First off, Austin has a disarm policy. Several other local agencies have it too. Pretty much the officers only bother just in case a supervisor stops by. Second, everyone gets a backup on a traffic stop. It does not matter if it's Mother Teresa. We've buried two officers since May, killed on single officer traffic stops.
I met a pro-gun LEO, when I got pulled over!!!!!
- Thread starter Jeff OTMG
- Start date
"Think back to an age where cops were just people who had power over murderers, thieves and rapists, and served everyone else."
Hey, if you have a method of differentiating one from the other upon first contact, please let us know. I'm sure every other LEO here would be interested in hearing it as well.
Mike
------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
Hey, if you have a method of differentiating one from the other upon first contact, please let us know. I'm sure every other LEO here would be interested in hearing it as well.
Mike
------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chicago jerry:
I live in Indiana and I understand that Indiana law does not require you to tell officer of permit. I wander if it would not be a good idea to do so anyway? Does anyone have expierence in Indiana?[/quote]
No experience in Indiana, but in Florida it is the same way. And I know that I would NOT tell the officer for a normal traffic stop UNLESS he ordered me out of the car and the gun was on my person. At that point I would hand him my permit and inform him I was carrying and ask how he wanted to handle it.
I live in Indiana and I understand that Indiana law does not require you to tell officer of permit. I wander if it would not be a good idea to do so anyway? Does anyone have expierence in Indiana?[/quote]
No experience in Indiana, but in Florida it is the same way. And I know that I would NOT tell the officer for a normal traffic stop UNLESS he ordered me out of the car and the gun was on my person. At that point I would hand him my permit and inform him I was carrying and ask how he wanted to handle it.
Eric of IN
New member
Chicago Jerry,
I've always told the officer/deputy about it if it's an "official" contact, i.e. traffic stop, being interviewed as a witness etc. I know I'm not required to, but all of my contacts have happened after midnite, and I figure the LEO is nervous enough without suddenly realizing that the person they'd stopped had a concealed gun, and didn't tell them about it. Just my opinion.
Eric
BTW Welcome to TFL.
I've always told the officer/deputy about it if it's an "official" contact, i.e. traffic stop, being interviewed as a witness etc. I know I'm not required to, but all of my contacts have happened after midnite, and I figure the LEO is nervous enough without suddenly realizing that the person they'd stopped had a concealed gun, and didn't tell them about it. Just my opinion.
Eric
BTW Welcome to TFL.
Well, even though I am an LEO, I will be going through my state's CCW class, and taking my wife. I have had no problems from folks carrying protection in their car, in fact, it is presented to me as soon as I make contact with them. Now I hang on to it, but I hand it back to them when we are done, and usually BS about guns for a minute or two. I like to think that they understand that we cannot be everywhere at the same time, and support their choice.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric of IN:
I know I'm not required to, but all of my contacts have happened after midnite, and I figure the LEO is nervous enough without suddenly realizing that the person they'd stopped had a concealed gun, and didn't tell them about it.
[/B][/quote]
I don't know about the other LEOs here but I prefer being out after midnite. First of all the dark is my friend (easier to hide, harder to see me, etc.) Second, usually after a certaing time of night most of the average law abiding Joe citizens are home.
There is a higher number of BGs out looking for people to victimize, which makes my job of finding them easier. When I come in contact with someone and I figure out they are a regular Joe I want to send them on their way as soon as possible and harrass them as little as possible. I want to get to the idiots that are up to no good.
I know I'm not required to, but all of my contacts have happened after midnite, and I figure the LEO is nervous enough without suddenly realizing that the person they'd stopped had a concealed gun, and didn't tell them about it.
[/B][/quote]
I don't know about the other LEOs here but I prefer being out after midnite. First of all the dark is my friend (easier to hide, harder to see me, etc.) Second, usually after a certaing time of night most of the average law abiding Joe citizens are home.
There is a higher number of BGs out looking for people to victimize, which makes my job of finding them easier. When I come in contact with someone and I figure out they are a regular Joe I want to send them on their way as soon as possible and harrass them as little as possible. I want to get to the idiots that are up to no good.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coronach:
"Think back to an age where cops were just people who had power over murderers, thieves and rapists, and served everyone else."
