why would an LEO disarm a CCWer ...take III

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chris D

New member
Disclamer: To the moderators, I don't feel personaly attacked, nor am I attacking.....

I wish i had more time to write this, maybe later i will....

One of the things I gather from the responses is that I should be happy that I’m being questioned as it may solve a crime? If so than that statment assumes I did something, am guilty and I do have something to hide. Therefor proving my point that I’m guilty until proven innocent. I like to be innocent and considered not a threat until proven otherwise. While I’m all for catching crooks, rapists, drug dealers etc. What can’t I be (innocent and a not a threat)? Why should I allow you to detain me to go fishing? Since I haven’t done anything wrong it’s pointless and a waste of BOTH of or time. By submitting to questioning I’m giving up my rights. And in the responses to my last post you suggest I do as “if I’ve done nothing wrong then there is nothing to hide”. This is circular logic. And condoning this is a violation of my rights.

I’m not anti LEO or what, I just don’t feel like playing this game. I’m a “good guy” and would like to be treated like so until I show reason otherwise, ANY attempts otherwise shows disrespect towards me and just because I’m not a cop doesn’t make me a criminal.

(note, I wasn’t pulled over recently and am bitter, I’m just voicing my opinion.)

As for what a crook looks like, yes there are all sorts. But if you can truthfully (and with a straight face) tell me that me in a suit vs. somebody wearing gang colors/clothing we would get equal scrutiny during a traffic stop under equal circumstances. I’d be quite shocked!

Now going back to the gun issue, if I haven’t shot at you buy the time you made it to the window to even ask me if I had a gun on me. Then the chances are slim (but not eliminated) that I will shoot. Since owing a gun (in this example) is legal why should I give it up if I have done nothing to show I was violent? My point is you are assuming I will do something wrong! That’s what I don’t like!


Gunslinger you said:

“But you say, "Not me. I'm an innocent, law abiding gun owner going about my lawful business". How do we as police officer determine that? “

And I respond:

“Why do I need to prove I’m innocent? Have you already determine I’m guilty?”

That is my point! You have stated that I need to prove I didn’t do anything (else, besides what i did to get pulled over) wrong.

Yes, guys be careful on duty, catch the bad guys and make the streets safe, but not are the expense of my rights (and there yours too!)

Chris


[This message has been edited by Chris D (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
BJM wrote:

"Try switching places? Well us non-LEO folks do it every day. We face armed police and don't feel we have to disarm them. We also face legal CCW holders and don't feel compelled to disarm them. If I meet a CCW holder on the street, I don't know their mental state at that exact moment."

"I say, nor do we know yours (The LEO's)."

How many time have I read about rouge cops shooting or beating inoccent people (on TFL no less?).

We (as non LEO) are made to assume that cops are not going to hurt us without (a good) reason. Yet this is not always true. As proven by many stories on the news of late. Who's safe from who? I have no clue, but I give both LEO and non LEO the benefit of the doubt.
 
I'm not an LEO, okay? But it seems to me that no LEO has a clue as to anybody's mental state when they pull somebody over on a traffic violation. And not all CHL folks are always pretty and shiny, nor pleasant personalities at all times.

Too many cops have been in situations where everything seemed smooth and okay--and then violence erupted for seemingly no reason. From just the hearsay of these sorts of events--part of his learning-curve, a wise cop will endeavor to make sure that he is the one in control of the situation. About all I ask is a lack of hostility toward me, and a reasonable amount of courtousy.

I can imagine lots of circumstances: Does my vehicle look like one which was involved in a Bad Thing? Do I resemble some guy who did a Bad Thing?

So, there's ol' Art's smilin' face, hands in sight, friendly, friendly, friendly. Funny thing: No hassles in around 40 years or so!

:), Art
 
Art, good point you bring up.

If a cop sees me in a (similar) car that was described in a crime, then him pulling me over and questioning me is bit different. As his investigating a crime and by owing a similar car makes me a suspect. Then he has a duty to check me out.

It's the random fishing trips I oppose.

Infact years ago (I was around 18) some friends and I were pulled over as posible burglery suspects (the similar car thing). No biggie, talked w/the cop and off we went.

I was also pulled over at 30 y.o. and had to QUICKLY explain that that black bicycle pump on the floor was not a billy club. Sheesh!

Oh yeah, I was pulled over for beeping my horn at somebody that almost hit me. In mass it seems that making too much noise is illegal (i didn't get a ticket)
 
I made the below post while Art and Chris were making theirs. It is in response to the first two post by Chris. As a side note to Chris, if I were stopped for honking at someone (as you described it) I would not be a happy man either.

