Scott Conklin
New member
OK, with the closure of the other thread came the idea of offering a scenerio where disarming a citizen who is carrying unconcealed would be appropriate. Hmmm...I had one then as I started writing this I picked it apart in more depth and it sort of disintegrated...
OK. A call comes in regarding a man with a gun. State law does not specifically preclude this so it is, in fact, "legal"(leaving out any discussion of basic rights for the time being). I can't fault a cop for responding to this, of course. I also can't fault a cop for observing the "suspect" and his behavior. If, after some observation, it seems nothing is going on indicating threat or criminal intent it would also be logical for the officer to approach the person and ask to see identification. At that point I don't really see a valid reason for disarming the individual BUT if said officer tells me he'd appreciate seeing ID and he'd like to hold onto the gun while checking things out I doubt I'd be averse to it. In todays world it is logical. I would also not be particularly inclined to start a debate with an officer if he's plainly just trying to do the right thing by everyone concerned.
Where I see the problem arising is in the perceived intent of the phrases used by the resident police here. I'm not going to go back and hunt for the exact quote but it basically boiled down to arriving on scene, drawing down on the individual and disarming him at gun point with the usual "hands against the wall, spread 'em, here come the cuffs" routine used for someone truly suspected of or caught in the act of a crime. That infers guilt in this scenerio based solely on the fact someone is engaging in a perfectly lawful activity. Sorry, but that ain't how the system is supposed to work and arguments of "officer safety" don't cut it. A reasonable degree of safety can be acheived via observation and an effort at some degree of respect, or at least courtesy.
The fact is it's very unlikely a guy in a store with a pistol on his side is looking to start a ruckus. If he is it's very likely he's going to demonstrate that fact before the approaching officer ever gets near him. If you have him hog-tied and on the ground while he still has a look of HUH!? on his face you can pretty well bet you just man-handled one of the good guys. THAT is what generates lawsuits and bad press and the ever increasing degree of distrust the general public has for law enforcement these days.
It would seem to me that observation and tact could avoid a great many problems and even, possibly, a poorly organized confrontation with a goblin if the "man with a gun" should be out to do no good. It would certainly leave me with much better thoughts directed at the officer, his department and police in general were I on the receiving end of such attention.
OK. A call comes in regarding a man with a gun. State law does not specifically preclude this so it is, in fact, "legal"(leaving out any discussion of basic rights for the time being). I can't fault a cop for responding to this, of course. I also can't fault a cop for observing the "suspect" and his behavior. If, after some observation, it seems nothing is going on indicating threat or criminal intent it would also be logical for the officer to approach the person and ask to see identification. At that point I don't really see a valid reason for disarming the individual BUT if said officer tells me he'd appreciate seeing ID and he'd like to hold onto the gun while checking things out I doubt I'd be averse to it. In todays world it is logical. I would also not be particularly inclined to start a debate with an officer if he's plainly just trying to do the right thing by everyone concerned.
Where I see the problem arising is in the perceived intent of the phrases used by the resident police here. I'm not going to go back and hunt for the exact quote but it basically boiled down to arriving on scene, drawing down on the individual and disarming him at gun point with the usual "hands against the wall, spread 'em, here come the cuffs" routine used for someone truly suspected of or caught in the act of a crime. That infers guilt in this scenerio based solely on the fact someone is engaging in a perfectly lawful activity. Sorry, but that ain't how the system is supposed to work and arguments of "officer safety" don't cut it. A reasonable degree of safety can be acheived via observation and an effort at some degree of respect, or at least courtesy.
The fact is it's very unlikely a guy in a store with a pistol on his side is looking to start a ruckus. If he is it's very likely he's going to demonstrate that fact before the approaching officer ever gets near him. If you have him hog-tied and on the ground while he still has a look of HUH!? on his face you can pretty well bet you just man-handled one of the good guys. THAT is what generates lawsuits and bad press and the ever increasing degree of distrust the general public has for law enforcement these days.
It would seem to me that observation and tact could avoid a great many problems and even, possibly, a poorly organized confrontation with a goblin if the "man with a gun" should be out to do no good. It would certainly leave me with much better thoughts directed at the officer, his department and police in general were I on the receiving end of such attention.