Giving your gun to police for, "your safety."

[dburkhead]

I'll determine what's best for my safety, whether you think it's ******** or not. I've personally dealt with at least 2 fake gun permits during traffic stops, and I have also disarmed domestic violence suspects who were legally armed at the time, with a valid permit.

I'll agree that more training is needed to familiarize officers with the different types of firearms they may encounter. I'll also agree that the safest place for a pistol is in a holster, as long as the person carrying the pistol is a law-abiding good guy, and not some jackleg with a fake permit and warrants in 2 different counties. I won't disarm someone that seems legit, but if there's any question at all.....ANY question whatsoever...that something is not right, then I'll disarm the individual.

Sometimes the big picture is quite a bit different than one's own little world.

And, of course, the "my safety" aspect is that you're going to rough me up (at least) if I don't let you disarm me, correct?

Mind you, my own response is more along the lines of not resisting while reminding the officer in question that I do not consent to a search. (If you don't require consent for that search, well and good, but I'm not going to try to stop you and instead rely on the courts for redress at a later time. Pain hurts. I don't court it.)

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[4sarge]

Here is my take on the subject and many years of hard earned experience

You will never win an argument with a female (especially your wife or girlfriend), a minister or a street cop (on the street). Follow the officers instructions and IF you feel that you have been wronged then file a formal complaint or a lawsuit BUT do not resist arrest or make things worse for yourself at the time. Arguments are not won on the street but can be settled later when cooler heads and the light of day prevail. Officers are not there to harm you but to offer protection for you and themselves. I know there are some who may disagree with this but it's just the way that it is, right or wrong

 

[dburkhead]

Nope. I don't do hand-to-hand with armed, uncooperative persons. That would be silly. Just keep your hands on the steering wheel, and don't make any furtive movements. One of my fellow officers will be along shortly to relieve you of your weapon during the investigation.

Hopefully, one's non-cooperation would only be verbal at that time. If a man tells me that he's not going to be disarmed, then moves towards his weapon, I think we all know how that ends. The side of the road at 1:00 am is not a court room, and it is hardly an internet forum exercise.

Oh, I wasn't saying I was going to be uncooperative. I was simply pointing out that I consider the "for my safety" claim in such situations to be specious. The only threat to me from having my gun in its holster is, well, you.

That said, I understand your position. You don't know me (generic you and generic me--a police officer and some individual at a traffic stop), and traffic stops have turned hot often enough that you certainly have just cause to ensure your own safety when the person being stopped is armed.

However, I just want it clear that I do not consent to any search beyond that and I certainly don't want my lack of resistance to your disarming me for the duration of the stop to be taken as any kind of consent (implied or otherwise) to search beyond that.

"If a man will not enforce his rights, he should not be surprised if sooner or later the law follows his example."
Oliver Wendall Holmes.

 

[PsYcHo SqUiRrEl]

I always remember one thing while working; EVERY scene has at least one firearm, yours. If there is another, then that is two I have to worry about. I'd much rather be in control of known threats on a scene than to be caught off guard. To quote an officer in a recent training I was in: "The scene was tense and rapidly evolving". Lets face it, not everyone is happy to see police officers when we show up. Any calm scene could rapidly evolve into a threatening situation.

I've even asked a fellow police officer to step out of the vehicle when I stopped him for a traffic violation. Of course at the time I didn't recognize him as a fellow LEO. He only advised me he had a loaded firearm in his possession and didn't ID himself as LEO. When I realized who he was I kinda felt embarrassed since I'd known him for years, just hadn't seen him in a while. He said no problem and that he would have done the same thing.

The thing I always remind myself of is "I'm going home at the end of my shift".

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[Donnelly]

Just as an aside, why is it that the officer feels the need to "clear the gun"? If a gun is going to leave the holster and be removed from the suspect, wouldn't it be safer to just leave it within the squad car for the entire stop "as is", without clearing the chamber? That way the officer would not be swooping the muzzle of the gun in the direction of the suspect. Seems like that situation could be litigious action if there was a ND. Maybe the "remove and put away as is" should become the rule.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I always remember one thing while working; EVERY scene has at least one firearm, yours. If there is another, then that is two I have to worry about. I'd much rather be in control of known threats on a scene than to be caught off guard. To quote an officer in a recent training I was in: "The scene was tense and rapidly evolving". Lets face it, not everyone is happy to see police officers when we show up. Any calm scene could rapidly evolve into a threatening situation.

