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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris D:

You reiterate my point. Exercising your Constitutional rights should never result in things going down hill. If the officer does not have probable cause, you should be let go politely. If probable cause exists, you can be arrested. Now, I know this doesn't happen and that is why I generally cooperate. Choosing to waive my rights is not a violation. Being forced to is. Also, I don't necessarily advocate being adversarial up to the limit of your Constitutional rights. Cooperation, in the long run will help out the police and reduce crime.

Art:

Like I said above, choosing to cooperate or waive your rights is not a violation. It is when you are forced to that a problem begins. On a Constitutional level, if there is no probable cause you can (should be able to) just walk away without any consequences. Walking away does not consitute probable cause (although a recent Supreme Court decision suggests that running away might). Again, I don't advocate that behavior. As I said before also, I basically did this once, and the officer respected it. He and I are both good friends and go shooting together often. Respect will breed respect.

Tcsd1236:

I don't mean a personal attack but I wish to address you last post. An illegal law in unenforceable. Many laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. Just because the legislature passes the law does not mean it passes Constitutional muster. Civil disobedience has long been an effective method to get laws changed. The Civil Rights Movement would have gotten nowhere without it. And yes, you do risk prosecution, but sometimes you may win and society will benefit. By the way, you can't take it to court until you have been charged with a violation (and some very narrow exceptions), so breaking a law is the only way to get into court. Courts do not issue advisory opinions.

I don't know your position on the Second Amendment, but if you believe that it protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms, how can you in good conscience enforce what amounts to unconstitutional limitation on that right? If you don't think it protects an individual right, then I agree you should have no problem enforcing such laws. Please don't say the law is the law or I'm just following orders.
 
Powermwt:
Agreed, the thread is getting off subject; I'll refrain from further comment on anything but the posted subject.
The comment about checking with the judges is to simply get their opinion on the subject; personally, I think that failure of a permit holder to comply to instructions from an LEO should result in a meeting with the judge and the subject to determine the permit holders fitness to continue possessing the permit.
I'll see if the judges agree with me or not.
 
BJM:
I've been asked to refrain from commenting on anything other than the posted thread topic.
I will not divert into side-bar debates any further in this thread.
Sorry, trying to keep things civil.
I'll be happy to e mail you after I get home from work.
 
I personally have decided that unless I am ordered out of the car I will not tell the officer that stops me that I have a gun. He doesn't need to know unless he has me exit the vehicle.
As for not violating the law...well, I am lucky that my state allows CCW (albeit with a permit) and as long as it is possible for me to carry legally I will do so. At the point it becomes IMpossible...let's just say that my life and the lives of my family are important enough for me to risk jail time. I can survive going to jail. I can't survive dying. And I wouldn't survive losing my wife and son to a criminal because I was unarmed.
 
tcsd1236

I'm all for civility and keeping on topic. I'm also for heated and vigorous debate. I look forward to hearing from you.

Now on topic. I understand why an officer would want to disarm someone during thier encounter. If only one party is armed they obviously have an advantage. Certainly, I would feel safer if I was the only one armed.

But, there has to be a balance between officer safety and individual rights. I think we can all agree on that. It is where that balance lies that is debatable. The argument for officer safety can obviously be taken to the extreme. You could be taken out of your car, frisked, handcuffed, put in the cruiser and be taken to the station for a traffic violation. Any or all these measures would make the officers job safer. Again, the question is where do you draw the line?

kevinw wrote:

"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."

Even if you have broken the law by commiting a traffic violation, you do not at that time give up any and all of your rights. In fact, only after arrest do the rights of Miranda attach. What about innocent until proven guilty?

Until one demonstrates aggressive or hostile intentions, I argue that they should not be forced to hand over their weapons. Of course, if you want to hand over your firearm to avoid any potential misunderstanding go ahead and do so. It may not be a bad idea.
 
Mabee as condition for being hired as a police officer, departments should require that all who are officers be "mind readers" and as such would never violate anyone's civil rights... yea.. thats the ticket... or mabee citation as it were...
 
