marijuana card to go along with his LTCH? :confused:;)

MDS
05-28-2012, 10:58 PM
Don't know about google-fu, as I get most of that kind of stuff from books and journal articles.

Thanks for answering. And now that you mention it, my googling gave me the impression that this sort of study would be in peer-reviewed journals. I'll keep digging around. So far I've found a bunch of work that references this sort of thing, but not too much that actually studies it as the main topic. Of what I did find, much more of it seems to focus on the public's opinion of LE, rather than LE's opinion of the public. And I didn't find a single study that was actually designed to look for underlying causes or at least correlations to those opinions, which would be fascinating to me. If you can remember any specific journals or books, I'd appreciate it.


As it is summer and I don't have to work for a few months

I think I'm starting to feel a little bit of "us versus them" mentality coming on. In this case, the underlying cause is jealousy. ;)

LHS
05-28-2012, 11:25 PM
And here, Washington v. Indiana says that there had better be "an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed (http://www.indygunsafety.com/Washington.htm)" or nobody gets to go pawing at my heater once they've seen my LTCH. The mere presence of a pistol, in and of itself, is not grounds for any fishing expeditions in my neck of the woods.

There's a difference between securing a weapon and going fishing/searching the vehicle. As I mentioned earlier, I have no problem letting the officer secure my weapon for the duration of the stop, because that's the law here. That doesn't mean I'm going to consent to a search of my vehicle without probable cause or a warrant. Two separate things. That's where the 'polite, yet firm, denial' I mentioned earlier comes into play.

Tamara
05-29-2012, 05:10 AM
Did Washinton have a medical marijuana card to go along with his LTCH? :confused:;)

I think the court was just pointing out that there's no "The Guy's An Obvious Criminal Douchebag" exception to the Fourth Amendment. ;)

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 05:20 AM
No. No, it's not. And nobody who knows me would suggest otherwise. Some of my best friends have been cops since before you (or I) were whelped, and managed to conduct traffic stops telling lawful CCW toters "That's nice. You don't show me yours, and I won't show you mine." The person in line behind me at the convenience store may have a gun, and I don't disarm them for "everybody's safety". The person across the counter from me at a gun store definitely had a gun, and I didn't disarm them for "everybody's safety". Hell, I worked without a net from '93 to '07; I've had more loaded guns pointed at my midriff than I can count off the top of my head.

Anybody who thinks that the (broadly necessary) revolution in "officer safety" hasn't contributed to the rift between armed citizens and peace officers is just plain ignorant of history. Officer safety tactics are easily taught, while personal judgment can only be learned through experience, and that's too bad for all concerned.

Anybody who thinks handling a loaded gun is as inherently safe as leaving it unmolested in its holster needs to take a long, hard look at their judgment skills.

I was not speaking of you specifically, I was speaking in a more general sense.

You walking around, not being a LEO cannot compare being around people with guns legally to a lawful detention of a person, under the 4th by a LEO. Those are two completely different things.

Officer safety may be used inappropriately by "both" sides but in reality it is extremely difficult to teach someone good officer safety. Most LEO's going through the academy are bombarded with officer safety related information/training, does that mean when they come out they are the pinnacle of officer safety? Hell no. It takes years, of daily training by "been there, done that" officers to make sure the new officers are actually "safe." There are guys on the job we outright refuse to work with because they are so lax in their officer safety and have been hurt before. Officer safety is personal judgement, its the action taken by officers to make sure everyone is going to go home, especially them. If you do not like the fact that people put their personal safety first, then we can talk about judgement skills.

As for handling guns, while there are exceptions to the rule, as all things (and thankfully we have policy to mitigate this), if a gun has to be handled it will be, period. Fear of discharge or improper gun handling skills is not something that outweighs the possibility of the possession of a firearm by someone who the officer does not know, or trusts at that point in time. It is officer safety at its core. Am I willing to let you have a loaded gun on your person while I speak with you? Depends completely on you. I, without a doubt, will not be taking any chances. Just because you have a LTCF, are nice and polite, does not mean that you have not made up your mind to shoot me dead.


Yes, you could be. Determining if the study is worth doing is not a science/research step, it is a philosophy step, And determining if any new knowledge will be obtained is generally not an issue, as replication of study or findings is generally considered fairly important to science and research.

How many times would you run pavlov's dog to see the same result? Somethings are known without required research.


And here, Washington v. Indiana says that there had better be "an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed (http://www.indygunsafety.com/Washington.htm)" or nobody gets to go pawing at my heater once they've seen my LTCH. The mere presence of a pistol, in and of itself, is not grounds for any fishing expeditions in my neck of the woods.

What does officer safety have to do with a fishing expedition? The two are generally unrelated in many cases.

Also, depending on the scenario/situation, if an officer is taking a firearm off you, then your immediate area of control can be "frisked" for other weapons/guns. This is not a fishing expedition, this is a safety concern.

Tamara
05-29-2012, 05:57 AM
As for handling guns, while there are exceptions to the rule, as all things (and thankfully we have policy to mitigate this), if a gun has to be handled it will be, period. Fear of discharge or improper gun handling skills is not something that outweighs the possibility of the possession of a firearm by someone who the officer does not know, or trusts at that point in time. It is officer safety at its core.

Let me give you two examples:

In the first, my former roommate was driving home from work. He got pulled for twelve over, or something fairly minor like that, hands the officer his DL and HCP, and Johnny Law asks if he has any firearms on him at the time. Roomie replies that yes, there is a SIG P-239 in the dayplanner on the passenger seat and a Beretta Jetfire in his back pocket.

The officer reaches in from the passenger side and secures the SIG, asks my roomie to exit the vehicle, removes the Jetfire from his rear pocket and proceeds to drop the mag and run the slide on the Jetfire MULTIPLE TIMES in attempt to clear it -shikashikashika- with the muzzle covering passing cars, taxiing aircraft at the airport across the street, my roomie's Bimmer, my roomie...

In the second, my friend was on the way to pick me up to go to the range. As was his routine, he stopped in at the coffee shop around the corner. Now, it's 0745 on a Saturday, and he's just ducking in, so he doesn't bother covering up the Les Baer TRS on his hip. It's perfectly legal and nobody's ever said boo about it. As he's walking out with his coffee, a uniformed officer who was also patronizing the shop asks to see his LTCH, which my friend provides.

The cop then calls for backup and removes the 1911 from my friend's holster (because you know how clean-cut white guys with $2k custom pistols in Mitch Rosen holsters are all the time going berserk and shooting up coffee shops in trendy neighborhoods in broad daylight.) The officer is straining with all his might trying to run the slide on the Baer, but it won't budge, and the whole time, the muzzle is wandering between my friend's foot and knee. The officer explodes when asked to not point the gun at my friend "MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GUN SAFETY, BUT IT'S POINTED DOWN!"

The second incident, BTW, occurred prior to the recent Washington decision, or things might have gone differently: former deputy persecutors can get uppity when lectured on The Law by street cops. As it was, we were late to the range.

Now, how was anybody's safety enhanced by all this unnecessary gun-fondling?

JDM
05-29-2012, 06:53 AM
Let me give you two examples:

In the first, my former roommate was driving home from work. He got pulled for twelve over, or something fairly minor like that, hands the officer his DL and HCP, and Johnny Law asks if he has any firearms on him at the time. Roomie replies that yes, there is a SIG P-239 in the dayplanner on the passenger seat and a Beretta Jetfire in his back pocket.

