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

[low_lead]

I have handed my Carry License along with my drivers license to the Officer when I was carrying and got stopped. With my hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel, I explained that I was carrying. They usually say nothing, or thanked me for letting them know. Thats why it is good to live in the sticks... the LEO's dont have to deal with the gang bangers. The only gangs here are the John Deere's and the International's. They had a plow-by cow chipping the other night.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, from my viewpoint, whether a citizen may be a threat or not is for me to determine, not the citizen.

True, no argument. My question is why you don't seem to see this as true for the person who isn't wearing a badge? Their safety is less important to you than is your own, of course, but is their life of any lesser value solely because they have not chosen to enter the field of law enforcement?

At least, this is true during the rapidly developing incident that is occurring in real time, and not from the perspective of the armchair quarterback looking upon the situation in hindsight. That is the whole point of lawful authority, and this is why the courts repeatedly have ruled in favor of LE when it comes to use of discretion. Courts go by a "reasonable officer" standard when ruling on LE conduct, coupled with "good faith," as long as the officers actions are within the law.

Armchair quarterback? Perhaps, in that I'm not a cop. I'm not discussing the specifics of any given scene, though, I'm discussing right and wrong, which are immutable: Something that is wrong is always wrong. When that is not true, it means something is not being considered. "Killing is wrong." No, that's not true. Unjust killing of innocents with no good purpose is wrong. Violating the basic tenets of our society, especially done as we've all been conditioned to accept, "because we need government to step in where people fail", does little but destroy the basis upon which we HAVE a society, and IMHO, that is wrong.

There can be no law to cover every existing circumstance, which is why officer discretion must be allowed. If you are lawfully stopped, and it turns out that you are not a threat, then your firearm is returned to you in a few minutes, and you are on your way. If your rights are violated (ie: arrested for open carry where it is legal, etc.), then proper redress is through the courts.

The "few minutes" is irrelevant. Whether someone's rights are violated for an instant or for years, a wrong has been done.

There will always be a balancing act when it comes to issues like this. There are individual rights which must be upheld, and there is a compelling interest in the government being able to effectively administer the law. It is in seeking the correct balance that we have these types of discussions, and I think that it is a testament to our freedom that we are able to argue about this at all.

There will always be a claim of compelling interest. We long ago passed the point where individual rights were given the "top billing" they deserve. IMHO, the rights should be of paramount concern, the laws of society far less. When one person violates the rights of another, the law may then step in and punish the violator, presuming the violatee has not already done so. To me, the sad part is that while we may discuss these things, it is almost wholly academic in that it will make no difference in society, and tonight, when you go to work, officers somewhere will violate someone's rights in the name of the law and think nothing of it.

I understand your concerns about the safety of a firearm removed from its holster, but I think that this is a training issue for LE, and not a cause to completely remove an officer's discretion to disarm an individual during a lawful stop. I think that there must be some trust given to LE by the citizenry in order for a society to effectively operate, and that breaches of that trust should be dealt with individually and publicly, in order to maintain the citizenry's confidence in their police. Much like I don't believe in denying the right to keep and bear arms to the honest citizen based on the abuse of this right by the criminal, I also don't believe in the prohibition of an officer's ability to use his/her discretion because a few officers have shown unsafe gun handling skills.

This is an excellent point. Indeed, an officer whose discretion and judgment have proved exemplary should not be denied those tools because others have less skill in those areas. I think you'll agree, though, that it is a difficult task at best to train every cop everywhere in how to handle every possible firearm with which s/he may have contact. In the event that it is somehow decided that the gun must leave it's holster, would it not be better to have the citizen who lawfully carries it do so? (obviously, when Joe Gangbanger decides to run, all bets are off. Chris Rock once said, "if the police have to come get you, they're bringin' an ass-kickin' with 'em.")

Although we may disagree, I respect your viewpoint. I'm glad we can have these discussions on this forum, I think it benefits all.

Take care!

