Show ID?

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm sure Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were "peaceably carrying" right up to the point when they slaughtered 13 people, wounded 23 others, and then killed themselves. I'm also sure that the two yahoos from the B of A shootout were "peaceably carrying" right up to the point they walked into the bank. Will me checking your LTCH and ID tell me if you fall into that catagory? No, but your attitude during said encounter will let me know if I should maybe keep a closer eye on you.

Were any of the ones you quoted "peaceably OC"

If you or anyone else doesn't like this way of us doing buisness, then you have 2 options: move to a state that places no rstrictions on carrying a gun or become a lawmaker and clearly define IN STAUTE so we can go by that. Society has made it that way, there isn't much we can do about that at this point.

Third and fourth options. Petition the lawmakers or become a test case.

If you still disagree and want to push it the next time you are contacted by police, just remember your own position if someone ever kills a member of your family because a cop didn't check out that person with a gun because he was too scared of being sued.

Honestly, I don't expect cops to protect myself and or my family. Would I like it if they could do so? Yes if they could do so without restricting my rights, if it came down to it I'd rather not have to cause damage to anyone else. But do I expect it? Again no. Would I blame them if something happened to my family? Again no.

Don't judge me because of my stance on this issue or other issues until you have walked that proverbial mile. Being a cop, aside from the military, is one of the only professions that I know of that can get you killed just because you are wearing a uniform.

I'm not judging you on your stance, I'm questioning your reasoning behind it. And I can name a few other professions that get regularly shot at because of their uniform. First responders and firemen how many bad neighborhood do you know of that they won't go into until police have secured the scene? And just a bit of trivia, do you know what the most dangerous job is? For being murdered not accidental death..... Jeweler well at least it was a couple years ago haven't heard any stats lately.

Before anyone makes a comment like "It's only Fishers", I know I have had and others I work with have had people try and kill them just because they were cops. It happens everywhere so until you have walked in my shoes, don't judge my opinions or refer to them as "KGB like". I love my job and would put myself in harms way for anybody because that is an oath I took and take seriously. If you are a law abiding citizen and me asking you for your LTCH and ID gets your panties in a wad........then maybe you should reconsider if you really need to be carrying a gun outside of your home.

I'm honestly grateful that you take your job and oath seriously. And I do respect the job you do. I also respect anyone doing the job until they give me reason not to. (and neither you or any other LEO on this forum have given me any reason not to) but having respect for your job and/or you does not supersede my respect for my rights. Is it all right for me to get my "panties in a wad" if you unconstitutionally search myself, my house or my vehicle? Perhaps I should reconsider if I really need to have a home or car. There's only one thing I can do about having a body though and I try to avoid that the best that I can.

 

[ATM]

Night shift rulez!




*refills coffee*

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Disregarding the "licensing" issue discussed, isn't the folding knife visibly clipped onto my pocket or my hunting knife on my belt just as much of a threat to public safety as the gun securely holstered on my side?

Maybe I see the issue just a bit differently, but with how this topic has been discussed so far, shouldn't I expect to be questioned about my intentions with my 3" folding knife? One item seems to be regularly questioned when spotted by a police officer (OC'd, holstered gun), the other rarely (folding knife or hunting knife)?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Since their is a bunch of posts I would like to answer I'm going to try to do them all at once. WARNING WOT COMING UP. If I sound snide or snippish I'm probably not trying to be, unless its obvious I am.
'

No, but telling an officer "I don't have to, make me!" will. Which is basically what you are saying when you deny them a view of your LTCH.

About the same as telling a officer No I do not consent to a search, whats the difference?

Are you serious? At least he is still at the scene able to do something about it. Not any number of miles away. Not to mention that within that whole 35 seconds it took to remove that card from your person, present it to the LEO, and him send you on your way, he didnt lose a whole lot of patrol time.

Officer driving down the road, sees me OC pulls over questions me about if I'm licensed, asks to see it, getting it out, calling it in, waiting for response, giving me back the license and telling me to have a good day.
is going to take a hell of a lot more than 35 seconds. And that is not taking into account relieving me of my firearm, unloading and giving it back to me piece by piece. Any officers or people that have been subjected to above scenario care to chime in with approximate time? And considering very few cops walk a beat nowadays. How far could a officer on a bike let alone a motorcycle or car travel in that time?

The bottom line is, as ****** as it sounds, the world is not what it was when the constitution was written. As I said before, I fully agree, we should not have to do the things we do the to exercise our rights. However god givith god taketh away. You abuse something it gets taken away, and that is exactly what criminals have done, abused their/our rights.