Chris, I do not feel you have made any personal attacks on me either. In fact your arguments have been well thought out and presented in a very respectful manner. That cannot necessarily be said of all the post made on this discussion and I do appreciate your dialog. I hope that nothing that I have said or will say in this or any other future post on this topic that you have taken personally or as a "flame". I assure you that has not been my intent. It is refreshing to be able to have a "conversation" with someone whom does not feel the need to place it on a personal level and I thank you for that.
I will address your responses in order.

If the officer continues to question you after having been able to sufficently establish that you are not the person whom he/she is seeking that may be responsible for a crime I agree totaly with you. In that case your rights are being violated and the officer may simply be on a "power trip"....it happens. In that case I will be one of the first people here to fight for your rights and complain to high heaven (where did that cliche' ever come from?) about how you were treated. But until the officer passes that point please allow him to do his job. We are not saying, nor even thinking for that matter, that you are guilty of something. We are simply trying (for our benefit as well as the communities whom pay us) to establish if you have. I wish there were some other way but alas the only way to do this is to ask. We do, however, have an obligation to do so in a professional, respectful manner! (Perhaps that is the problem in many cases. :( )

Yes, we do "target" certain people. Some LEO's may not like to hear me say that in a public venue but it is true and a sad unavoidable fact. Give some of the new legislation designed to prevent "targeting" time and you will see why it is a necessary part of the job. (Anyone wishing to discuss/complain about that please begin another thread and I will respond. This thread is drifting enough as it is.)
However, in spite of so called targeting there is still no way of knowing who may or may not be a threat and/or criminal type. A case in point is the 72 year old man that just shot the TX trooper. (I know I am catching some flak on that right now on another thread but it does apply.) We cannot simply look at you or the type of car you drive and determine that you must be a good guy and therefore pose no threat and are an up standing citizen. If we did do that is would be discrimitory and dangerous. We only learn that you are in fact a "good guy" by talking to you. In many cases if you took the time to "talk" to the officer you may be surprised to learn that he feels exactly as you do about all gun owners (Americans!) rights as you do. Again, simply give us the chance to do our jobs and if you are not a criminal type you have nothing to fear. If we go beyond that point complain. Several officers will be by your side because frankly we (good cops) dislike those type of officers as much as you......probably more so.

Yes, guys be careful on duty, catch the bad guys and make the streets safe, but not are the expense of my rights (and there yours too!)

Some times.....a lot of the time in order to be safe and effective (catch the bad guys) we need to ask a few questions and determine whom we are talking to. I don't think that in itself is being too abusive of yor rights. They are my rights to and I am trying to fight for them with you.

------------------
Gunslinger

[This message has been edited by Gunslinger (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
Gunslinger wrote:

"Some times.....a lot of the time in order to be safe and effective (catch the bad guys) we need to ask a few questions and determine whom we are talking to. I don't think that in itself is being too abusive of yor rights. They are my rights to and I am trying to fight for them with you"

Sorry, but a violation is a violation. Not being too abusive is the same as "reasonable" restrictions. It is the proverbial slippery slope problem.

However, I understand the point. Cooperating with law enforcement should lead to more efficient apprehension of criminals. But, I don't have to concede any of my rights just to make an officers job easier. I have the right to refuse to cooperate, answer your questions and walk away. If you have probable cause to arrest then you may do so, otherwise leave me alone if I wish to be left alone.

Of course, this freedom has a cost. By not allowing unreasonable stops, searches or seizures, we make it more difficult for LEO's to apprehend criminals and this at least theoretically results in a higher crime rate. But, on balance my freedom is worth this cost. I am sure you have heard the saying "it is better to let 1000 guilty men go free than to have 1 innocent man in jail."

This is what makes law enforcement so difficult. LEO's have to operate by a set of rules whereas criminals, by definition, don't. But that is what separates the good guys from the bad guys.

Now, personally, I do my best to cooperate with law enforcement. But I do it by choice, not because I have to. Only once have I exercised my right to be left alone, and the officer respected it. We are now friends.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris D:
I was also pulled over at 30 y.o. and had to QUICKLY explain that that black bicycle pump on the floor was not a billy club. Sheesh![/quote]

When 23, I was pulled over for crossing the yellow one night (was avoiding a tree limb in the road, Officer didn't see it until after i pointed it out.)

Officer shines his 3 D cell Mag light on my 3 D cell Mag light (which was sitting on the passanger seat) and says, "what's that?"

"A flashlight", i said.

"What do you have that for?" Officer says.

"For working at night." i said with an incredibly confused look on my face, looking at his 3 D cell Mag light.

Officer hands me back my license and registration and walks away, with a "jack-@$$" look on his face.

No ticket.

I have always wondered how he would have reacted if I had given him my Class 'A' CCW permit...