Discussion and interaction are well and good. As little as I think it will do so, I hope that someone with the power to do so will read them and decide to do something about them. I don't want to see any LEOs endangered unnecessarily, nor any non-LEOs for that matter, but I cannot see any way by which the placement of one person's life or safety into precedence over another's (when neither is a threat) can be in any way a good thing.

Be safe and Blessings,
Bill

 

[clpdcpl]

You will see this more often with rookies. They have not had enough experience to determine who they should disarm and who does not pose a threat. They are taught that they take control of ALL firearms during the course of a traffic stop. With experience they usually figure out that some people should be disarmed and some do not need to be. You stop a wanna-be gang banger with a permit...gun gets handed over to be ran for stolen. I've found several stolen handguns with people who have valid permits. However, you stop Mr/Mrs average citizen who tells you "I have a permit and I am armed" I've been known to ask to see the permit briefly, ask where the pistol is located, and with a wink that as long as they promise not to point it at me we'll just leave it where it is. There are a few officers that are just high strung and unable to make the distinction between threat and non-threat. I like to think I've been doing this job long enough that I can usually get a read on people. If there is no reason to think they are a threat to me by either their actions or words other than just carrying a pistol, I cannot find a good reason to risk an AD or similar by disarming them. I think I surprise those who tell me they are carrying by my lack or response.

I have 15 years on the job and i agree 100 percent!

 

[clpdcpl]

Deleted

 

[Scutter01]

I had an incident occur when I was pulled over by a deputy and advised him I was a police officer and had my gun on me. That officer wanted to de-arm me. I refused to give up my gun and he called everyone for back up. It was a pretty stupid thind to do on his part. I even had my badge and ID out before he walked up to me. His supervisor sent him on his way and we spoke about the incident for about 30 minutes. I have worked the easiest of beats to the inner city in Indy and the last thing I would do is de-arm another cop.

Why was it stupid on his part? We just had several pages discussing that is is legal (not necessarily "right") for an officer to disarm a citizen during a traffic stop. The fact that you had a badge is irrelevant. It implies that you expect your badge to grant you special treatment.

 

[clpdcpl]

Why was it stupid on his part? We just had several pages discussing that is is legal (not necessarily "right") for an officer to disarm a citizen during a traffic stop. The fact that you had a badge is irrelevant. It implies that you expect your badge to grant you special treatment.[/quo


I wasnt looking for special treatment. You and I wont see eye to eye on this so I'll let it go.

 

[Bigum1969]

Why was it stupid on his part? We just had several pages discussing that is is legal (not necessarily "right") for an officer to disarm a citizen during a traffic stop. The fact that you had a badge is irrelevant. It implies that you expect your badge to grant you special treatment.

This does imply special treatment for LEOs. But, we know it takes place. How many cops actually get tickets?

 

[clpdcpl]

Wow did I open a can of worms.

 

[Bigum1969]

Wow did I open a can of worms.

I didn't mean to sound so snippy. I've just always wondered why being in law enforcement means certain laws don't apply to you? That doesn't mean that I don't have a ton of appreciation for the challenge of your job.

 

[4sarge]

This does imply special treatment for LEOs. But, we know it takes place. How many cops actually get tickets?

Believe me, cops get tickets and cops get arrested. Granted, the number is small but it does happen and not everyone stopped by the police for traffic infractions are ticketed and or arrested for every criminal violation.

 

[clpdcpl]

Believe me, cops get tickets and cops get arrested. Granted, the number is small but it does happen and not everyone stopped by the police for traffic infractions are ticketed and or arrested for every criminal violation.

Thanks Sarge I was getting ready to type something similar.

 

[Scutter01]

All I asked was why you thought it was stupid for him to call for backup when you refused to relinquish your sidearm. What should he have done?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I had an incident occur when I was pulled over by a deputy and advised him I was a police officer and had my gun on me. That officer wanted to de-arm me. I refused to give up my gun and he called everyone for back up. It was a pretty stupid thind to do on his part. I even had my badge and ID out before he walked up to me. His supervisor sent him on his way and we spoke about the incident for about 30 minutes. I have worked the easiest of beats to the inner city in Indy and the last thing I would do is de-arm another cop.