I've even asked a fellow police officer to step out of the vehicle when I stopped him for a traffic violation. Of course at the time I didn't recognize him as a fellow LEO. He only advised me he had a loaded firearm in his possession and didn't ID himself as LEO. When I realized who he was I kinda felt embarrassed since I'd known him for years, just hadn't seen him in a while. He said no problem and that he would have done the same thing.

The thing I always remind myself of is "I'm going home at the end of my shift".

I want you to go home at the end of your shift, too, you and every LEO I've ever (or never) met. Please note your sentence that I highlighted above, however, when I say that, using myself as the example, my gun in my holster, is not a threat to you, to me, or to anyone except a criminal intent on violent crime in my presence. (That sounds a lot more inclusive than I mean it. To clarify, I'll protect myself, my family, and, given a need, you(the LEO). Outside of that group, it's going to take some thought to decide if I'm going to risk everything I have and probably many things I don't have for someone I've never met and who likely wouldn't raise a finger for me or damn near anyone else.)

To call my gun a threat to you means you have to call any of the various things I have within reach in my car similarly a threat and would spend the better part of a half hour removing all of them. As was pointed out, you don't know me from anyone else out there you might stop, and I realize this. You want to see my LTCH, I'm cool with that. Run it, verify it, I'm cool with that, too. Please, however, let's not point my gun in my direction with anyone's hand on it but mine. As I said above, I'll step out, no problem. If I must for some unfathomable reason be disarmed, I'll offer to remove the pistol myself and put it in my car. I just don't want to be covered and possibly shot with my own weapon. Whether by error or intent, it would still suck.

Blessings,
B

 

[rhino]

I'm curious how our society has devolved to where one person's safety is automatically somehow more important than someone else's. In this case, the default is that the safety of someone with a badge is is more important than someone without a badge. 4sarge is absolutely correct: it's the way it is, and we have to deal with it.

That doesn't change the more important fact is that it's wrong. Unfortunately, one side of this inequality has been imbued with the power to assert their own preference over the other side.

Yeah, police work is dangerous. The people who do it chose it; none were conscripted (and by the way, law enforcement is far from being the most dangerous occupation in the USA, for what it's worth). When you choose to do something with informed consent, you accept the potential consequences.

This has nothing to do with whether or not a license to carry is bogus or real. Until someone has demonstrated that they are a violent criminal or at the very least shown some indications that they might be dangerous (and being armed does not meet that criterion), there does not exist a justification for their safety to be any less important than the safety of the police officer in question.

If a person's gun their holster is such a threat to a policeman, why isn't the policeman's holstered gun considered a threat to that person? There is no difference. If a policeman feels the need to disarm someone for their "safety," why would that be different that the person feeling the same need to disarm the policeman for the exact same reason? Reductio ad absurdum aside, the two are not different.

The policeman doesn't know if the person they stopped is a violent criminal or not. Guess what: the person in that car doesn't know if the policeman is a violent criminal (who may just not be identified yet) or not, nor do they know if the police office is really a cop or not. The latter two may be rare, but they're certainly happened before and are possible.

Police officers may have the ability to disarm law abiding citizens at their whim without any concern of reprisal, but that doesn't mean they have any genuine right to do so. That law abiding citizen has just as much geniune right to disarm the police officer, but obviously they lack the means to do so.

Everyone has an equal right to go home safely. Having a badge or not having a badge does not give anyone priority over someone else, regardless of what is actually allowed to happen.

It's just another example of too much power being given to too few people, even if their intentions are entirely honorable and positive. The police should have zero "authority" over anyone who has not broken the law (and the presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary should be universal), but we all know that the reality is far from ideal and the gap widens every day.

 

[rhino]

On a personal note, much like BillofRights, the gun I may have in my holster is zero threat to anyone who does intend to harm me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their occupation is, if they don't try to hurt me, they're not going to see my gun outside of its holster because it's going to stay there.

When it's still in the holster, it's a threat to NO ONE.

Let's review a little something. Regardless of the level of training someone has or lacks, when do negligent discharges occur? Is it when the gun is in the holster (or otherwise not being handled)? Nope. Is it when the gun is being handled (regardless of whether it's necessary or not)? Yep.

In the absence of any genuine, compelling need to handle the gun, it should remain where it is: in the holster. Making someone feel better is not a genuine, compelling need.