One does not have to read anothers mind to avoid violating their civil rights. All they have to do is operate within limits the Constitution places on governmental power. I fail to see how knowing what someone else is thinking would prevent civil rights violations. In addition, we do not prosecute someone for bad or evil thoughts in this country. One has to take action in order to commit a crime.

However if your point is that the Second Amendment should allow an officer to take away someones firearm during a traffic stop even if they do not act threatening, then say so. Reasonable people can differ as to the extent of Constitutional protection.

My position remains that until someone acts in an overt manner that warrants the loss of those rights, those rights shoul not be violated. You need probable cause to arrest or seach absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. Similarly, an officer should be able to articulate with particularity probable cause that the person is a threat in order to disarm. Simply having a CCW permit and being armed does not rise to probable cause.
 
BJM, well just because you have a CCW permit, does that mean i supposed to assume that your a stand up person, and would never consider harming me or other officer? Or am i just "supposed" to know this??

I live in the real world where i can't afford to be relaxed when dealing with someone i have no idea of what they have done or could do. If you can't deal with that, too bad.

These measures all can be done with courtesy and professional manner. Some folks around here just don't get it and never will. As i have stated many times before: I fully support 2nd ammendment rights & persons who can carry in a legal manner. I don't want your guns or anyone elses. But i am going home tonight, safe.. So if i have to disarm you to do so while i deal with you or any other person armed, thats what i will do.

Any other questions?
 
12-34hom, I think we understand your feelings on this...it's just that some of us disagree. If you look at the stats, the number of CCW permit holders who've been convicted of violent crimes is so small as to be considered nearly nonexistent.
Now, if you pull someone over who "fits the description" I can understand you controlling their pistol while you check things out. But if you pull someone for speeding and they tell you they have a CCW permit, why is it necessary to then disarm them? I believe that was the original question, not whether you should disarm a possible suspect, CCW holder or not, while investigating them.
But, as I said, I wouldn't be announcing I was carrying anyway, since (as evidenced here) it tends to make LEOs too damn nervous.
 
Quote:

"BJM, well just because you have a CCW permit, does that mean i supposed to assume that your a stand up person, and would never consider harming me or other officer? Or am i just "supposed" to know this??"

A fair question and you asked do I have any more. Well, of course I do.

Just because someone has a badge, should I assume he (or she) is a stand up person that would never consider harming me? If so, why should I? If law enforcement wants the benefit of the doubt, they will have to reciprocate and give the rest of us the benefit of the doubt also.

Again, a question I posted earlier. If not knowing an individuals mental state is really the issue, then: Would you disarm a fellow officer if you pulled them over? What about a sheriff? What about a judge? What about a federal officer? What about a U.S. Marshal? It would seem that you can't know what is in these peoples minds either. Would you consider it any type of rights violation if a fellow officer or anyone mentioned above forced you to hand over your gun during an encounter?

If the real concern is officer safety, then why give the gun back at the end of the encounter? An officer can just as easily be shot then as any other time else. Do you turn your back on the driver to walk back to the cruiser? Plus, if an officer issues a citation, the person is probably more upset at the end of the encounter than when there was a chance they could be let off with a warning.

Quote:

"If you can't deal with that, too bad."

Again, this just sounds like the exercise of power for the sake of it. What separates the good guys from the bad guys is that the good guys have to operate within a set of rules.


Quote:

"As i have stated many times before: I fully support 2nd ammendment rights & persons who can carry in a legal manner. I don't want your guns or anyone elses."

Then simply, we disagree on what amount of protection the Second Amendment affords the people. It seems that most people on this and other boards like to say "the Second Amendment means what it says." So "shall not be infringed" would not mean: shall not be infringed unless an officeer wants to keep your firearm for the duration of an encounter. Even a small infringement is infringement.

Quote:

"So if i have to disarm you to do so while i deal with you or any other person armed, thats what i will do."

Again, unless I have demonstrated threatening behavior, I feel that disarming me is a violation and a violation, however minor, in not acceptable.