OK, I'm a little curious, too. clpdcpl, have you ever disarmed a LTCH holder who you had not seen commit some violent crime? Specifically, what I'm asking is if you've done that other than when there was a real, identifiable reason you were in immediate concern for your personal safety from that person. If you have done this, then I would have to say it was totally proper for the deputy to disarm you as well, regardless of the supervisor's handling of the incident. This comes across to me as a form of "professional courtesy", which I admit I've been the beneficiary of once or twice when pulled over for infractions and the officer, whom I've known personally, has given a verbal warning and that's all. In neither case did I ask for nor expect any kind of break, though I was very willing to accept it when offered. In neither case was mention made or question asked about the presence of a firearm, so that was a non-issue, but, and please understand that I use this phrasing only because something better eludes me at the moment, I have to wonder if there's some class-ism/elitism in your mind that puts a fellow LEO somehow in a group who is above being deprived, even briefly, of his/her firearm?

I've said elsewhere that I can think of no reason why the fact that you chose to enter a dangerous profession should somehow make your life any more (or less!) worthy of being defended than mine or anyone else's who is not in the process of committing a violent crime. I respect your profession and the fact that you chose it; I just don't think that that makes the value of your life any greater or less than that of any other peaceable citizen. I've heard from other LEOs on this topic, among them Metro40, whom I respect despite our differences of opinion. I would like to hear (read) your thoughts on this apparent discrepancy as well.

No judging, just discussion.

Blessings,
B

 

[clpdcpl]

OK, I'm a little curious, too. clpdcpl, have you ever disarmed a LTCH holder who you had not seen commit some violent crime? Specifically, what I'm asking is if you've done that other than when there was a real, identifiable reason you were in immediate concern for your personal safety from that person. If you have done this, then I would have to say it was totally proper for the deputy to disarm you as well, regardless of the supervisor's handling of the incident. This comes across to me as a form of "professional courtesy", which I admit I've been the beneficiary of once or twice when pulled over for infractions and the officer, whom I've known personally, has given a verbal warning and that's all. In neither case did I ask for nor expect any kind of break, though I was very willing to accept it when offered. In neither case was mention made or question asked about the presence of a firearm, so that was a non-issue, but, and please understand that I use this phrasing only because something better eludes me at the moment, I have to wonder if there's some class-ism/elitism in your mind that puts a fellow LEO somehow in a group who is above being deprived, even briefly, of his/her firearm?

I've said elsewhere that I can think of no reason why the fact that you chose to enter a dangerous profession should somehow make your life any more (or less!) worthy of being defended than mine or anyone else's who is not in the process of committing a violent crime. I respect your profession and the fact that you chose it; I just don't think that that makes the value of your life any greater or less than that of any other peaceable citizen. I've heard from other LEOs on this topic, among them Metro40, whom I respect despite our differences of opinion. I would like to hear (read) your thoughts on this apparent discrepancy as well.

No judging, just discussion.

Blessings,
B

I have taken weapons from others yes, but on the other hand when you dont have a hand gun license because you by law dont have to have one (I have on enow but didnot then) I have to use my badge and ID to carry. I guess next time Ill remember to type the whole story instead of just a portion. I also knew the Deputy so I guess that counts for something too. I guess I wont judge either.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Believe me, cops get tickets and cops get arrested. Granted, the number is small but it does happen and not everyone stopped by the police for traffic infractions are ticketed and or arrested for every criminal violation.

That's part of the issue. The percentage of officers who are ticketed or arrested should be fairly close to the percentage of "everybody else" who is pulled over. I know that officers do get arrested; I know (not well, but well enough to call each other by first name) several who have either ridden a desk for several months, moved to bicycle patrol, or even removed from the force and faced time due to alcohol or drug violations. I know there is a camaraderie between members of emergency services, a feeling of family(which I think is a very good and necessary thing), and perhaps that's why (as I alluded in my last post) the officers in question let me off with "just get the registration updated, huh?" and "I just pulled you over 'cause I hadn't seen you in a while." respectively. The issue here isn't really the 'being ticketed', though, it's the idea that a LEO is somehow more worthy of being allowed to keep his pistol than anyone else who's passed the state background check. If you're going to make an actual arrest (sig. 40?), there is no question nor difference, but that doesn't seem to be the case for just a traffic stop.