The officer reaches in from the passenger side and secures the SIG, asks my roomie to exit the vehicle, removes the Jetfire from his rear pocket and proceeds to drop the mag and run the slide on the Jetfire MULTIPLE TIMES in attempt to clear it -shikashikashika- with the muzzle covering passing cars, taxiing aircraft at the airport across the street, my roomie's Bimmer, my roomie...

In the second, my friend was on the way to pick me up to go to the range. As was his routine, he stopped in at the coffee shop around the corner. Now, it's 0745 on a Saturday, and he's just ducking in, so he doesn't bother covering up the Les Baer TRS on his hip. It's perfectly legal and nobody's ever said boo about it. As he's walking out with his coffee, a uniformed officer who was also patronizing the shop asks to see his LTCH, which my friend provides.

The cop then calls for backup and removes the 1911 from my friend's holster (because you know how clean-cut white guys with $2k custom pistols in Mitch Rosen holsters are all the time going berserk and shooting up coffee shops in trendy neighborhoods in broad daylight.) The officer is straining with all his might trying to run the slide on the Baer, but it won't budge, and the whole time, the muzzle is wandering between my friend's foot and knee. The officer explodes when asked to not point the gun at my friend "MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GUN SAFETY, BUT IT'S POINTED DOWN!"

The second incident, BTW, occurred prior to the recent Washington decision, or things might have gone differently: former deputy persecutors can get uppity when lectured on The Law by street cops. As it was, we were late to the range.

Now, how was anybody's safety enhanced by all this unnecessary gun-fondling?

This is kinda where I come out on this whole thing.

I used to always make a point of informing the officer I was in contact with that I had a pistol (not required in NM). More often than not, he or she wouldn't take my gun off me. However, the last time I was pulled over the officer decided to disarm me. The gun handling skills of this particular officer were, umm, questionable, and I was really uncomfortable with him having my gun. I now exercise the option to STFU unless I am asked out of the vehicle.

Fact of the matter is this, I'm not a criminal. I know I'm not a criminal, and I don't plan on killing any police officers. There is absolutely no legitimate officer safety concern stemming from an interaction with me. Period. Now, I'm not going to lie if asked about any weapons in the car or whatever, but the days of me offering that info up have passed. I don't want the loud end of my M&P pointed at me because of a non existent officer safety concern.

Most cops aren't gun people, and the last thing that is going to increase or ensure anyone's safety is an inexperienced gun handler finger banging a loaded gun that he/she may have never seen before. That is the opposite of safe.

Tamara
05-29-2012, 07:39 AM
Most cops aren't gun people, and the last thing that is going to increase or ensure anyone's safety is an inexperienced gun handler finger banging a loaded gun that he/she may have never seen before. That is the opposite of safe.

This exactly.

Most people are not "gun people" and since cops are drawn from the larger population, most of them aren't either.

What is as disturbing to me is that they have been bombarded in academy classes with dash cam videos of roadside horror shows and then conditioned by FATS training that even the most innocuous-looking citizen is a potential assailant and that the natural reaction to anything even vaguely firearm-shaped is to shriek "GUN!" and run their Glock to slidelock.

Nobody wants any more Newhalls, but there's an inevitable downside to the officer safety movement. This is something that is coming back to haunt us, and I wish I knew the solution.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 08:01 AM
Let me give you two examples:

In the first, my former roommate was driving home from work. He got pulled for twelve over, or something fairly minor like that, hands the officer his DL and HCP, and Johnny Law asks if he has any firearms on him at the time. Roomie replies that yes, there is a SIG P-239 in the dayplanner on the passenger seat and a Beretta Jetfire in his back pocket. op

The officer reaches in from the passenger side and secures the SIG, asks my roomie to exit the vehicle, removes the Jetfire from his rear pocket and proceeds to drop the mag and run the slide on the Jetfire MULTIPLE TIMES in attempt to clear it -shikashikashika- with the muzzle covering passing cars, taxiing aircraft at the airport across the street, my roomie's Bimmer, ipmy roomie...

In the second, my friend was on the way to pick me up to go to the range. As was his routine, he stopped in at the coffee shop around the corner. Now, it's 0745 on a Saturday, and he's just ducking in, so he doesn't bother covering up the Les Baer TRS on his hip. It's perfectly legal and nobody's ever said boo about it. As he's walking out with his coffee, a uniformed officer who was also patronizing the shop asks to see his LTCH, which my friend provides.

The cop then calls for backup and removes the 1911 from my friend's holster (because you know how clean-cut white guys with $2k custom pistols in Mitch Rosen holsters are all the time going berserk and shooting up coffee shops in trendy neighborhoods in broad daylight.) The officer is straining with all his might trying to run the slide on the Baer, but it won't budge, and the whole time, the muzzle is wandering between my friend's foot and knee. The officer explodes when asked to not point the gun at my friend "MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GUN SAFETY, BUT IT'S POINTED DOWN!"

The second incident, BTW, occurred prior to the recent Washington decision, or things might have gone differently: former deputy persecutors can get uppity when lectured on The Law by street cops. As it was, we were late to the range.

Now, how was anybody's safety enhanced by all this unnecessary gun-fondling?

Please do not take this out of context, but were you present during all these interactions? Sometimes, now I am not saying your roomie did this, but just sometimes, people over state the actions of the officer.

I am not going to get into the "personal experiences may not reflect the norm" debate.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 08:08 AM
This is kinda where I come out on this whole thing.

I used to always make a point of informing the officer I was in contact with that I had a pistol (not required in NM). More often than not, he or she wouldn't take my gun off me. However, the last time I was pulled over the officer decided to disarm me. The gun handling skills of this particular officer were, umm, questionable, and I was really uncomfortable with him having my gun. I now exercise the option to STFU unless I am asked out of the vehicle.

Fact of the matter is this, I'm not a criminal. I know I'm not a criminal, and I don't plan on killing any police officers. There is absolutely no legitimate officer safety concern stemming from an interaction with me. Period. Now, I'm not going to lie if asked about any weapons in the car or whatever, but the days of me offering that info up have passed. I don't want the loud end of my M&P pointed at me because of a non existent officer safety concern.

Most cops aren't gun people, and the last thing that is going to increase or ensure anyone's safety is an inexperienced gun handler finger banging a loaded gun that he/she may have never seen before. That is the opposite of safe.

How does the officer know who you are or what type of person you? Criminals, and cop killers come in every size, shape and color. Saying you believe that the officer has no reason to believe his safety is jepordized because you are a good person is pretty one sided. The police do not know who the people are they deal with, and if a particular officer felt a specific way I am sure that officer had to articulate his concerns to that end.

If anyone has ever had an issue with the gun handling skills of an officer then what did you do about it besides get upset? Did you tell the officer? Did you contact that officers supervisor about the issue you observed? What did you do to help the "percieved" issue other than be upset by it?

We have a simple policy here, officers only handle firearms when they absolutely have to. If the contact officer has an issue with gun handling they contact another officer who knows how to handle a firearm. No issues with this.

Joe in PNG
05-29-2012, 08:09 AM
Hands up if you've had an officer point your own heater at you while he spent a few minutes trying to figure out how to make the bangy bit come out of the slidey thing by yanking and shaking?

Because I have, and it looks like I'm not alone in this.

However, I do understand the reason I was interacting with the nice officer was because I had just broke the law. So there is that.

Tamara
05-29-2012, 08:10 AM
Please do not take this out of context, but were you present during all these interactions? Sometimes, now I am not saying your roomie did this, but just sometimes, people over state the actions of the officer.