 

[Jack Ryan]

It's the yahoos that are out getting into trouble late at night and packing without a permit that I have to worry about. But I always need the discretion to judge the situation and decide what's best for my safety, based on my observations in a developing incident. Otherwise, I'm just cannon fodder. If I make a mistake one night and get sued later, it's a good sign....because you can't sue a dead man.

You mean kind of like hanging around in taverns that look like a person might need a gun in there and drinking while they are carrying? May be a wiff of alcohol from the window of the car and then see a gun on the seat and start getting some bunch of lip about their constitutional right to drink, carry a gun and drive a car since they are a tax payer and as such they are actually your boss? LOL.

Nothing specific in mind, just asking a hypothetical.

 

[ryanmercer]

Frankly, I'd rather take my pants off and then let the officer remove the gun from the pants.

I would to

"Sir/Ma'am I'll gladly drop trout, and you can take it from my waistband on the ground"

and then "Ma'am you can pistol whip me if.."

I mean, scratch that second part.

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So it's a safety issue with you. I understand that. I CRINGE when I read about an officer attempting to "decock" a 1911, or some similar story. I am of the belief that anyone, including police officers, who does not know how to safely handle a firearm, should not handle one.

However, I would be careful what you assert here, if you wish to maintain your right to carry a firearm. If you are saying that a handgun is SO inherently dangerous that your life is at risk every time it clears leather, what are you telling the sheep? Guns do not go off by themselves, and a handgun, properly handled, should be safe. They are not ticking time bombs, I've never seen a pistol that would discharge without the trigger being pulled. I have never heard of a ND happening while a police officer was disarming someone...although I'm sure it's happened, it is exceedingly rare. Unsafe gun handling should be dealt with on a case by case basis, no matter who is doing the handling.



By the time someone has demonstrated that they are a violent criminal, it's too late for me to deal effectively with it, unless I've already got the drop on them. As I've said before, it's rare for me to disarm someone with a valid permit, based on a traffic stop alone. But I must retain the discretion to do so, using my best judgment. More on that later.....

And I know the risks involved in being a police officer. I accept these risks as part of the job. This doesn't mean that I don't take every precaution that I legally can to minimize these risks. Anyone else would do the same, or would be a fool for not doing so.



We are all human. In that sense, we all have certain rights. However, when I disarm someone, it is not a question of greater rights given to me than the ordinary citizen. Governments don't have rights, only people have rights. So, acting as an agent of the government (police), I disarm you under the authority given to me by statute, common law or case law. It has nothing to do with my "rights" over your rights. It has to do with the lawful authority that must be present in order for an organized society to exist.

We could start an entirely new message board based on the arguments over exactly how much authority the police should have, but I don't think that anyone would agree that there should be no lawful authority in an ordered society. Some may prefer anarchy, and for those people, there is a little place called Somalia where they are currently hiring pirates. I hear it is quite lucrative.



I agree with everyone's right to go home safely, badge or no badge. If you are taking the position that your pistol is SO dangerous that not even lawful authority should be handling it, you have just given the anti-gun sheep the reasoning they need to ban them all. Be careful what you wish for.

And I agree that I should have zero authority over anyone who has not broken the law. (Or that I have probable cause to believe has broken the law. Nothing is black and white, these things require investigation sometimes.) My arguments with regards to disarming people have always been based on lawful stops/detentions and investigations.

During those lawful stops, I MUST have the authority to control the scene, for my safety and the safety of the public in general. The authority of the police in the US is hardly onerous. Where you see diminishing rights, I can point to increasing rights. How many states in the US allowed CCW 10 or 15 years ago, versus today? Did you hear about the Heller decision? Did you know that many things that used to be misdemeanors in the past (and still are in some states) have been reduced to infractions in Indiana over the years, thus reducing police authority to arrest you for violations of these offenses? Did you know that 50 years ago, a police officer could shoot you in the back if he had probable cause to believe you were a fleeing felon, without fear of reprisal? Obviously that's not the case today. (See Tennesee v. Garner) Again, a topic for another thread...I'm just throwing out some examples to counter your argument.

The bottom line is, police must have the authority to control the scene during lawful investigations. No court in the land is ever going to rule that a citizen has the right to disarm lawful authority....the notion is patently ridiculous. The founding fathers knew that reasonable authority must exist, otherwise they would not have formed a government in the first place. An ordered society is not a zero sum game.