Hey, if you have a method of differentiating one from the other upon first contact, please let us know. I'm sure every other LEO here would be interested in hearing it as well.
Mike
[/quote]
Think you missed the point. In following the innocent until proved guilty paradigm, you can't treat everyone you meet like a criminal.
Battler.
"Think back to an age where cops were just people who had power over murderers, thieves and rapists, and served everyone else."
Hey, if you have a method of differentiating one from the other upon first contact, please let us know. I'm sure every other LEO here would be interested in hearing it as well.
Mike
[/quote]
Think you missed the point. In following the innocent until proved guilty paradigm, you can't treat everyone you meet like a criminal.
Battler.
I just drove back to Virginia from Colorado on Sunday/Monday. Saw a very interesting billboard sign in Kansas about the upcoming vote on a right-to-carry proposition.
It was put up by a police officer's association (can't call which one as I couldn't make out the fine print).
Apparently there are more than a few out there who are on our side.
I also recall a friend of mine getting stopped one night here in Portsmouth. He was out walking about with another buddy, and apparently they were a close enough match for a couple of robbery suspects that a squad car pulled over to question them. My buddy shows the cop his carry permit and informs the officer that he is NOT armed. The cop looks at him incredulously and asks "Why not? If you've got the permit, you ought to be carrying!"
Gotta love it!
It was put up by a police officer's association (can't call which one as I couldn't make out the fine print).
Apparently there are more than a few out there who are on our side.
I also recall a friend of mine getting stopped one night here in Portsmouth. He was out walking about with another buddy, and apparently they were a close enough match for a couple of robbery suspects that a squad car pulled over to question them. My buddy shows the cop his carry permit and informs the officer that he is NOT armed. The cop looks at him incredulously and asks "Why not? If you've got the permit, you ought to be carrying!"
Gotta love it!
"Think you missed the point. In following the innocent until proved guilty paradigm, you can't treat everyone you meet like a criminal."
No, no...I got that point. And, naturally I firmly believe it. The problem is this: it is just as easy to chant the 'everyone is innocent until proven guilty' mantra as it is to chant the 'I did ______ for officer safety' mantra. The result of blindly following the first is a lot of dead officers and free-roaming criminals and the result of of blindly following the second is a lot of gestapo tactics that no one should be forced to endure in a free state. Naturally some balance must be found, and, as they say, the devil is in the details.
The officer has had about 30 seconds worth of contact with the person in question at this point. That person has stated he is armed (which is probably a good sign, I freely admit...if he's gonna assault you he's probably not going to tip you off that he is armed), and at this point you start playing the odds. Most likely this person is a good, decent, upstanding citizen who has every right to expect to be treated as such- with dignity and respect. Of course, he might not be, too...he could be a felon and be waiting for the right moment to kill you. You start looking at all of the circumstances (is the driver nervous? High? young or old? male or female?- please avoid 'sexist' comments here, a vast majority of violent people are male, pure and simple- how did you come into contact with them? etc...) and all these things change the odds, but in the end you are still playing the odds.
Stating things like 'well you can't go around assuming that' and 'yes but he's innocent until proven guilty' don't help...even though they're true and I firmly believe them. You are still playing the odds. You do it every time.
Let me put it this way: its unlikely that any given driver is gonna whip out a gun and shoot me. Sure. I agree. Its also unlikely that you will ever need a firearm for self defense. You can see where I'm going with this, I hope...so why don't you 'give peace a chance' and all that stuff?
I'm NOT saying its right for officers to automatically assume the worst and put everyone on the ground if they think there is the slightest possibility they pose a threat. All I'm saying is that it is entirely too easy to get your feathers ruffled about how a cop behaves when you tell him you have a gun and not think about how it is from the other side.
Mike
------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
No, no...I got that point. And, naturally I firmly believe it. The problem is this: it is just as easy to chant the 'everyone is innocent until proven guilty' mantra as it is to chant the 'I did ______ for officer safety' mantra. The result of blindly following the first is a lot of dead officers and free-roaming criminals and the result of of blindly following the second is a lot of gestapo tactics that no one should be forced to endure in a free state. Naturally some balance must be found, and, as they say, the devil is in the details.
