LouCap said:
So, are we suggesting that police responding to a 911 or "man with a gun" call should not investigate, nor do anything to ensure their own safety until they determine the severity of the situation? They have a duty to respond, it's not a choice. At most, the man was inconvenienced and then sent on his merry way once they determined the call had no merit. If anything, the people who made the call are to blame, and perhaps they are the ones who need to be educated, not the police.
Two cases that made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court have established that in order for a police officer to make an "investigative stop" he must first have "a reasonable suspicion,
based on clearly articulable facts, that a crime has been committed, IS BEING committed, or is about to be committed." (Google "Terry Stop" and "Hiibel")
If the officer cannot clearly articulate why he suspects that the person has committed or is committing a crime, then no ... the officer may NOT detain the individual, or disarm the individual "to ensure his own safety." Thus, location is important. In Chicago, where there are no carry permits, it can be reasonably suspected that a man wearing a gun is breaking the law. In Loveland, CO, where open carry is
legal, the fact that the man was wearing a gun does not provide any indication whatsoever of criminal activity, and thus the officer had NO LEGAL RIGHT to detain or to disarm the man.
Do the police have a duty to investigate? Maybe yes, maybe no. My view is that "man with a gun" calls should be handled first at the dispatcher level. Let's say (just for argument) that we're in Loveland, CO, and someone sees a man sitting on a park bench, eating his lunch. And the man happens to be wearing a sidearm, in a holster.
Suzie Soccermom gets her knickers in a twist and calls the police: "Hello, police? I'm in the park and there's a man here! And, and ... he has a g-g-g-GUN!"
Now, according to you, the police "must" investigate. I ask: Investigate WHAT? So far, there's nothing to indicate a crime. So the dispatcher
should then ask Ms. Soccermom, "M'am, what's the man doing?"
SS: "He's ... he's ... he's sitting on a park bench. Eating a sandwich. But, but ... he has a g-g-g-GUN!"
D: "Yes M'am, he has a gun, I got that. What is he doing with the gun?"
SS: "Well, nothing. He's wearing it in a thingie on his belt. But, but, he's in the PARK! And he has a g-g-g-GUN!"
D: "Yes, M'am. But he isn't threatening anyone? Is he pointing the gun at anyone? Is he shooting the gun?"
SS: "No, I told you -- he's eating a sandwich. B-b-b-but ... he has a g-g-g-GUN!!!!"
D: "Ummm, M'am, it's legal to carry a gun in Colorado, per state law. Unless he's shooting the gun or pointing it someone, we can't do anything. have a nice day." -click-
That's all that's necessary. Really.
Look at it another way: Everyone needs a license to drive, correct? What if I called the police department to report that I just saw a man driving a CAR down Main Street.
MUST the police department dispatch an officer (or a flippin' SWAT team) to "investigate" a report of a man driving a car? Heck, no, they'd tell me to pound sand, and probably send the officer to arrest ME for wasting their time.
Why is a "Man with a gun" call any different in a jurisdiction where carry (and open carry) is legal? What;s the crime the officer is going to investigate? "Suspicion of engaging in lawful activity"?