------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
BJM, you have a complete and total grasp of the conflict involved in enforcing the laws and protecting the rights, property, lives and welfare of everyone.

It could not, in my (becoming less humble) opinion be summarized better.
Thank you.

------------------
Gunslinger
 
(Gunslinger. et al, at no time did I feel personally attacked by you or anyone else, I just thought I’d add in the disclaimer as the last post in the previous thread warned about attacks))


Gunslinger, Bravo for a nice and honest answer!!

You are right there is a fine line between doing your job finding bad guys and protecting my rights to the letter. I do understand why you do it and what you may find serendipitously. As I’m sure 80% of BG’s are caught during simple traffic stops. So while all my whining won’t do any good, and change anything. I do wish it was simpler to not have to deal with excessive questions without looking guilty (if you have nothing to hide than you wont mind me searching your car right? No officer, since I have nothing to hide the is no reason to look and it will take time away from finding the real bad guys ;-)…..)

But let’s face it, if we as civilians decline to answer these questions, it will arise suspicion or make us seem belligerent. It’s a no win situation. I’ll just remain insulted yet polite ;-)

I due truly understand your position and I fully respect it, but sometimes the line is crossed.

As for “targeting” it’s true! I do the same! I’m more worried about the guy dressed like a gang banger than the guy in the three piece suit. AND I will admit that the gang banger could be a harmless wanabe and the guy in the suit could be a successful high level drug dealer/killer. And I would not be too frightened by a 72 y.o. (unless I saw a gun)

BMJ, yes a violation is a violation. A cop can ask you most anything, my problem stems from the fact that if I refuse that’s when things go down hill. Police officers should stop pushing at that point and drop it, unless they have probable cause and it’s not a fishing trip. Let the people who don’t know there rights give them up and those who do know them respect them and drop it!

USP, Another subject of the Peoples Republic of MASS ;-).

I too have been questioned years ago about a mag light, sheesh is nothing OK to possess in this state! Ironically I have never needed to show my permit or give up my firearm during a stop (not that I get pulled over much, anymore ;-) ) Or even asked if I had one.

Chris
 
.....yes a violation is a violation. A cop can ask you most anything, my problem stems from the fact that if I refuse that’s when things go down hill. Police officers should stop pushing at that point and drop it, unless they have probable cause and it’s not a fishing trip.

I could not agree more. If we ("We" meaning all RKBA/Constitution proponents!) could all reach this point the struggle would be easy.

There never was a question of which of us was right and who was wrong. It was a simple matter of perspective.

Chris, if ever there is a chance I would sincerely like to buy you a "cold one", of your choosing, and shake your hand. :)

------------------
Gunslinger
 
Gunslinger wrote:

"There never was a question of which of us was right and who was wrong. It was a simple matter of perspective."

Ahhhh, Perspective, the great divider!!!!! Thats the nail on the head!

It is a great man who can see the other point of view, before speaking! (even if he is in disagreement)

If I make it down to your neck of the woods I'll take you up on your offer. If you make it up to Mass the drinks on me!

Chris D
 
BJM, I've never felt that any of my rights were abused by a general line of questioning. Besides, there's a way to deal with that: "Drift" the conversation into social! Sooner or later it'll get to "How's your mom'n'em?" and they'll breathe a sigh of relief at getting away from you! :) When their eyes start to glaze over, you know you've won! (I got beat at my own game, one time. After almost 30 minutes of good-ol'-boying, he wrote me a ticket...)

Since I know that Official Totin' can alternate between boredom and raw terror, I always leave them with something along the lines of, "I'm glad y'all are out here.", and I really do mean that...

Regards, Art

[This message has been edited by Art Eatman (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
Correct me if I am wrong but if you are being pulled over you have or are suspected of committing a crime. If this is the case then the LEO has every right to disarm you. A moving violation is a crime. Allbeit a minor one. So I think the officer has the right to disarm you during the course of the stop. I do see it as a safety issue for the officer and myself. Take my case a month ago. What if the officers had not disarmed me and I went to do something and it looked like I was reacing for my gun. Say getting a hankerchief from my back pocket, which I did do. If I would have been armed It probably would have looked like I was reaching for the gun. They would have had to react acourdingly. Best case I need a new pair of underwear. Worst case I need a coffin. I will pass thank you very much.
 
Somethig ChrisD said reminded me of one of the beginning points on this topic. Do you inform the officer you have a permit and are carrying at the time you are stopped when your state is moot on any disclosure requirement? The reason I say this is it seems a toss up on if it would freak an officer out or more of a problem after checking on you finds out he has a guy with a gun and didn't know it vs not an issue if you don't tell them. I know of one County here in California that has the requirement and Texas does. MWT

[This message has been edited by Powermwt (edited August 05, 2000).]
 