If you agree why do you do it? And please don't give me the its my job line. And please do not take this the wrong way I'm not implying it regarding you or your profession but isn't that what most war criminals use as their defense? I was told to do it/it was my job. I won't do what I'm against nor will I accept it as a defense.

If we want to make this a group effort lets all mail our reps. Tell them how we feel about it and see if we can get it changed, instead of arguing about whether or not a LEO has the right.

I agree we should mail our reps. And I have and will continue to do so. But why should we not try to convert the front line people at the same time?

True. However, PC is a far cry from reasonable suspicion. PC is needed for an arrest. Reasoanble suspicion is not, though it is needed for a Terry Stop. or investigative stop. For a consensual encounter, you don't either.

And where does a consensual encounter end and a Terry Stop begin? Asking if I'm licensed to carry? Asking to see my license? Taking my weapon and handcuffing me on the ground until you verify my ltch? Honestly whats your opinion on where one ends and the other begins.

Actually since Unreasonable Search and Seizure is a Defense it is up to the defense to prove that it is Unreasonable and then have the search suppressed. The burden of proof in on the prosecution. Further more case law does exist that states a person does not have the right to resist arrest just because the arrest is not legal.

Actually its not a defense its a right. We do have to prove you (generic you not anyone posting in this thread or forum) violated our rights unfortunately. And who's talking about resisting arrest? I never have and hopefully will never have to.

No that's not my stance, that is the STATE'S stance. Just to play ball, I have yet to see a news story where a criminal yelled somebody to death.

Do I really have to do a search and come up with a case or 12 where someone yelled fire/bomb/oh my god there goes bon jovi. And people were killed in the resulting rush?

Plague - excellent points. Some of you guys would rather argue with the police trying to enforce laws that were made by the people you elected! We don't make any laws, we just get paid to enforce them, whether we agree with them or not.

Actually from the sound of it you get paid to enforce and at times interpret. Unless you can state case law regarding this you are interpreting it not following it to the letter.(subject to disagreement which is why as someone posted before case law is necessary) And I would rather not argue with you and for you to do your job. But that would require one of us to agree to the others viewpoint as to what your job entails and allows.

There are things that all of us have to do in our jobs that we don't like, but we do it becuae we like to be gainfully employed so that we can take care of our families and buy more toys (guns).

Yes I have done, do , and most likely will continue to do jobs that I do not like. Have I done jobs with which I morally disagree with or would I do so? I like to think I wouldn't.

Again sorry for the preceding wall of text.

 

[1032JBT]

"Were any of the ones you quoted "peaceably OC""

I'm sure that Harris and Klebold were CC just to get them in the school, but the point I was making there was up to the point they started shooting they were "peaceably carrying". I make this point because OC and CC have been discussed in this thread.

Third and fourth options. Petition the lawmakers or become a test case.

I stand corrected......feel free do try any of the 4


Honestly, I don't expect cops to protect myself and or my family. Would I like it if they could do so? Yes if they could do so without restricting my rights, if it came down to it I'd rather not have to cause damage to anyone else. But do I expect it? Again no. Would I blame them if something happened to my family? Again no.

That is sad, I'm sorry but it is. You pay us to protect you and your family, thats why we are here. Should you rely only on us, no absolutely not, but you SHOULD expect it. If you live in a community that you can't expect that, then I really feel sorry for you. If you would not sue the police for soething along those lines then you sir are a minority and I applaude you for that stance. I have been sued for a lot stupider reasons.


I'm not judging you on your stance, I'm questioning your reasoning behind it. And I can name a few other professions that get regularly shot at because of their uniform. First responders and firemen how many bad neighborhood do you know of that they won't go into until police have secured the scene? And just a bit of trivia, do you know what the most dangerous job is? For being murdered not accidental death..... Jeweler well at least it was a couple years ago haven't heard any stats lately.


I have listed my reasoning for that stance....multiple times so in the essence of bandwidth, I will not rehash that. I do realize that cops are not the ONLY ones, but one of the few professions that it happens daily countrywide. I have been employed in public service since I was 16, starting out in EMS and Fire, so yes I do know about those neighborhoods and put my life on the line frequently then too. But it all comes back to the saying, "Everyone loves fireman and everyone hates cops". I know not everyone loves fireman or hates cops, it's just a saying, but there is more truth to it than most people will admit.

I'm honestly grateful that you take your job and oath seriously. And I do respect the job you do. I also respect anyone doing the job until they give me reason not to. (and neither you or any other LEO on this forum have given me any reason not to) but having respect for your job and/or you does not supersede my respect for my rights. Is it all right for me to get my "panties in a wad" if you unconstitutionally search myself, my house or my vehicle? Perhaps I should reconsider if I really need to have a home or car. There's only one thing I can do about having a body though and I try to avoid that the best that I can.