Metro, with respect, it's not that the gun is so inherently dangerous and it's not that it will go off every time it clears leather, it's more that it won't, indeed cannot go off while it's still in the holster. To minimize the risk to you, me, anyone, and everyone, that's where they should stay unless there's an immediate need to use them or they're being removed to be either cleaned or stored.

Jefferson was quoted to say that "it is to secure our liberties that we resort to government at all." The "reasonable authority" has unfortunately become unreasonable in many cases. That any state now "allows" CCW where they did not before is not an example of increasing rights, it's an example of unConstitutional authority having been exerted in the first place. It was not their place to disallow CCW or for that matter, OC, ever. Nonetheless, they did it unchallenged, mostly (and ignorantly) as a way to "keep the n***ers in line", among other groups.

Rhino's point, if I understand him as I think I do, is that yes, you have a right as a human being to go home safely and to do everything within your power to do so, and also that he or I, or anyone else has that same right. The problem from the non-LEO perspective is that as a cop, you have been granted the power to ensure your safety and, if improperly used, to jeopardize mine (or his, or whoever's) by depriving, even briefly, our access to a firearm while retaining your own. I'm not saying you use that power improperly, just that you have the ability to do so, with the backing of the courts.

If my holstered gun is a threat to you, yours is likewise a threat to me. Personally, I'd say neither one is a threat to either of us in and of itself, however if you want to remove as many threats as possible from the equation, I think it's best to leave all the guns where they are, especially if the LTCH is shown (and presumably verified as being valid.)

You have to maintain control of your scenes. I understand this. Question: if officer X has disarmed everyone who doesn't have a badge on his scene, leaving himself the sole possessor of a firearm, and some MFer decides to do a drive-by, who's going to be the target and who that could have helped defend him, will be left with their thumb up their back end? Is that likely or common? Not very, no, but when it happens at your scene, that's not much comfort and you're still just as wounded or dead.

You agree that you should not have authority over someone who has broken no law, and you further cite that you personally do not disarm most people you discover lawfully carrying, but in the same breath, you insist on maintaining the authority to do so, even capriciously. It's not so much that the citizenry should be allowed to lawfully disarm a LEO but rather that the LEO should not be allowed to lawfully disarm someone who is no threat. The solution to this question isn't in your hands nor mine, but those of our legislators (God help us!!)

I think we here are all on the side of law and order. I think that we merely differ on the way to go about that, based on our individual perspectives.

Be safe, and Blessings,
Bill

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[indytechnerd]

I don't mean to jump in here, but let me jump in here...

Metro,

You mention training issues and have shown a concern that (some) officers (maybe) are not proficient with a variety of weapons. Is there any training done, by IMPD, ISP, or other agency to correct this? Has the ILEA implemented a training course using red/blue guns, inactive dud rounds, or other methods to give officers better competency in disarming? I think this would be hugely beneficial in combating AD/ND potential, and proof of training could be used in any potential litigation.

 

[rhino]

Metro, with respect, it's not that the gun is so inherently dangerous and it's not that it will go off every time it clears leather, it's more that it won't, indeed cannot go off while it's still in the holster. To minimize the risk to you, me, anyone, and everyone, that's where they should stay unless there's an immediate need to use them or they're being removed to be either cleaned or stored.

[snip]

Rhino's point, if I understand him as I think I do . . .

You did in fact understand me correctly. I believed that my message was clear, but I thank you for effectively restating for me.

 

[rhino]

You mention training issues and have shown a concern that (some) officers (maybe) are not proficient with a variety of weapons. Is there any training done, by IMPD, ISP, or other agency to correct this? Has the ILEA implemented a training course using red/blue guns, inactive dud rounds, or other methods to give officers better competency in disarming? I think this would be hugely beneficial in combating AD/ND potential, and proof of training could be used in any potential litigation.

Clearly I have no say in it, but any such training should be predicated on the idea that disarming someone should be done as a last resort with a definitive need to do so. "Feeling safer" doesn't even come close, especially during a routing traffic stop.

 

[Dogman]

especially during a routing traffic stop.

rhino, there's no such thing as a routine traffic stop. It can turn out to be anything from making a new friend to someone dying.

 

[indytechnerd]

Clearly I have no say in it, but any such training should be predicated on the idea that disarming someone should be done as a last resort with a definitive need to do so. "Feeling safer" doesn't even come close, especially during a routing traffic stop.

I wouldn't get into the whole 'why' of the disarming at all, merely the physical act of it. I wouldn't touch 'why' with a ten foot barrel, er pole.