LEOS constantly touching weapons, Is it Legal, is it policy or is it training?
- Thread starter BGutzman
- Start date
40caljustice
New member
I disagree. Respect should be given from jump street. From the minute you lay eyes on someone you plan on interacting with.
I give respect to everyone because I want respect from everyone in return. That's something my father taught me early. If everyone thought like this then the world would be a better place.
Food for thought: Communication is 80% body language, 10% speech, and 10% eye contact. The way someone portrays themselves during conversation can make a long lasting effect. And respect can be a factor in friend or foe.
Next time you have a conversation with someone, watch their body language. You can tell when they lie, when they disagree, and when they are respectful.
Rifleman1776
New member
Many of the responses are trying to be overly polite.
Fact is, many (not all) LEOs have serious ego problems and love to show their power and authority. As a former news person, I have seen many times an officer unnecessarily handling his firearm without fully drawing it. They would pull partially out then drop. The motions were obvious enough to be very intimidating. I had this done to me one time during a routine traffic stop (yes, I was speeding). The officer asked many, non-pertintent, questions in an attempt to make me respond or do something stupid. Straight out of a grade B movie. e.g. "Are you a wiseguy or something?" "Smart ass aren't you?"
Yes, they do it. In my current state that could be interpreted as terroristic threatening. Problem is, without witnesses, the officer can get away with almost anything. Legal or otherwise.
Fact is, many (not all) LEOs have serious ego problems and love to show their power and authority. As a former news person, I have seen many times an officer unnecessarily handling his firearm without fully drawing it. They would pull partially out then drop. The motions were obvious enough to be very intimidating. I had this done to me one time during a routine traffic stop (yes, I was speeding). The officer asked many, non-pertintent, questions in an attempt to make me respond or do something stupid. Straight out of a grade B movie. e.g. "Are you a wiseguy or something?" "Smart ass aren't you?"
Yes, they do it. In my current state that could be interpreted as terroristic threatening. Problem is, without witnesses, the officer can get away with almost anything. Legal or otherwise.
Rifleman, you don't carry a pistol much do you.
Pistols and revolver tend to "settle" in a holster, leather worse then other materials. You set in a car all day, then of course when you get out you're gonna lift the gun a bit to make sure it's loose. After a while leather will really grip the gun, almost gluing it in.
It's a safety issue, not an intimidation issue. As a Firearms instructor and FTO (Field training officer), I taught that, "slightly lifting the pistol/revolver" to make sure its free.
Not just in LE, you'll see it at pistol matches too, as the shooter steps up to the line, he slightly lefts the gun to make sure it's loose and wont hang up.
I think people "protest too much".
A good read (which should be mandatory for all cops) on holster and gun use is Bill Jordon's NO SECOND PLACE WINNER.
Before this thread, I wrote in the Canton, Ohio thread,
I neglected to note that my then five year old daughter was in the car.
Kraigwy, without disputing any part of your explanation of the utility of the act, shouldn't recognition of intimidation in a situation be part of a PO's general awareness? Maybe doing that while asking someone if he is a "wiseguy or something" communicates something to a reasonable observer the PO doesn't intend.
In my situation, I had a screaming man going to his sidearm as he waved his arms around. It did cross my mind that I wasn't even well positioned to cover my daughter with my body.
If we examine what is reasonable for an observer to conclude from a situation and a PO's conduct, it isn't hard to see how something unfortunate could happen. If a PO replicated the demeanor of the Canton officer, explaining that the officer should put ten rounds into the fellow, wouldn't that civilian, or in some states a third party, be justified in perceiving a credible and immediate threat of death or grave injury and be legally justified in many jurisdictions in shooting the PO the next time his hand landed near the sidearm?
I neglected to note that my then five year old daughter was in the car.
kraigwy said:
Kraigwy, without disputing any part of your explanation of the utility of the act, shouldn't recognition of intimidation in a situation be part of a PO's general awareness? Maybe doing that while asking someone if he is a "wiseguy or something" communicates something to a reasonable observer the PO doesn't intend.
In my situation, I had a screaming man going to his sidearm as he waved his arms around. It did cross my mind that I wasn't even well positioned to cover my daughter with my body.
If we examine what is reasonable for an observer to conclude from a situation and a PO's conduct, it isn't hard to see how something unfortunate could happen. If a PO replicated the demeanor of the Canton officer, explaining that the officer should put ten rounds into the fellow, wouldn't that civilian, or in some states a third party, be justified in perceiving a credible and immediate threat of death or grave injury and be legally justified in many jurisdictions in shooting the PO the next time his hand landed near the sidearm?