I am obviously employing hyperbole for comic effect. The actual description involved the officer running the slide multiple times, more intent on clearing the gun than with where said gun was pointed. Yes, my roommate claimed that he was briefly muzzled, as well as the pistol spending most of the time pointed horizontally out into the roadway. Alcoa highway at that point is rather busy, and the taxiways of TYS are right across it.

Having been on police ranges yourself, as have I, what do you find implausible about that story?

The fact of the matter is that, to be blunt, here we have a card-carrying good guy, thirty-something clean-cut Caucasian male in a late-model BMW sedan with a Kraut accent and all his papieren in ordnung, and some wet-behind-the-ears officer goes messing with a gun he does not know how to operate in order to ensure his safety? Raise your hand if this makes sense anywhere outside a FATS trailer?

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 08:17 AM
This exactly.

Most people are not "gun people" and since cops are drawn from the larger population, most of them aren't either.

What is as disturbing to me is that they have been bombarded in academy classes with dash cam videos of roadside horror shows and then 'conditioned by FATS training that even the most innocuous-looking citizen is a potential assailant and that the natural reaction to anything even vaguely firearm-shaped is to shriek "GUN!" and run their Glock to slidelock.

Nobody wants any more Newhalls, but there's an inevitable downside to the officer safety movement. This is something that is coming back to haunt us, and I wish I knew the solution.

Inevitable downside to officer safety?

Sorry, but wearing a badge is not a suicide pact. The officer safety mindset is what keeps cops alive that one in a million chance of the time. No officer is going to go to work and figure he'll just be lax with the guy who reaches into his waist band during a stop because he may have wanted to fix his junk at that moment.

There is no solution, because there is no problem, only a percieved "issue" over something which those making the opinion have no understanding of, but speak as though they wrote the book.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 08:23 AM
I am obviously employing hyperbole for comic effect. The actual description involved the officer running the slide multiple times, more intent on clearing the gun than with where said gun was pointed. Yes, my roommate claimed that he was briefly muzzled, as well as the pistol spending most of the time pointed horizontally out into the roadway. Alcoa highway at that point is rather busy, and the taxiways of TYS are right across it.

Having been on police ranges yourself, as have I, what do you find implausible about that story?

The fact of the matter is that, to be blunt, here we have a card-carrying good guy, thirty-something clean-cut Caucasian male in a late-model BMW sedan with a Kraut accent and all his papieren in ordnung, and some wet-behind-the-ears officer goes messing with a gun he does not know how to operate in order to ensure his safety? Raise your hand if this makes sense anywhere outside a FATS trailer?

Have officers ever been shot by people looking like your roomie? If the answer is yes (which it is), then it does not matter how a person looks, but the context and percieved threat based on the officers observations.

The range is where you are supposed to mess up and learn, but on a police range you get yelled at and you get disciplined, then reeducated.

Tamara
05-29-2012, 08:30 AM
Inevitable downside to officer safety?

Sorry, but wearing a badge is not a suicide pact. The officer safety mindset is what keeps cops alive that one in a million chance of the time. No officer is going to go to work and figure he'll just be lax with the guy who reaches into his waist band during a stop because he may have wanted to fix his junk at that moment.

There is no solution, because there is no problem, only a percieved "issue" over something which those making the opinion have no understanding of, but speak as though they wrote the book.

Read what you just wrote.

Now tell me where the "us vs. them" mindset is coming from again?

Dude, the officer safety material is not classified, nor is it written in heiroglyphics. Maybe you have not been picking up on the little dogwhistles I've been very deliberately dropping in each previous post, but yes, I'm familiar with the topic. There's no "us vs. them" coming from me. I like cops. A lot of my friends are cops. I've considered doing the gig myself, but frankly, based on the ride-alongs I've done, I can't handle the amount of other people's puke you can get on your clothes during a shift; mad props to those of you who do it.

Now here you have a bunch of your fellow civilians telling you that there's an issue, and your response is basically to say "Nuh-uh!"

Before I leave this thread, I have one question to ask you, if you don't mind, just to confirm a hunch on my part: How long have you been an LEO, and how old are you? To make it fair, I'll tell you that I've been a cake-eating civilian all my life and I'm 44.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 08:41 AM
Read what you just wrote.

Now tell me where the "us vs. them" mindset is coming from again?

Dude, the officer safety material is not classified, nor is it written in heiroglyphics. Maybe you have not been picking up on the little dogwhistles I've been very deliberately dropping in each previous post, but yes, I'm familiar with the topic. There's no "us vs. them" coming from me. I like cops. A lot of my friends are cops. I've considered doing the gig myself, but frankly, based on the ride-alongs I've done, I can't handle the amount of other people's puke you can get on your clothes during a shift; mad props to those of you who do it.

Now here you have a bunch of your fellow civilians telling you that there's an issue, and your response is basically to say "Nuh-uh!"

Before I leave this thread, I have one question to ask you, if you don't mind, just to confirm a hunch on my part: How long have you been an LEO, and how old are you? To make it fair, I'll tell you that I've been a cake-eating civilian all my life and I'm 44.

You can sing the national anthem with your dog whistle and it still will be from a point of view that has no real meaning to how officer saftey is conducted. I have no issue with anyones opinions, as they are their own, which is great. Now read what you just wrote. A group of people are saying one thing, their opinions of something they have never experienced and they want their opinions to have so much meaning that it changes the way someone else does something that they have never done. Sorry, but logic tells me otherswise.

As to your last question, one thing I have learned very early on is that age and "time on" have nothing to do with how things are actually done or how the job is done. So to answer your question, opsec ;)

Tamara
05-29-2012, 09:03 AM
Assuming this is an accurate representation of the facts, do the officers posting think that the individual should have been detained and disarmed?
The whole story may be read here (http://ingunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/11112-carrying_in_broad_ripple_indy_gimp_encounter.html) .

BWT
05-29-2012, 09:03 AM
What it boils down to it looks like is for voodoo_man, and I'm just being honest, this has gone 19 pages.

What you feel, what matters to you doesn't, what matters to him does. What makes him feel safe, is more important than what makes you feel safe.

That sums it up. Seriously. If him taking your gun out of your holster makes you feel unsafe, it's because you having a gun makes him feel unsafe, and he's said cop killers come in all shapes and sizes, so... basically, to read between the lines. He's going to treat you as if you are until he knows better.

Not bashing, but it's the truth, it's been a theme repeated in this thread about a dozen times. Some cops, will do that. I mean do most cop interactions happen because someone broke the law? Yes, Yes they do. But it still doesn't make the preposition of my post incorrect.

jstyer
05-29-2012, 10:00 AM
What you feel, what matters to you doesn't, what matters to him does. What makes him feel safe, is more important than what makes you feel safe.



After also reading through the whole thread I'm left with this same thought as well.

If an officer is taking a loaded gun from me and attempting to clear it in a quasi-safe manner makes me feel threatened, how is that any different than the officer feeling threatened by the gun being safely holstered in my possession? The officer in question just decided that he is allowed to care about his safety more than I'm allowed to care about mine.

I'm not down with that.

Shellback
05-29-2012, 10:20 AM
How does the citizen know who you are or what type of officer you are? Criminals, and killers come in every size, shape and color. Saying you believe that the citizen has no reason to believe his safety is jepordized because you are a good officer is pretty one sided. The citizens do not know who the police are they deal with...
Interesting.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 10:39 AM
The reoccurring theme here to taking what I post and spinning it in some evil way to make officers look like the worst people on the planet, in reference to firearms, this is definitely not the case.