For the record, I'm not saying that a cop should be disarmed. I'm just saying that the peaceable LTCH holder shouldn't, barring some very unusual, extenuating circumstance.



Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have taken weapons from others yes, but on the other hand when you dont have a hand gun license because you by law dont have to have one (I have on enow but didnot then) I have to use my badge and ID to carry. I guess next time Ill remember to type the whole story instead of just a portion. I also knew the Deputy so I guess that counts for something too. I guess I wont judge either.

OK.. so if I understand, you're saying that you don't think he should have attempted to disarm you, not because you're a LEO, but rather because at that point, you were using your badge as your LTCH? That certainly does put a different "spin" on this, but it also begs the question of why you then took others' firearms who were doing nothing with them but keeping them safely in their holsters? It also raises the question of why it's wrong/stupid/ill-advised to disarm another LEO, as differentiated from a LTCH holder who doesn't wear an issued badge?

Thanks for clarifying the above point re: using your shield as a LTCH-and good for you for getting your license in the meantime.

Blessings,
B

 

[rhino]

This is a nice wave of irony washing through here right now.

Interesting points ...

Some of have noted that sometimes a License to Carry Handgun is invalid or phony. Can't the same thing be true of a badge and police ID? How could a police officer know the credential are valid until they checked? Why would it be different for them to disarm someone claiming to be a cop until they have verified their credentials?

Hmmm ... maybe it's not different at all. Interesting how being penalized without evidence of breaking any laws is cool for the badgeless, but somehow uncool for the badge-enabled.

The assertion that somehow it makes a difference that someone is required to be armed for their occupation while others are not would be amusing if the mindset behind it wasn't pathetic.

 

[Big Naughty]

...

i'm much more worried about the police then i am of criminals. and when i say police i mean anyone who works for the government and claims to be protecting us.

 

[Bill of Rights]

i'm much more worried about the police then i am of criminals. and when i say police i mean anyone who works for the government and claims to be protecting us.

While that is your right to be concerned about that, I think to go that far is improper and unnecessary. Most of those folks who pin on that shield do so with a true desire to do no more nor less than to be what part they can of that "thin blue line" between good and bad; between the sheep and the wolves, to use that metaphor.

I respect and commend those who honor and take their sworn oath seriously. It is they who truly do "protect and serve". The few but sometimes-well-publicized "bad apples" give those good officers a very bad image to try to live down; one they have not earned and do not deserve.

I would recommend reconsidering your opinions and worries with that in mind-you are, of course, free to disregard my recommendation.

Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

This is a nice wave of irony washing through here right now.

Interesting points ...

Some of have noted that sometimes a License to Carry Handgun is invalid or phony. Can't the same thing be true of a badge and police ID? How could a police officer know the credential are valid until they checked? Why would it be different for them to disarm someone claiming to be a cop until they have verified their credentials?

Hmmm ... maybe it's not different at all. Interesting how being penalized without evidence of breaking any laws is cool for the badgeless, but somehow uncool for the badge-enabled.

The assertion that somehow it makes a difference that someone is required to be armed for their occupation while others are not would be amusing if the mindset behind it wasn't pathetic.

Thought-provoking idea, and not one I'd considered, Rhino. Badges are easy to buy-they're just stamped or possibly even cast metal- and in this day of laser printers and PhotoShop, an official-looking ID card, esp. from out of state, would be child's play to create.

Also... the issue of what tools one is required to carry while working is totally immaterial; a firefighter doesn't get out of his car with an axe, nor a plumber, even one on 24 hr. call, go around with a pipe wrench in his pocket, let alone in his hand.... and if either did, I think they would be quickly deprived of that item.



Blessings,
B