Perhaps I should give some examples:

You stop a person for not wearing their seatbelt. They are being very reasonable, they are don't look wild-eyed, drunk, or high. In such a case, you have no justification other than a desire for absolute control of the situation to disarm the person. I know that an officer was shot by some idiot who got pulled over for just that, but shooting deaths are still relatively rare, and LEOs being shot in this fashion is even more so. It is akin to finding one gun in a village and burning the whole thing down (as was done by order of the government in Vietnam). It is called overreacting. Only in such a case, it's not even reacting, it preemptive, there has been no justification given.

Conversely. An officer gets word that a blue mazda was used in a gas station robbery, and it is being driven by a single white male with black hair. So, the officer is driving down the highway, and finds a car that fits the description perfectly. The guy in that car is now a suspect of a violent crime, and so the LEO has every justification to disarm him. Same goes for if he makes a stop and has due cause to believe the driver is drunk or intoxicated otherwise, then the officer has every right to disarm the person.

But, I have to pose the question: Did the old guy that shot the officer in that traffic stop admit to having a gun? Did the officer ever even know? Probably not, so how could that officer have disarmed that person anyway. I have been stopped while carrying and the officers have rarely known, unless they are friends of mine....

Please don't think I want you LEOs out there on the road getting riddled with bullets, but you must establish a sense of respect and trust with the community you serve and protect. This is worth a little risk I think, but I totally agree it's not worth being stupid. You have justification sometimes, and should exercise it ONLY at such times. There need to be clear departmental guidelines and officers need to be more restricted in their coverage areas so that there are officers that specialize in patrolling specific districts, and thus have a chance to know the locals better.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Dangus
You and the other hardliners in this on-going thread repeatedly complain that we the officers should "respect" the general CCW holders and only go after the "real criminals" in so many words. Many replies to the effect that no one "looks" like a criminal, that there is no way to immediately determine who is and who is not a bad guy have been ignored by your group. It's the equivalent of the speeder getting stopped and complaining that the officer needs to be going out after the "real" criminal like rapists, murderers, etc. None of you seems to want to admit that while you personally may be a nice person, the very next person , who might be a CCW with ill intent, might not BE as law abiding as you. The officers discretion at both scenes should be the same, until they decide otherwise. Oh yeah, and some of you even admit to criminal activity in knowingly carrying guns without CCW's where required. Nice law abiding bunch some of you are!
If nothing else, this thread has convinced me to follow up with the judges who issue permits in my county and look into their views on permit holders who refuse to cooperate with officers during a stop in terms of announcing the weapons or refusing to turn them over when advised to do so.
 
When you talk about the "criminals" who "..knowingling carry guns without a CCW.." you are probably referring 60 maybe 70%+ of the members on this board. Even many of the moderators who are standing between you and a serious tongue lashing.

Your post will be a valuable resource to me in future TFL arguements of who's side LE will come down on when the fit hits the shan. I've always known LE would tend to observe inferior and invalid "laws" over the Bill of Rights. Now I've got it from one horses mouth.
 
Jordan:
The fact is that if your state has a CCW law, and you are carrying concealed without having obtained that CCW, you are in fact commiting a criminal action.
Since this thread started, I've had one person e mail me admitting that he intentionally has given up his CCW's and continues to carry without one, even though it's required. He has posted the same information here.
THAT is criminal activity.
I can currently carry on the badge; when I retire, I can no longer do so, because my permit, like most permits issued in my county, is restricted to target and hunting practice. I don't like it, but that is the law.
You can argue the Bill of Rights all you want, but the CCW laws of your State are the law; you cannot simply ignore them without risking the chance of prosecution.
If you feel that the laws are invalid, take your case to the courts; do not violate the law as a form of protest. If you actually had to use that gun while you were illegally carrying, you would get fried in court, no matter how justified the shooting itself might be.

[This message has been edited by tcsd1236 (edited August 05, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by tcsd1236 (edited August 05, 2000).]
 
tcsd1236 you and Dangus are getting fired up again. The topic is not who are criminals but how someone with a CCW and a police officer interact during contact. Threats to react to CCW holders in your county is not helping. MWT
 
"Can't ignore the law?" Funny, I seem to manage to do just that every day.

"..risk of prosecution?" Freedom can be risky. (Thanks largely to attitudes like yours.)

"..fried in court?" Well, I'm sure you've heard this one many times before but... it's still easier to get out of prison than out of the morgue.
And I _WILL NOT_ compromise my principals by applying for "permission" even though AK is "shall issue" and it's a felony W/O.

Like I said, there are MANY at TFL with this same belief so mind the breadth of your brush stroke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top