You can take what I post and change words, change context, do whatever you want, I don't care as it will never impact the way I go about making sure I am safe and go home to my family.

You disagree? Great, do something about it. All this talk is making me want to go and violate someones 4th amendment rights and then their 2nd amendment rights, all in the name of officer safety, since you know, that is what all officers do anyway.

BWT
05-29-2012, 11:01 AM
The reoccurring theme here to taking what I post and spinning it in some evil way to make officers look like the worst people on the planet, in reference to firearms, this is definitely not the case.

You can take what I post and change words, change context, do whatever you want, I don't care as it will never impact the way I go about making sure I am safe and go home to my family.

You disagree? Great, do something about it. All this talk is making me want to go and violate someones 4th amendment rights and then their 2nd amendment rights, all in the name of officer safety, since you know, that is what all officers do anyway.

Dude...

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying it is what it is. I respect L.E., I understand the plight, but... you may not like the way I said it but at the most basic point, that's what it is.

I'm going to do what gets me home safe.

At the same time, you have citizens that... are just to be completely honest about it, and that's why this has spanned so long, offended that they're treated as if they're a threat. (ETA: When in their eyes, they've done nothing to deserve that treatment)

I'll be honest with you, I usually put my concerns and what not aside and comply with the officer, because I understand they're doing a job. But the only reason an officer would disarm someone is because that didn't make them feel safe. I mean it's calling a spade a spade.

The implications of if that officer's a bad person that hates the constitution? No, doesn't mean so. But at the same time, it doesn't change it.

At the point you have someone worrying about going home safe and to be honest, doing their job, and at the other side you have someone concerned why they're being treated like they're not trusted enough for that officer to go home. Not gonna lie, some citizens are scared too.

That's the situation. Officers don't want to die, and people don't want to be treated like criminals, where's the middle ground, well, that's between that officer, that individual and the circumstances of their encounter, IMHO. That's the elephant in the room.

I mean that's really what this is all about, citizens are scared they're going to say something stupid after dealing in a situation they were scared to be in and end up in a place they're scared to go.

As a side note and a different part of the discussion, I'll be honest, to lend some credit to what Jay Cunningham said earlier, I don't care the intentions of an officer, that officer could be the Nobel Peace Prize, citizen advocate of the year, but I can kind of see, where, honestly, let's say you end up in the Trayvon Martin situation, and the community is up at arms, and the President of the United States is putting pressure on the case to be confirmed as guilty, and there's outcry that it's murder.

That officer's words, whatever he documents as the interview going, and how that interaction goes, can be used independent of that officer's will and intentions against someone, like say (I forget his name). That's why they advise whatever you say can be used against you in court. Because it's the Truth.

So multiple elements at play, I try to keep the officer at ease of I'm not going to murder them, so I tell them I have a weapon, and keep the balance of, not saying something that will land me a prison after a high pressure situation, because regardless of what a Police Officer says, a District Attorney feels differently.

How many times have we heard that? Well that District Attorney, or that personality, that individual, doesn't like guns, so they're going to give you a hard time, regardless of living in a community where all of that's legal, that person doesn't think it should be. (ETA 2: So you're going to get slapped in the face with their agenda.)

Tamara
05-29-2012, 11:11 AM
...spinning it in some evil way to make officers look like the worst people on the planet, in reference to firearms...
Nobody is saying, or even implying, that.

The fact that you would infer that from what has been written here is... well, illustrative of a certain...mindset. It's almost like you're accusing everybody of ganging up on you and your fellow officers. It's kind of sounding like... dare I say it? ..."Us vs. Them".

But that can't be, since you told David Armstrong that the whole "Us vs. Them" mindset isn't held by cops. Hm.

BWT
05-29-2012, 11:19 AM
What it boils down is a person's idea of self-preservation in a single interaction.

That's Cop's mindset of self-preservation can be making it out of the shift alive and maybe doing what's right. Some cops may be more worried about living with the implications of doing what's right over living through an experience, but I doubt that's many. That's human nature.

Not going to lie, I heard a Vietnam Veteran speak of being in country, it was on National Geographic and what he said is you get to the point to where you suspect everyone and everything, and suspicion becomes hatred. I guess that lends itself to the resentment citizens feel at time, because, it feels like you are resented when you are treated with suspicion of doing wrong, and when you're not, you become offended.

That Citizen's mindset of self-preservation can be just making it through that experience without going to jail/court or being drawn down on because they're expressing their rights, and they'd like to keep a shred of dignity in tact and not be asked to step out of a car and make a spectacle of in public because they choose to carry a gun, and treated as if they need to be disarmed, and then "Oh we found out you've done nothing wrong, we'll give you your gun back now".

Again, that's the elements at play. I'd say, if you keep those things in mind, you can see why there's obvious tension here.

Anyway, Dr. Phil's going to get a haircut, take care guys.

Sheep Have Wool
05-29-2012, 11:28 AM
Disclaimers up front: I'm a civilian, and I don't even have a concealed carry permit at this time. I've found this thread fascinating, if only for a peek into the perspectives of others.

My thoughts:
My father was a long-time LEO. I have the utmost respect and gratitude to those that serve. I'll certainly admit that I'm not interested in the level of commitment and sacrifice required. It's a demanding, dangerous job that is generally thankless.

It's not a license to be a dick to your fellow citizens.

My attitude towards interactions with law enforcement - and I suspect I'm not alone in this - is the exact same attitude I have towards any other service provider at any business: Let's just make this as painless as possible so I can get on with things. If it takes trying to sell me the extended warranty or taking possession of my pistol during a traffic stop to put you in your happy place, fine. I'll tell you "No thanks" or "Sure thing, officer." I won't be particularly excited about the experience, but I understand that you've got a job to do.

By the same token, if you start in on the hard sell after I've made my intentions clear, or you start giving me a hard time about something I'm totally within my rights to do, or you begin infringing on my safety, I'm going to get pissed off. Once again, I'll have the same response as with any other service provider: I'm going to tell you I'm unhappy, and if you don't fix the problem, I'm going to report up the chain until I find someone that does.


Have officers ever been shot by people looking like your roomie? If the answer is yes (which it is), then it does not matter how a person looks, but the context and percieved threat based on the officers observations.

Are you saying that all that matters is how the officer feels? Surely there's a "reasonable person (or officer)" type standard that needs to be met here. I don't think anyone is trying to say that officers shouldn't take steps to keep themselves safe, but these steps need to be responsible actions that you can justify with something other than "I didn't like his tone."

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 11:34 AM
Dude...

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying it is what it is. I respect L.E., I understand the plight, but... you may not like the way I said it but at the most basic point, that's what it is.

I'm going to do what gets me home safe.

At the same time, you have citizens that... are just to be completely honest about it, and that's why this has spanned so long, offended that they're treated as if they're a threat. (ETA: When in their eyes, they've done nothing to deserve that treatment)

I'll be honest with you, I usually put my concerns and what not aside and comply with the officer, because I understand they're doing a job. But the only reason an officer would disarm someone is because that didn't make them feel safe. I mean it's calling a spade a spade.

The implications of if that officer's a bad person that hates the constitution? No, doesn't mean so. But at the same time, it doesn't change it.

At the point you have someone worrying about going home safe and to be honest, doing their job, and at the other side you have someone concerned why they're being treated like they're not trusted enough for that officer to go home. Not gonna lie, some citizens are scared too.