Please keep in mind that I am certainly not anti-law enforcement. They have a tough job and I do cooperate. But no one has the right to trample my rights.
 
As an LEO if I am offduty and have contact with an onduty LEO who asks for my gun I have to give it to him. If I don't I will be in deep sh*t with my job. For the record I don't have a problem with this.

There has been some questions of mental stability. If an LEO starts acting strange their department will send them to a shrink for a pysch examine. Also, I have seen LEOs that are having some stressors (divorces, money problems, death in the family, etc) taken off duty, put on desk jobs or have their guns taken from them (I saw one where they went to his house to get all his guns). Do people with CCWs get this kind of attention? I don't think so.

[This message has been edited by mrat (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
Listen, it comes down to a very basic principal. Wealth. Wealth comes in many forms, and wealth is by far and away the largest, if not the sole cause of malicious intent. Most namely, the lack of any given form of wealth contributes to this.

People need a few basic things, food, social interaction, and respect. Those are their basic societal needs. The more of these they have, the more wealth they have obtained. Regardless of paper money, wealth is most largely measured by those three things. Food, most Americans have plenty of it, not a huge deal. Social interaction, most Americans are getting less and less interactive in a real face to face base, and becoming more dependant on virtual mediums. To some this leads to feeling poor of this asset, to others it makes them feel the opposite, so that doesn't cause problems so much in itself, though it may in the form of families. This leaves respect. Respect is, in many ways, an asset that actually contributes to your other standings. If you have respected skills, you tend to make more money. If you are respected socially, more people want to be around you, more people give you food and shelter. If you are shown respect at the office, it means more power over what goes on there. Respect is extremely important, and it is by far the thing we are most poor of right now in America. You have to regard this on the long term. There was a time in this country where officers used to pull people over for even going 2-3 mph over the limit, and shot officers was not common, now officers will pull people over for 10 or more over and have more to fear, though still not a lot most stops. So why, if people are actually getting stopped only on more severe speeding, is there such a resentment of police officers? Because police officers have come to resent drivers more and more, and the communication of that resent between officers, and between citizens, has increased dramatically. People out on the road feel like they have to be afraid of the police(and they should be, my state has an unmarked car program with the slogan "we're everywhere"). This growing resentment and disrespect has to stop, or things will just continue their downward spiral. This country is getting socially depressed and drug down by resentment and respect issues between themselves and "the government", which has become virtually quarantined from the public by a mutual lack of respect and consideration.

CCW carries, have, already made a step in favor of compromise, a step saying, "we will work with you", and that must be respected, or it will mean nothing, as it already does mean nothing to some. Many feel absolutely no obligation to have a CCW for this very reason, and to top that off, the constitution in very clear words spells out their right to carry unhindered.

People who feel respected, will feel less poor, people who feel less poor, generally feel less need to lash out at their neighbors. Don't you see that every time you take away a cooperative CCWer's weapon without any clear cause, other than a general distrusting prejudice of motorists, you lower the feeling of respect, and therefore make that person feel less valuable. Add that up over thousands of cases and you begin to stir up a bitter concenous regarding such actions.

CCWers on the other hand, need to turn over their weapons when asked, I have no problem with that. I just am saying that the guidelines for asking need to be much more clear, and much better observed if society is to ever gain a better level of social wealth.

As for mental evaluations of officers, I do believe it needs to be more regular, because there are mental breakdowns that probably happen, however minor, with just about every traffic stop, every domestic abuse call, every other little thing. These may not show to other officers, because they may start subtle. A psyciatric evaluation may indeed pick up many of these things that an untrained eye would not have.

------------------
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
 
Are we not approaching band width limit on this thread yet?
There is really nothing more that can be said on this that has not already been stated.....some more eloquently than others.