The officer has had about 30 seconds worth of contact with the person in question at this point. That person has stated he is armed (which is probably a good sign, I freely admit...if he's gonna assault you he's probably not going to tip you off that he is armed), and at this point you start playing the odds. Most likely this person is a good, decent, upstanding citizen who has every right to expect to be treated as such- with dignity and respect. Of course, he might not be, too...he could be a felon and be waiting for the right moment to kill you. You start looking at all of the circumstances (is the driver nervous? High? young or old? male or female?- please avoid 'sexist' comments here, a vast majority of violent people are male, pure and simple- how did you come into contact with them? etc...) and all these things change the odds, but in the end you are still playing the odds.
Stating things like 'well you can't go around assuming that' and 'yes but he's innocent until proven guilty' don't help...even though they're true and I firmly believe them. You are still playing the odds. You do it every time.
Let me put it this way: its unlikely that any given driver is gonna whip out a gun and shoot me. Sure. I agree. Its also unlikely that you will ever need a firearm for self defense. You can see where I'm going with this, I hope...so why don't you 'give peace a chance' and all that stuff?
I'm NOT saying its right for officers to automatically assume the worst and put everyone on the ground if they think there is the slightest possibility they pose a threat. All I'm saying is that it is entirely too easy to get your feathers ruffled about how a cop behaves when you tell him you have a gun and not think about how it is from the other side.
Mike
------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
I'll throw my story in. I've had two encounters. About two years ago I was pulled over for speeding (guilty as charged) and forgot to tell the Arkansas State Trooper that I was licensed and carrying. When he ran my driver's license and found out I had a CCL, he came back to the truck and ask if I had a weapon. When I told him about the revolver under the seat, he hit the roof and read me the riot act. He took the gun back to his car and and checked it out. He brought it back unloaded and told me if I wanted it loaded I would have to do it. He could have confiscated it because I didn't tell him, but he didn't.
My second encounter was just last week, I was pulled over by another trooper for expired tags (only a few days). This time I was Johnny-on-the-spot with the CCL. I handed him my permit with my drivers license and told him about the gun under the seat. He hardly glanced at the permit and handed it back to me, he said, "You're the first person to ever tell me that." He issued me a warning for the deliquent tags. Good man.
My second encounter was just last week, I was pulled over by another trooper for expired tags (only a few days). This time I was Johnny-on-the-spot with the CCL. I handed him my permit with my drivers license and told him about the gun under the seat. He hardly glanced at the permit and handed it back to me, he said, "You're the first person to ever tell me that." He issued me a warning for the deliquent tags. Good man.
Fortunately I have only been pulled over once since getting my permit. Wasnt carrying at the time, but the trooper was very professional and curteous. To this day I think she only gave me a warning cause she saw my CHL permit under the DL in my wallet. I did not know that Austin has a formal disarm policy, does make sense though since we are living in little Moscow. What annoys me is that people are willing to offer up excuses and accept being treated like pond scum fro little reason. I am sorry that we lost 2 LEOs in the month of May during traffic stops. I however had nothing to do with those murders, nor am I even a REMOTE suspect. So then why shuold I be treated like the pond scum who shot the two officers. Aside from failing to pay my extortion dues on time what have I dont to deserve this type of disrespect. I suppose that since Daillo was killed by cops, and the street crimes and the Rampart units are under investigation for corruption and abusive behavior I should treat ALL LEO's as corrupt, power hungry, neo-Nazis looking for an excuse to shoot someone. MAybe the citizens should demand that when they comeon official contact with the LEOS the LEO should surrender his sidearm and night stick; all for their safety of course. Respect is a two way street, if youre gonna demand it you damn well better be ready to offer it.
enfield, thank you for verifying what I suspected. It even seems that some officers don't want to be bothered with a disarm, but they have to. In my encounters they almost seemed reluctant. Now go tell your buddies to quit pulling OTMG over!! ;-)
Battler, innocent until proven guilty is for when a person goes to trial. It is a courtroom concept, it does not apply to the officer on the street. They have probably pulled the person, like me, over for a reason. There was an infraction committed. I doubt many officers have the time nor inclination to pull people over without cause, even when it is a slow night. As a result the person is guilty, they have witnessed the infraction, and the person is now guilty until proven innocent. Just the opposite of what it should be, but I understand it.