That's the situation. Officers don't want to die, and people don't want to be treated like criminals, where's the middle ground, well, that's between that officer, that individual and the circumstances of their encounter, IMHO. That's the elephant in the room.

I mean that's really what this is all about, citizens are scared they're going to say something stupid after dealing in a situation they were scared to be in and end up in a place they're scared to go.

As a side note and a different part of the discussion, I'll be honest, to lend some credit to what Jay Cunningham said earlier, I don't care the intentions of an officer, that officer could be the Nobel Peace Prize, citizen advocate of the year, but I can kind of see, where, honestly, let's say you end up in the Trayvon Martin situation, and the community is up at arms, and the President of the United States is putting pressure on the case to be confirmed as guilty, and there's outcry that it's murder.

That officer's words, whatever he documents as the interview going, and how that interaction goes, can be used independent of that officer's will and intentions against someone, like say (I forget his name). That's why they advise whatever you say can be used against you in court. Because it's the Truth.

So multiple elements at play, I try to keep the officer at ease of I'm not going to murder them, so I tell them I have a weapon, and keep the balance of, not saying something that will land me a prison after a high pressure situation, because regardless of what a Police Officer says, a District Attorney feels differently.

How many times have we heard that? Well that District Attorney, or that personality, that individual, doesn't like guns, so they're going to give you a hard time, regardless of living in a community where all of that's legal, that person doesn't think it should be. (ETA 2: So you're going to get slapped in the face with their agenda.)

A middle ground?

So let me go over some basic points, as you put them.

Officers want to go home, so they are concerned with their personal safety at all times when dealing with unknown people.

The conceal carrying citizen has a gun on their person, which is a tool of destruction, something that may be detrimental to anyone, especially an officer.

The conceal carrying citizen does not want to be treated like a criminal, or dangerous, but yet he/she has a tool of destruction on their person which, from reading the comments on here (and lets be blunt), the citizen may attempt to hide from that officer. Thinking about themselves and their safety first (which is fine) before the officers safety. The citizen then gets upset, appalled and are taken back by the officers reaction to their conceal carried firearm, legal or not.

People, everyone (citizens, officers, whoever) are selfish and thinking about their personal well being over everyone else. This is why there will be no middle ground, just hurt feelings.

Again, nothing will change as personalities/attitudes/agendas will cause it not to change.

jetfire
05-29-2012, 11:41 AM
a tool of destruction

That's funny, because if my gun is a tool of destruction it's broken.

Tamara
05-29-2012, 11:46 AM
The conceal carrying citizen has a gun on their person, which is a tool of destruction, something that may be detrimental to anyone, especially an officer.

A) Why "especially" an officer?

2) You don't show me yours, and I won't show you mine?

iii) Nobody is suggesting letting the guy in the driver's seat play the Furtive Movement Hokey Pokey; there's a world of difference between "Sir, please keep your hands (on the wheel/where I can see them) and don't make any sudden movements," and treating someone who has just violated the traffic code like a felony suspect and jacking around with an unfamiliar gun in an area with few safe backstops and a whole bunch of no-shoots.

BWT
05-29-2012, 11:46 AM
The conceal carrying citizen has a gun on their person, which is a tool of destruction, something that may be detrimental to anyone, especially an officer.

I'm saying this, I understand why you're concerned.

But at the same time, maybe it would do all of us some good if we examined why we are concerned.


The conceal carrying citizen does not want to be treated like a criminal, or dangerous, but yet he/she has a tool of destruction on their person which, from reading the comments on here (and lets be blunt), the citizen may attempt to hide from that officer

They're hiding it because they're scared, at the root level, scared that it might be conflict, scared what the officer may do. I would say take yourself out of the mindset of "I don't understand why these people with dangerous weapons are scared, they're scary themselves" and realize that not everyone has a third person view of themselves.

They may be under the impression that they carry a gun to protect their family, themselves and maybe depending on how idealistic they are, society.

Many reasons, you carry a gun, to protect and serve, the first part. To protect.

That's why I think this is hard for us to understand, you don't necessarily understand why people conceal carry firearms to begin with. Like I had a cousin raped, a cousin stabbed over 20-30 times and an uncle have his throat slashed, I carry because I love the people around me, I would like to be a positive influence on society, and I'd like to be able to do something about it if I saw that situation.

I started carrying because I used to work counter-theft, and we stopped a lady with a gun, and the conclusion I came to was, yeah I was scared. But who I am, I was more scared about what happened to the people around me and what would happen if I wasn't there, but I genuinely feared death. Am I hero? God No. But I'd like to be able to do something to maybe save a life, I carried a pocket knife then, and yeah, an 18 year old who made $8 an hour's idea of saving a building full of people was to carry a pocket knife, because that's all he had, and he shouldn't have had that, it was against policy.

I would say quit looking at it from our perspective as an officer in your respect, and as a citizen as myself and maybe clarity will come.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 11:51 AM
Nobody is saying, or even implying, that.

The fact that you would infer that from what has been written here is... well, illustrative of a certain...mindset. It's almost like you're accusing everybody of ganging up on you and your fellow officers. It's kind of sounding like... dare I say it? ..."Us vs. Them".

But that can't be, since you told David Armstrong that the whole "Us vs. Them" mindset isn't held by cops. Hm.

Did I say anything about anyone ganging up here? Or the implication is so obvious that I am making a point on the side of LEO's and everyone else is taking an "us vs. them" stand ?

hmmmmmmmm


What it boils down is a person's idea of self-preservation in a single interaction.

That's Cop's mindset of self-preservation can be making it out of the shift alive and maybe doing what's right. Some cops may be more worried about living with the implications of doing what's right over living through an experience, but I doubt that's many. That's human nature.

Not going to lie, I heard a Vietnam Veteran speak of being in country, it was on National Geographic and what he said is you get to the point to where you suspect everyone and everything, and suspicion becomes hatred. I guess that lends itself to the resentment citizens feel at time, because, it feels like you are resented when you are treated with suspicion of doing wrong, and when you're not, you become offended.

That Citizen's mindset of self-preservation can be just making it through that experience without going to jail/court or being drawn down on because they're expressing their rights, and they'd like to keep a shred of dignity in tact and not be asked to step out of a car and make a spectacle of in public because they choose to carry a gun, and treated as if they need to be disarmed, and then "Oh we found out you've done nothing wrong, we'll give you your gun back now".

Again, that's the elements at play. I'd say, if you keep those things in mind, you can see why there's obvious tension here.

Anyway, Dr. Phil's going to get a haircut, take care guys.

Suspicion becomes hatred?

Maybe in war, but in police work?

Hatred?

Really? :rolleyes:


Are you saying that all that matters is how the officer feels? Surely there's a "reasonable person (or officer)" type standard that needs to be met here. I don't think anyone is trying to say that officers shouldn't take steps to keep themselves safe, but these steps need to be responsible actions that you can justify with something other than "I didn't like his tone."

Service providers, I like that. I don't know any 1800 number you can call then get arrested.

What is reasonable? Is it the same for you, your dad, members on here or me? Is the same for everyone?

Perception is king, how a person perceives a situation is how they will react to it (there are other things in play, but I am not going to sit here and type out a bigilion pages about mindset). I have never heard someone being disarmed for the simplicity of "I didn't like his tone."

ToddG
05-29-2012, 12:07 PM
I always declare to police.

