Dealing with the police

[voodoo_man]

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]

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]

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!

[David Armstrong]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.