Last edited:
Yes I agree with that. I've always been a pretty good judge of people. I could always tell what suspects needed to be cuffed and which didn't. Though it was a violation of department policy, there was many times I didn't cuff suspects when I took them in. In my 20 years that never came back to bite me. You learn which people will respond to kind words and which you need to take without even speaking, but that's a different topic.
Regarding cops, handguns and holsters. You'd be surprised how much speed matters. In my training sessions one of the things I demonstrated was, if you have your gun pointed at a target, ready to shoot, another guy (cop or bandit) can draw and fire before the one holding the gun can get a shot off.
This is easy to demonstrate (without pointing guns at people). Get two targets set up about 7 yards in front of two shooters.
One has the gun pointed at the target, the second guy has the gun in the holster. As soon as the first guy sees the second guy start to draw, he fires.
You'd really be surprised, most of the time the guy who draws will get the shot off first. I taught my officers to "assume everyone is armed", "be ready" and as Bill Jordon in his book said, "do most of your practice drawing and firing one round".
Another thing about Jordon's book. he mentioned most LE holsters have a safety strap. Officers had a tendency to leave it strapped until they think they might have to draw. He says do it the other way. If you were to enter a bar room fight, then snap it. You have more time to snap the holster wading into a brawl, then you do to unsnap it if someone pulls a gun on you.
The speed of which a shooter draws is not limited to muscle movement (grabbing the gun, pulling it out, and firing at the target) but the minds ability to recognize the threat and take action. Once the hand it told to take action, it takes a spit second. It takes a good deal longer period for the hand to get that message from the brain.
I contend that cops keep or put their hands on the gun not as a means to intimate people but simply "officer safety".
motorhead0922
New member
Shoe on the other foot
Question for LEO's: What would you do if you saw a citizen open carrying (in a legal situation) and he/she casually gripped the gun once in a while?
Or, say the first sight of the citizen happened to be the time of one of those casual grips?
Question for LEO's: What would you do if you saw a citizen open carrying (in a legal situation) and he/she casually gripped the gun once in a while?
Or, say the first sight of the citizen happened to be the time of one of those casual grips?
ConnTrooper nailed it.
When in contact--or when out of my patrol unit, I rest my whole forearm on the top of my holstered weapon. It's not normally just to rest my arm, but for weapon retention--if someone wants to snatch it, I will have ample warning and will be able to react.
Now, as for this remark...
Please clarify.
When in contact--or when out of my patrol unit, I rest my whole forearm on the top of my holstered weapon. It's not normally just to rest my arm, but for weapon retention--if someone wants to snatch it, I will have ample warning and will be able to react.
Now, as for this remark...
Please clarify.
Conn. Trooper
New member
Get out the popcorn for this show.Kraigwy, a bit of a tangent caught my eye.
While I don't doubt you on the timing issue, I think the more general issue is whether it is easier to remember to generally be snapped up, or to remember that you are unsnapped and you need to secure things before entering a brawl. People being what they are, I think focusing on a brawl might push away the mental post-it note that this would be a good time to secure your sidearm.
The guys I know don't seem very focused on gun use because they don't use it a lot. Frankly, they seem more focused on what sort of pen they have, because they are using it incessantly.
I agree that is the intent. I have a bad habit of resting my clenched hands on my lapels. My intent is just to be sure my coat collar has remained against my shirt collar. If someone mistook that for me preparing to threaten or shoot them, I believe I would want to think more about when I am touching my lapels.
kraigwy said:
While I don't doubt you on the timing issue, I think the more general issue is whether it is easier to remember to generally be snapped up, or to remember that you are unsnapped and you need to secure things before entering a brawl. People being what they are, I think focusing on a brawl might push away the mental post-it note that this would be a good time to secure your sidearm.
The guys I know don't seem very focused on gun use because they don't use it a lot. Frankly, they seem more focused on what sort of pen they have, because they are using it incessantly.
kraigwy said:
I agree that is the intent. I have a bad habit of resting my clenched hands on my lapels. My intent is just to be sure my coat collar has remained against my shirt collar. If someone mistook that for me preparing to threaten or shoot them, I believe I would want to think more about when I am touching my lapels.
I guess that I was mistaken when I assumed that others would know the difference between command and demand; and that command has more than one meaning.
One commands respect when respect is given. One commands respect by one's interactions, knowledge, and abilities. In other words, respect is earned not just given for merely showing up.
To demand respect is to insist that respect be given where none is earned nor deserved.
DING, DING, DING! We have a winnah! Don P gets it.