The police officers here on TFL are friends of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The police officers here will defend everyones rights to the RKBA. However our jobs (Hell, I'm retired so I long no longer have to stop motorist on dark, lonely streets with no back up within 20 minutes.) do involve a certain element risk. I do not think that anyone here would dispute that there are inherent risk associated with doing that job. I to, should hope that there is no one here that would attempt to claim in any context that police officers are not, in fact, a necessary "evil". In order to survive a society must have police officers. Nor do I believe that for a moment that anyone here advocates killing a police officer simply because he (seemingly) violated your rights is exceptable.....especially for something as mundane as asking for your gun, TEMPORARILY, or writing a ticket because you are not wearing a seat belt. From the Centurians to contemporary police officers they are needed in order to protect society from elements that refuse to abide by the rules set aside by their fellow denizens or simply do not because it is more porfitiable and less work intensive than holding a productive job in the work place. The police do in fact, in spite of or regardless of ones personal thoughts hold that very thin blue line. (A term I detest.) In doing that job we ask for little. In fact as times change we ask for less than ever before in the history of man kind. We have even came to except that even after being cleared by criminal courts we are now subject to civil action if the political powers view it necessary to further their politcal agendas to quell public out cry (Rodney King case!). You see, in actuality we ask for damn little. We (TFL LEO's) fight for you, our and all Americans rights, first, second and all the others. You (long term members here) have heard not only myslef but several (if not all other TFL LEO's) here bitch to high Heaven when there is a post or article about someones rights being violated. He fight, we dismay and we morn....right beside you when we see someone....anyone....being oppressed by our governemnt gone mad.
In that light....knowing that......is it too much to ask that we simply ask to temporarily hold your weapon while we talk to you? There really are people out there (CCW holders or not) that would be delighted to kill us because of the clothing we wear.....a simple blue uniform with a small shiny badge on the chest. :(

------------------
Gunslinger
 
Dangus:
I'd like to know where people were getting pulled over for 2-3 miles over the limit. That generally is an urban myth who like to bitch about overzealous officers. Sure, we need to write tickets, but i don't know of a single officer that sets their threshold THAT low. We had a new Sheriff (big S, not little s...the guy in the corner office)..who wanted us to write speeders in school zones for being 1 mile per hour over the speed limit..the judges stepped in and set him straight.
You talk about "respect", and if I read your post right, you are implying that getting pulled over is an indication of lack of respect for you..nothing further from the truth. I could care less about disrespecting you..you are simply a speeder...show me a hard time, and I'll tend to notice you quicker!
You argue that the Constitution gives you the right to carry concealed. Sorry, I disagree. The Constitution gives you the basic right of firearms ownership. As far as I'm concerned, carrying concealed in public requires a greater degree of care and knowledge of use of force rules, and I think the government has an interest in making sure that only qualified and competent persons are allowed to do so. Politics gets injected here in determining who is "qualified", and in the past only wealthy connected persons were considered "qualified". The litmus test for CCW should be purely technical skills and knowledge based, not PC antigun content based. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the prohibited classes of firearms owners either, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that Charles Mansons gun rights are being violated.
On an admin note, I would like to ask about this bandwidth thing.. most boards will allow a topic to roll into 2,3 etc pages if the interest is there. Is this a tech limitation in this boards software, or is this an arbitrary rule the mods go by here? I've never seen the answer to this question. Seems to me that if there's interest in the topic, it should be allowed to continue in the same thread if possible.
 
Rik; As a peace officer i work in today's society that for many reasons is not safe or predictable. Many here have asked and chose to state thier reasons for feeling offended and or slighted by being disarmed by a police officer while being detained for whatever reason.

When i stop any person [for whatever legit reason] CONTROLL over them and the situation is my main concern... period. I know many here don't care for this and that's thier priviledge. But if I controll where your weapon is for the time we interact, it's just one more thing i elimanate that could possibly go wrong while we conduct the business at hand. It's nothing personal or against you or any other person.

It's my way of controlling the situation the way i've been taught and ensuring My saftey and Yours. This also includes, talking to you in a respectful manner, not threating you verbally or physically, answering any questions you might have to the best of my ability.