I am in Indiana. My Texas CHL is valid here. I contacted the AG office and the office of state police before my arrival to verify that the CHL was valid. I also inquired about the manditory notification and was told that it was not required, but the officer would appreciate knowing. When I arrived in Indy I contacted the county sheriffs office as well as the city police and was told the same thing. If I have any interaction with an Indiana LEO I plan on voluntarily notifying them of my firearm as a courtesy. I will also let them know that I know that it is not required, but that it was my understanding that they liked it. Yes, I am a suck up, but it might get me out of a ticket.
Battler, innocent until proven guilty is for when a person goes to trial. It is a courtroom concept, it does not apply to the officer on the street. They have probably pulled the person, like me, over for a reason. There was an infraction committed. I doubt many officers have the time nor inclination to pull people over without cause, even when it is a slow night. As a result the person is guilty, they have witnessed the infraction, and the person is now guilty until proven innocent. Just the opposite of what it should be, but I understand it.
I am in Indiana. My Texas CHL is valid here. I contacted the AG office and the office of state police before my arrival to verify that the CHL was valid. I also inquired about the manditory notification and was told that it was not required, but the officer would appreciate knowing. When I arrived in Indy I contacted the county sheriffs office as well as the city police and was told the same thing. If I have any interaction with an Indiana LEO I plan on voluntarily notifying them of my firearm as a courtesy. I will also let them know that I know that it is not required, but that it was my understanding that they liked it. Yes, I am a suck up, but it might get me out of a ticket.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAZ:
I suppose that since Daillo was killed by cops, and the street crimes and the Rampart units are under investigation for corruption and abusive behavior I should treat ALL LEO's as corrupt, power hungry, neo-Nazis looking for an excuse to shoot someone.
[/quote]
There are plenty of people, some here on TFL, that are treating LEOs as you have stated above. And I have used your argument against this but it was not received well.
I suppose that since Daillo was killed by cops, and the street crimes and the Rampart units are under investigation for corruption and abusive behavior I should treat ALL LEO's as corrupt, power hungry, neo-Nazis looking for an excuse to shoot someone.
[/quote]
There are plenty of people, some here on TFL, that are treating LEOs as you have stated above. And I have used your argument against this but it was not received well.
BadMedicine
Moderator
TAZ: Preach on brother. I've read alot of interesting stuff here. I liked Taz' the best. If we must be disarmed, why not have the officer lay down his side arm and baton also. If he calls for back up, why not get on the cell phone and have your buddy "bubba" come over with his CCL/CHL also. This theory that officers is above the law is aggrivating. We elected this form of goverment and protection under the assummption that they were just one of us, protecting us, not dictating us. Yes the system has done background checks and verified that these are trustworthy people, but it is the same vigerous checks that the CCL/CHL holders go through too. Can somebody explain this??
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BadMedicine:
Yes the system has done background checks and verified that these are trustworthy people, but it is the same vigerous checks that the CCL/CHL holders go through too. Can somebody explain this??[/quote]
The background check that a person recieves for a CHL is not the same for a LEO. A person applying for a CHL has a check done through the criminal computer system looking for convictions. A LEO background includes the above check plus you must fill out a questionaire asking every question you could think of, these questions are VERY personal and ask about any question you can think of. At that point the questionaire goes to a background investigator that goes page by with the LEO applicant. Then the investigator sends out questionaires and speaks to the applicant's current/former employers, current/former mates, ex-wives/girlfriends, current/former friends, relatives, neighbors etc. They also get copies of the applicants school records, financial records, etc. In most agencies a polygraph or a voice stress analyzer is also done. The investigator then writes a report and makes a recommendation if this person should be hired. The applicant also takes a written pysch exam and a oral pysch interview. This process can take up to several months. The purpose of the background investigation on an LEO applicant is to determine suitability and simply to uncover dirt on the applicant. I do not know of any CHL background process that is this involved.
Rikwriter,
LEOs are not exempt from the federal law that takes your guns away if a protective order is used against you. There are a lot of LEOs in this country that have lost their jobs due to this. The background checks for CHL holders is not more involved than an LEOs, see expanation above.
[This message has been edited by mrat (edited September 14, 2000).]