Part of it is because I travel too much to keep track of which states require it and which don't.

Part of it is because in my experience almost every cop treats me better when they find out I have a CCW permit. Even the ones who make weird comments (my favorite was, "What, are you going to shoot me?") tend to realize that I'm not a ninja waiting to assassinate them. Serious question for the officers out there: how many violent felons tell you, directly and verbally, in advance that they're about to commit a crime?

Of all the times I've been pulled over while carrying, I've been asked to get out of the car once. No one ever asked to see my pistol. Certainly I was never disarmed.

I've got the huge benefit of being a clean cut, blonde haired, grey eyed white dude driving a fairly nice car that is registered in my name. I've got proof of insurance right next to my registration and another copy right next to my license in my wallet. I'm polite and deferential to the officer not because I fear he's a jack booted thug that might prone me out on the asphalt but because I don't want a speeding ticket.

In my experience, the best way to avoid an us vs. them situation with the police is to treat them like decent honest professionals trying to do their jobs.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 12:08 PM
A) Why "especially" an officer?

2) You don't show me yours, and I won't show you mine?

iii) Nobody is suggesting letting the guy in the driver's seat play the Furtive Movement Hokey Pokey; there's a world of difference between "Sir, please keep your hands (on the wheel/where I can see them) and don't make any sudden movements," and treating someone who has just violated the traffic code like a felony suspect and jacking around with an unfamiliar gun in an area with few safe backstops and a whole bunch of no-shoots.

Why "especially" an officer? Good question, ask any officer on the street that question (in the context of what I posted and this discussion) and you will get pretty much the same round about answer.

When I have a legal obligation to show you anything I will.


I'm saying this, I understand why you're concerned.

But at the same time, maybe it would do all of us some good if we examined why we are concerned.

They're hiding it because they're scared, at the root level, scared that it might be conflict, scared what the officer may do. I would say take yourself out of the mindset of "I don't understand why these people with dangerous weapons are scared, they're scary themselves" and realize that not everyone has a third person view of themselves.

They may be under the impression that they carry a gun to protect their family, themselves and maybe depending on how idealistic they are, society.

Many reasons, you carry a gun, to protect and serve, the first part. To protect.

That's why I think this is hard for us to understand, you don't necessarily understand why people conceal carry firearms to begin with. Like I had a cousin raped, a cousin stabbed over 20-30 times and an uncle have his throat slashed, I carry because I love the people around me, I would like to be a positive influence on society, and I'd like to be able to do something about it if I saw that situation.

I started carrying because I used to work counter-theft, and we stopped a lady with a gun, and the conclusion I came to was, yeah I was scared. But who I am, I was more scared about what happened to the people around me and what would happen if I wasn't there, but I genuinely feared death. Am I hero? God No. But I'd like to be able to do something to maybe save a life, I carried a pocket knife then, and yeah, an 18 year old who made $8 an hour's idea of saving a building full of people was to carry a pocket knife, because that's all he had, and he shouldn't have had that, it was against policy.

I would say quit looking at it from our perspective as an officer in your respect, and as a citizen as myself and maybe clarity will come.

So the citizen is scared about what may happen. They are scared about the second, third and so on order of events from their carrying a gun.

If you are not willing to go through the process, do not carry a gun. If you are not willing to kill someone with a gun, do not carry a gun. If you are not willing to be opened to all the legality and complications that arise from carrying a gun, do not carry a gun.

There is nothing scary about carrying a gun, or a knife, or anything - because you should have already figured out everything that can happen, and if you are willing to deal with all those things that may occur, then you should carry it. If you are not, then do not carry a gun. A reaction to you carrying a gun, and projecting your nervousness onto the officer who is speaking with you, will get you disarmed, don't like that? Do not carry a gun.

I do not understand why people conceal carry firearms? I really hope you are being sarcastic, I really, truly do.

Those on here who have sat down with me to eat, or over a beer, or have every trained with me know my mindset. Before I was an officer I was a regular citizen, happy and clueless until I opened my eyes (long before I got on the job) and realized I have the mindset that can and will save lives, especially my own. I sat down and thought about it long and hard, way before I even wanted to carry a gun realized what I was willing, what I able, and what I was prepared to do. I train so that I am able and prepared, I do what I do because I am willing to do it.

After the first time someone tried to stab me to death on duty my mindset hardened. I look at things from the perspective of someone who is out there every single day doing work at a level above that of the "average" police officer. I do not run from fights, away from gun shots, I do not shy away from those in need and I would be damn if I ever did not help someone in need.

Is your priority to save your life and only your life, gaining the best possible outcome for you, or are you willing to do what is required of you in the most desperate of times for someone who may never know you? As a citizen, what are you willing to do for your fellow citizens?

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 12:19 PM
I always declare to police.

Part of it is because I travel too much to keep track of which states require it and which don't.

Part of it is because in my experience almost every cop treats me better when they find out I have a CCW permit. Even the ones who make weird comments (my favorite was, "What, are you going to shoot me?") tend to realize that I'm not a ninja waiting to assassinate them. Serious question for the officers out there: how many violent felons tell you, directly and verbally, in advance that they're about to commit a crime?

Of all the times I've been pulled over while carrying, I've been asked to get out of the car once. No one ever asked to see my pistol. Certainly I was never disarmed.

I've got the huge benefit of being a clean cut, blonde haired, grey eyed white dude driving a fairly nice car that is registered in my name. I've got proof of insurance right next to my registration and another copy right next to my license in my wallet. I'm polite and deferential to the officer not because I fear he's a jack booted thug that might prone me out on the asphalt but because I don't want a speeding ticket.

In my experience, the best way to avoid an us vs. them situation with the police is to treat them like decent honest professionals trying to do their jobs.

Wait wait wait......

So you mean to tell everyone here that you always tell the police you are carrying a gun and magically are treated better? :rolleyes:


Felons (specifically felony-level violent crime) know what they are going to do before any officer will, they made up their minds and act. I have had two guys tell me, straight to my face, "I am not going back to jail." When I hear that or the slight variation "I am not going to jail." I know its going to be a fight at least. I could tell that they were going to do something stupid before they even opened their mouths, its projection. When you work around people who are up and down on the emotional roller coaster everyday it becomes easy to see when someone is going to "go big" especially if you are standing a few feet in front of them.

The only time we remove handguns from CCW people and run the info is when the circumstances of the stop were more than a simple traffic investigation. As I have stated earlier in this thread, I almost always give CCW's a break on whatever I stopped them for, not just because they are carrying concealed (and that requires some level of responsibility) but because they are not my target enforcement category. I am not out there to mess with the guy who went through the hassle of getting a permit/license to carry, buys a gun, a holster, trains, etc etc etc - sorry, "have a nice day, sir, stay safe" as I go back about my business hunting the corner boy who wants to sell heroin to school kids.

Coyotesfan97
05-29-2012, 12:23 PM
This exactly.

Most people are not "gun people" and since cops are drawn from the larger population, most of them aren't either.

What is as disturbing to me is that they have been bombarded in academy classes with dash cam videos of roadside horror shows and then conditioned by FATS training that even the most innocuous-looking citizen is a potential assailant and that the natural reaction to anything even vaguely firearm-shaped is to shriek "GUN!" and run their Glock to slidelock.

Nobody wants any more Newhalls, but there's an inevitable downside to the officer safety movement. This is something that is coming back to haunt us, and I wish I knew the solution.