I know this don't sit well with many here, but that's the way i conduct business. If anyone has a problem with my conduct i refer them to my boss and let them talk over my actions. And if my actions are improper and need changes, that will be done.

While on the street and interacting with armed people, i won't play by your rules. If i feel that disarming you or anyone else is needed that's whats going to happen. Some members here take it personally, so be it.... I can assure you it will be a one sided affair. I've walked on both sides of this issue, if the roles were reversed i would not have a problem with any law officer disarming me while stopped for a traffic violation. [but thats just me]. Try and look at this issue from a Leo's point of view, some officers don't do this and thats fine if they feel comfortable with thier actions. Every officer has his or her own style and training. I doubt that this debate will ever be settled as each has thier own thoughts on the matter. But a healthy debate goes along way into helping all concerned deal with each other and there motives on this subject.... :)

[This message has been edited by 12-34hom (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
tcsd, I am not talking about where, I was talking about when.....

Way back in the 50s and 60s, stops were often for much less according to most people I know that lived through those times.

You really need to reread my post though. You have absolutely totally missed the point. I am completely aware, as is most of the public, why traffic stops must be made, but that doesn't mean that once a stop has been made that officers should be correct in disarming the motorist for no clear reason and showing them a general disrespect. When officers pull people over, most people I know leave the situation shaking like a leaf. Police scare the hell out of most people, and that's not good. I want people and the police to know each other, defend each other, and all around get along. We can do that, but it is gonna take displays of respect. I have stated in my post that if an officer asks for my weapon, and responds yes to the question of "do you have due cause to confiscate it?" then I will surrender the weapon except in extremely bizarre rare cases. I will take that step, but the officers need to take steps themselves. The mutual showing of respect is important.

------------------
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

[This message has been edited by Dangus (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
Couple of points about stats that were mentioned about the number of officers shot.

The methodology in collecting data for that type of things has changed several times. Before computers not as many things were tracked for instance.

One thing that does seem consistant about LEO being shot is that their, or their fellow officers, gun is the one most likely to shoot them. Part of that is because they are around police guns more than other guns of course. So the exposure time should be included in the stats but isn't.
 
mrat:

It is comforting to hear that action is taken to ensure officer stability where you work. However, I wonder how pervasive this is. Right or wrong, it seems that officers tend to protect other officers even when they may be a danger.

tcsd1236:

I didn't read Dangus' post to suggest that pulling someone over for even minor speeding was disrespectful. It is how the speeder is treated that is the problem. He didn't murder someone. Why do we always seem to have to endure the condescending questions and attitude?

As to whether the Second Amendment allows one to carry concealed, that is technically debatable. However "bear" in the Amendment has to mean some sort of carry; either concealed or open. It is not, by any reasonable interpretation, only limited to ownership.

12-34hom:

CONTROLL (sic) is just a politically correct term for oppression. Especially when the control is overagressive. This type of behavior will breed contempt. There is a reason law enforcement is losing the respect of the general community. That respect will never be regained by using control and fear to force compliance. Law enforcement will never regain the publics trust until they first trust the public.

If someone in a position of power doesn't care about a citizens' rights, they should be removed from that position. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No, an officer does not have to play by "my rules", but they can't violate my rights either.
 
Dangus:
My advice to you is that if the officer asks for the gun, you dont sit there debating with him whether he's got "due cause". Turn it over ..if you have a problem, address it to the chain of command afterwards.
I know that some people get freaked out by being stopped. I see it all the time in people who say they've never been stopped. Of course, I see that in people who also want to use that factoid as a reason to get out of the ticket ("I've been driving for "-" years and have never gotten a ticket" "oh really? I think..well, there goes THAT streak of luck!")I'm still gonna do the things and say the things I need to complete the stop in a professional way. That includes asking people questions , some of which some peole here seem to object to.
Glamdring: That fact you put out about the officer usually being shot with their own gun is false. Officers have been getting shot w/ their own weapons in about 20% of officer fatalities. That number has been pretty steady for years.

[This message has been edited by tcsd1236 (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top