Yes the system has done background checks and verified that these are trustworthy people, but it is the same vigerous checks that the CCL/CHL holders go through too. Can somebody explain this??[/quote]
The background check that a person recieves for a CHL is not the same for a LEO. A person applying for a CHL has a check done through the criminal computer system looking for convictions. A LEO background includes the above check plus you must fill out a questionaire asking every question you could think of, these questions are VERY personal and ask about any question you can think of. At that point the questionaire goes to a background investigator that goes page by with the LEO applicant. Then the investigator sends out questionaires and speaks to the applicant's current/former employers, current/former mates, ex-wives/girlfriends, current/former friends, relatives, neighbors etc. They also get copies of the applicants school records, financial records, etc. In most agencies a polygraph or a voice stress analyzer is also done. The investigator then writes a report and makes a recommendation if this person should be hired. The applicant also takes a written pysch exam and a oral pysch interview. This process can take up to several months. The purpose of the background investigation on an LEO applicant is to determine suitability and simply to uncover dirt on the applicant. I do not know of any CHL background process that is this involved.
Rikwriter,
LEOs are not exempt from the federal law that takes your guns away if a protective order is used against you. There are a lot of LEOs in this country that have lost their jobs due to this. The background checks for CHL holders is not more involved than an LEOs, see expanation above.
[This message has been edited by mrat (edited September 14, 2000).]
mrat, so you say. But it seems that the background check for a police officer doesn't catch many bad ones. I personally know a state policeman in PA that helped bust a fellow trooper who was in actuality a gangmember who'd been sent to the police academy by his gang to infiltrate the cops. He wasn't caught during the background check---they didn't catch him till he was busted for drugs while offduty, hanging in his old neighborhood.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RikWriter:
But it seems that the background check for a police officer doesn't catch many bad ones. I personally know a state policeman in PA that helped bust a fellow trooper who was in actuality a gangmember who'd been sent to the police academy by his gang to infiltrate the cops. He wasn't caught during the background check---they didn't catch him till he was busted for drugs while offduty, hanging in his old neighborhood.[/quote]
Give me a break! Do you know how many LEOs there are in this country? Do you know how many people apply to be a LEO in a given year? There is going to be a small percentage that makes it through. It is the law of statistics. One example does not equal "the background check for a police officer doesn't catch many bad apples". The majority of people who go through a LEO background fail. I know of a background investigator that just did 32 backgrounds and only 2 canidates passed. That means over 90% of the applicants failed the background. There are many reasons for this. One is a society that is facing a moral crisis, starting at the top. Another reason is not too many suitable canidates are interested in becoming LEOs due to the good economy which means they can get better pay elsewhere, crappy shifts, stress on the family life, the political BS, the crap you take when you do your job, lawsuits, etc. Law enforcement agencies across the country are having a hard time recruting suitable canidates. I personally find this very disturbing, it means more problems in the future.
But it seems that the background check for a police officer doesn't catch many bad ones. I personally know a state policeman in PA that helped bust a fellow trooper who was in actuality a gangmember who'd been sent to the police academy by his gang to infiltrate the cops. He wasn't caught during the background check---they didn't catch him till he was busted for drugs while offduty, hanging in his old neighborhood.[/quote]
Give me a break! Do you know how many LEOs there are in this country? Do you know how many people apply to be a LEO in a given year? There is going to be a small percentage that makes it through. It is the law of statistics. One example does not equal "the background check for a police officer doesn't catch many bad apples". The majority of people who go through a LEO background fail. I know of a background investigator that just did 32 backgrounds and only 2 canidates passed. That means over 90% of the applicants failed the background. There are many reasons for this. One is a society that is facing a moral crisis, starting at the top. Another reason is not too many suitable canidates are interested in becoming LEOs due to the good economy which means they can get better pay elsewhere, crappy shifts, stress on the family life, the political BS, the crap you take when you do your job, lawsuits, etc. Law enforcement agencies across the country are having a hard time recruting suitable canidates. I personally find this very disturbing, it means more problems in the future.
Darn right. Our failure rate on backgrounds runs around 85%. Add to that the failure rate on the written tests,(the math really nails them) the physical agility, and the psych. If we weren't constrained by hiring quotas it would be higher. Even so, some do slip through. Of the last three academy classes, (supposed to be five, but we ran out of applicants) 82 people passed onto field training status. We terminated 12 before they reached the 6 month mark. Right now, between terminations, retirements and such, the department is actually shrinking. We cannot hire, vet, and train replacements fast enough.