We had one last year in Washington. Four cops down sitting in a coffee shop prior to briefing on a Sunday morning. Without even thinking hard I can remember three cops killed by ambush sitting in their cars at stoplights within the last year. Nothing like buying a kid some cookies as your last kind act and then getting splashed by a mope without even a chance to defend yourself two minutes later.

Are recruits shown videos? Yes. Bombarded no. By and large it's not a significant portion of the time you spend in the academy. They serve two purposes. They serve as critiques on what was done wrong and can show what is done right. You have between sixteen and twenty weeks to show people, some of whom have never been in a physical fight in their life, that their are people out there who will kill you without blinking an eye just because you are wearing tan or blue or a shield or a star. Can it be harsh and eye opening? Most definitely. It's supposed to be

The academy is nothing a a basic class to give you the tools to start. Your whole police career is liking climbing steps. Graduate the academy, pass through FTO (fifteen weeks) with three different trainers, get out on your own and get off probation, work patrol, get into a specialty or promote. There is always another rung to climb. You have to be able to survive on the street though.

You survive by thinking what if and you can die by thinking probably. The cop mindset should always be if this happens what do I do. The vast majority of non LEO thinking is it's probably all right. The guy walking up asking the time is probably OK. If I do something from my perspective of thinking what if can it be misinterpreted by someone thinking from the probably perspective. Absolutely. The people here know what if thinking.

The FATS or MILO system is a required pass or fail decision shoot for my state's POST. You don't pass by shrieking gun and blasting everything on the screen because someone made a furtive movement. Some of the don't shoot scenarios are tricky and they do use implements that look like guns to make you look and think in split seconds.

I'm seen every social strata and race in MILO scenarios. Just like the people you deal with on the street. Does it condition you to use deadly force? Sure it does just like Simunitions does in FoF drills. When it's done right FoF is the best training available.

The solution? That's above my paygrade. All I know is the streets are a lot more violent then when I started and they are just getting worse. I'm running late for rifle training so it's time to post this.

ToddG
05-29-2012, 12:29 PM
So you mean to tell everyone here that you always tell the police you are carrying a gun and magically are treated better? :rolleyes:

That has been my experience for the most part. I've had one officer who asked me to step out of the car and stand by the rear bumper, but he did not disarm me. I had another act like a bit of a twit, but he was a twit to begin with and I still do believe that his knowledge that I had a CCW permit -- especially in MD -- helped avoid it devolving into a ticket.

Having said that, I do know departments or officers who treat every CCW holder like a felony stop and in my opinion that is wrong. Enough of those stories become mainstream that it's understandable when Joe Concealed Carry gets worried... especially if he has fewer day to day interactions with cops than people like you and me. If I ever get disarmed and proned out by an officer simply for volunteering the presence of a handgun on my person, I'll be upset about it. It will also color my future decisions about whether to volunteer that information.

You see it from an officer safety standpoint. Others see it from a citizens' rights standpoint. After all, if the state gives me a piece of paper that specifically allows me to drive around with a gun on my belt what gives a police officer the authority to ignore it and treat me like a criminal just because I'm exercising that right? So I'm relying on the officer's professionalism and judgment. So far, I've met lots of professional officers who exercised good judgment. But you and I know they're not all going to rise to that standard. Ergo, some citizens are worried about the consequences of meeting that guy.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 12:42 PM
That has been my experience for the most part. I've had one officer who asked me to step out of the car and stand by the rear bumper, but he did not disarm me. I had another act like a bit of a twit, but he was a twit to begin with and I still do believe that his knowledge that I had a CCW permit -- especially in MD -- helped avoid it devolving into a ticket.

Having said that, I do know departments or officers who treat every CCW holder like a felony stop and in my opinion that is wrong. Enough of those stories become mainstream that it's understandable when Joe Concealed Carry gets worried... especially if he has fewer day to day interactions with cops than people like you and me. If I ever get disarmed and proned out by an officer simply for volunteering the presence of a handgun on my person, I'll be upset about it. It will also color my future decisions about whether to volunteer that information.

You see it from an officer safety standpoint. Others see it from a citizens' rights standpoint. After all, if the state gives me a piece of paper that specifically allows me to drive around with a gun on my belt what gives a police officer the authority to ignore it and treat me like a criminal just because I'm exercising that right? So I'm relying on the officer's professionalism and judgment. So far, I've met lots of professional officers who exercised good judgment. But you and I know they're not all going to rise to that standard. Ergo, some citizens are worried about the consequences of meeting that guy.

If any officer treats anyone who carries a concealed pistol as a felony stop then that needs to be taken up with their supervisors, specifically requiring re-education/training. It is my experience that some officers simply do not know the right way to react to it because they have never dealt with it and standard policy would dictate, since you know that person has a gun in play, you do the safest thing for you - is it correct? Probably not, but in that officers mind it is.

Also, I would like to take this point to explain that just because you (the citizen carrying a gun) do not know why the officer is doing what he/she is doing does not mean they are wrong or you are wrong, or both right, it just means that there are circumstances which led to this interaction on this scale. I will give you an example. We received a "man with a gun" call for a guy walking down a residential side street a year or so back. It said there was a white guy with a gun walking down the street. That is it. So everyone drives over, a sergeant was first, I was second. The sergeant draws down on him and starts doing the felony stop bit. I have no idea what is going on since when I showed up I observed a sergeant taking cover behind a vehicle pointing a gun at a guy who matched the description and he was giving him commands. I got good cover without crossfire issues and gave the sergeant backup. The white guy had a gun concealed in a galco leather holster, he also had a LTCF, which was valid. The sergeant put him in cuffs, I unloaded the weapon (in a safe manner) and after the white guy was put into the back of a car I asked the sergeant what the deal was. He told me he was not sure.

He was not sure, because there is no crime. That legally carrying citizen committed no crime but yet was legally made to prone out on the sidewalk, having his firearm removed. We traced the original call, and received no answer. I told the sergeant to go apologize to the man, give him his gun back and thank him for complying with his orders. He did, no huss no fuss, "you are just doing your job guys, I understand, thank you" is what the white guy told us after we gave him back all his stuff.

Joe in PNG
05-29-2012, 01:15 PM
Todd said exactly what I was wanting to say, but unable to.

But there are some problems with how a few, scattered officers deal with CCW holders. I inform the officer because I know I don't like surprises, and think he may feel likewise. I'm polite and respectful because that's just how I roll. I don't even object if he wants to take the gun back and run the numbers or check my permit, because he doesn't yet know if I'm a badguy or not. These things are fine with me, and I understand that the officer would like to go home to their family safely at the end of the day.

However, it would be nice if somehow, someway, a uniform standard of how to deal with a member of the public were to make it's way around our country- and none of these thing jeprodize officer safety. Not having to stare down the muzzle of my own gun for starters, or asking the gun owner about proper function if the officer can't figure things out, not getting grief for carrying a gun, not getting grief for having hollowpoint bullets... and yes, all these things happened to me during my one traffic stop.

David Armstrong
05-29-2012, 01:41 PM
Thanks for answering. And now that you mention it, my googling gave me the impression that this sort of study would be in peer-reviewed journals. I'll keep digging around. So far I've found a bunch of work that references this sort of thing, but not too much that actually studies it as the main topic. Of what I did find, much more of it seems to focus on the public's opinion of LE, rather than LE's opinion of the public. And I didn't find a single study that was actually designed to look for underlying causes or at least correlations to those opinions, which would be fascinating to me. If you can remember any specific journals or books, I'd appreciate it.
I'm going to do this off the top of my head, so don't burn me too much if I'm off-base, but I think that John Dempsey's "Introduction to Policing" text discussed that in a chapter, might be a good place to start if you can find a copy of that.


I think I'm starting to feel a little bit of "us versus them" mentality coming on. In this case, the underlying cause is jealousy. ;)
Na-na-na-na-na-na!:D

David Armstrong
05-29-2012, 01:50 PM
from vodoo_man:
How many times would you run pavlov's dog to see the same result? Somethings are known without required research.
Few things are known without research. Many things are assumed, many are thought. Knowledge is a very different issue. Just as an example in LE we "knew" for years how important random routine patrol was to deter crime. Then we actually did some research and found it really didn't matter much. We "knew" for decades that rapid response to calls for service improved clearance rates. Then we actually did some research and found it made little difference. I can go on with all sorts of stuff that was known until research proved it wrong. As for Pavlov, he ran his experiments for over 30 years and did thousands of repititions, comparing results and fine-tuning the information he learned. So I'm not sure he is much of a poster child for one-and-out research.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 01:55 PM
Few things are known without research. Many things are assumed, many are thought. Knowledge is a very different issue. Just as an example in LE we "knew" for years how important random routine patrol was to deter crime. Then we actually did some research and found it really didn't matter much. We "knew" for decades that rapid response to calls for service improved clearance rates. Then we actually did some research and found it made little difference. I can go on with all sorts of stuff that was known until research proved it wrong. As for Pavlov, he ran his experiments for over 30 years and did thousands of repititions, comparing results and fine-tuning the information he learned. So I'm not sure he is much of a poster child for one-and-out research.

I was primarily speaking from personal experience. I have had interaction with LEO's from different states. The mentality changes greatly from coast to coast, the job is mainly the same, but there are very obvious differences. I doubt it requires research.

David Armstrong
05-29-2012, 01:59 PM
Inevitable downside to officer safety?

Sorry, but wearing a badge is not a suicide pact. The officer safety mindset is what keeps cops alive that one in a million chance of the time. No officer is going to go to work and figure he'll just be lax with the guy who reaches into his waist band during a stop because he may have wanted to fix his junk at that moment.

There is no solution, because there is no problem, only a percieved "issue" over something which those making the opinion have no understanding of, but speak as though they wrote the book.
Well, I'm not Tam, and I'm sure she can more than adequately defend herself, but I'll chime in on her side here. Yes, we have drilled officer safety into the heads of LE, expecially new officers, such that it does create some problems. Anyone who does not realize that we have a problem finding that fine line between officer safety/public safety/fear that increases actions that decrease safety just hasn't paid attention or does not accurately understand the issue.


As to your last question, one thing I have learned very early on is that age and "time on" have nothing to do with how things are actually done or how the job is done. So to answer your question, opsec
Opsec??? ROFLMAO! I think she nailed, friend. The only opsec about revealing age and years of service is that you're afraid you have so little of it thta folks will realize all this talk about experience might be based on much experience. BTW, I'm 57 and wore the badge for over 30 years. No Opsec about that.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 02:04 PM
Well, I'm not Tam, and I'm sure she can more than adequately defend herself, but I'll chime in on her side here. Yes, we have drilled officer safety into the heads of LE, expecially new officers, such that it does create some problems. Anyone who does not realize that we have a problem finding that fine line between officer safety/public safety/fear that increases actions that decrease safety just hasn't paid attention or does not accurately understand the issue.

The concept is subjective.

A LEO working a small county/town works on officer safety less because he/she does not have the regular opportunity to work on it more, the need simply does not exist. Contrast that to someone who works in a very urban setting which has more homicides in a weekend most towns in the US do in the course of a year or three.

New officers do not come out of the academy ready to be elite officers. You learn it, after failing a hundred times over and hopefully not getting yourself or others killed in the process.

I fear for the officer who thinks officer safety is not something important or something that needs to be mitigated at times, talk about not accurately understanding the issue.

David Armstrong
05-29-2012, 02:05 PM
I was primarily speaking from personal experience. I have had interaction with LEO's from different states. The mentality changes greatly from coast to coast, the job is mainly the same, but there are very obvious differences. I doubt it requires research.
Again, your belief (or doubt) has little to do with whether or not research needs to be conducted or if it has been conducted. In fact, research can help us identify thoese differences, why they exist, how they impact the performance of the job, etc.

Did I say anything about anyone ganging up here? Or the implication is so obvious that I am making a point on the side of LEO's and everyone else is taking an "us vs. them" stand ?
hmmmmmmmm
PLEASE do not presume to think that you are speaking for all LEOs or thaat they all agree with your point. You are not and they do not.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 02:15 PM
Opsec??? ROFLMAO! I think she nailed, friend. The only opsec about revealing age and years of service is that you're afraid you have so little of it thta folks will realize all this talk about experience might be based on much experience. BTW, I'm 57 and wore the badge for over 30 years. No Opsec about that.

Excuse me mr. I have 30+ years as LEO, if she nailed anything its your sense of pride. So you have 30 years on the job, congrats and thank you for your service, is that supposed to mean something to any officer? I do not care what people think about me, nor what they think they know about me. Time on the job and experience are relative only to those who make it so. I have learned more, experienced more and done more in the first year on the job than most have in 10 years. Time on the job means nothing other than who gets vacation days off during summer time and for some training. That is it. If you think time on the job means anything else now a days you are fooling yourself, and that is sad. Maybe when you got on the job the "old timers" were the super-experienced officers who you came to for everything and ran the squads. Not true anymore. All the most active, the most dedicated, the most experienced and knowledgeable officers who do not talk about their "time on" as some sort of super magical number that represents your experience level. No one talks about it here other than those with 25+ years on the job, who still think its 1980 and their seniority will get them a cake gig.

Please, understand that times are different, experience and education levels are vastly different from five, ten and especially thirty years back. I will not even get into demographic and geographical location, as it impacts officer experience more radically than "time on." But by all means, educate us on some "research" on the matter that says otherwise.

voodoo_man
05-29-2012, 02:17 PM
Again, your belief (or doubt) has little to do with whether or not research needs to be conducted or if it has been conducted. In fact, research can help us identify thoese differences, why they exist, how they impact the performance of the job, etc.

PLEASE do not presume to think that you are speaking for all LEOs or thaat they all agree with your point. You are not and they do not.

I was speaking about personal experience, you were speaking about research. If it exists post it up, if you have experience post it up, otherwise thanks for your time.

Who presumed anything other than you? I presume nothing, I do not speak for all LEO's nor have ever indicated anything even remotely to that. I have always prefaced my comments with "in my experience" and if you thought I was speaking on behalf of all LEO's common sense would tell you otherwise.

I hope.

David Armstrong
05-29-2012, 02:18 PM
The concept is subjective.

A LEO working a small county/town works on officer safety less because he/she does not have the regular opportunity to work on it more, the need simply does not exist. Contrast that to someone who works in a very urban setting which has more homicides in a weekend most towns in the US do in the course of a year or three.

New officers do not come out of the academy ready to be elite officers. You learn it, after failing a hundred times over and hopefully not getting yourself or others killed in the process.

I fear for the officer who thinks officer safety is not something important or something that needs to be mitigated at times, talk about not accurately understanding the issue.
As nobody has said anything about officers not thinking officer safety is important or needs to be mitigated at times, I'm not sure what your point is.

ToddG
05-29-2012, 02:18 PM
This thread has run its course.