I try to treat everyone I deal with respectfully, until as you said......they give me a reason not too. I'm not asking for you to give up any rights out of respect for our job, just that you try to understand where we are coming from. If you feel you were unconstitutionally searched, then by all means take it however far you want and let the courts or the officers supervisors decide......thats what they get paid for.

 

[Plague421]

Disregarding the "licensing" issue discussed, isn't the folding knife visibly clipped onto my pocket or my hunting knife on my belt just as much of a threat to public safety as the gun securely holstered on my side?

Maybe I see the issue just a bit differently, but with how this topic has been discussed so far, shouldn't I expect to be questioned about my intentions with my 3" folding knife? One item seems to be regularly questioned when spotted by a police officer (OC'd, holstered gun), the other rarely (folding knife or hunting knife)?

Typically a folding/hunting knife cannot effectively kill a human being at 40+ yards. Therefore placing it in a different category. Not no mention a knife has many other "more common" uses as a tool for things other than taking/harming a life of any sort.

However when a LEO asks if you have any weapons on you, usually that is question is followed by examples such as guns, knives, or needles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Plague421
About the same as telling a officer No I do not consent to a search, whats the difference?

Plain sight is the difference. If I have a bag of what appears to be marijuana sitting in my passenger seat, it is no longer up to me whether or not a LEO searches my vehicle.

Officer driving down the road, sees me OC pulls over questions me about if I'm licensed, asks to see it, getting it out, calling it in, waiting for response, giving me back the license and telling me to have a good day.
is going to take a hell of a lot more than 35 seconds. And that is not taking into account relieving me of my firearm, unloading and giving it back to me piece by piece. Any officers or people that have been subjected to above scenario care to chime in with approximate time? And considering very few cops walk a beat nowadays. How far could a officer on a bike let alone a motorcycle or car travel in that time?

Either way, it is less than half the time it takes to transport you to the station and process you.

If you agree why do you do it? And please don't give me the its my job line. And please do not take this the wrong way I'm not implying it regarding you or your profession but isn't that what most war criminals use as their defense? I was told to do it/it was my job. I won't do what I'm against nor will I accept it as a defense.

I am not a LEO, however I like to look from the inside out, place myself in a LEO's shoes if you will. The reason I do it and put up with it, even though it is against my will/opinion/morals, the fact remains, no matter what you belive/think it is what it is. I don't make laws, however in order to call myself a law abiding citizen, I must follow those laws. You have to go along to get along, like it or not.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

3rd shift in the house!

Speaking of which I just realized I'm out of beer and damn near out of cigarettes so one more post....

 

[mikea46996]

OK time to add my .02.

I do not OC not because I don't believe in it but because i try not to draw attention to myself. Whether it is good or bad attention I try not to draw it. Ever hear of the term grayman?

The same reason my BOB is not full of camo.

I have a very good friend who is LEO and we have had this same discussion(normally over a 12 pack) and I see the Officers point and the OP points and agree with both.

If I OCed would I feel somewhat violated by being approached and asked for my LTCH?

Yes I would, but realizing that they are just doing their job i wouldn't give them grief.

I have long since realized that most LEO are very resonable people who feel the same way we do. Of course there are exception but their are those of us too that are lets say difficult.

I was wondering around Wally world one day wasting time while the GF was shopping and i had a guy walk past me and tell me "Hey man your printing from behind."
I was like thanks man most people get all wierded out if they notice it. He proceededs to tell me he is an off-duty state cop and we had about a 45 min discussion in Wally World about different pistols and how he hates his issue pistol.

All I can say is look at it from the other persons point of view..

Don't assume that because you are asked for your LTCH the LEO thinks you are a bad guy, he is just doing what he is programmed to do, hell he my not even think it is right but it IS part of his job.

LEOs please don't assume that just because somebody is OCing that they are a nut about to commit a crime.

If everybody looks at it from the other persons view you will see life is one big compromise. Do I like it??? NO Will I compromise to make my life alittle easier??? Yes.

To those of you that OC congrats you have balls of brass!!! Thank you for being the front runners of our rights.

Now if they ever try to take them away I will be right there with you but for now I like being GRAY!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

"Were any of the ones you quoted "peaceably OC""

I'm sure that Harris and Klebold were CC just to get them in the school, but the point I was making there was up to the point they started shooting they were "peaceably carrying". I make this point because OC and CC have been discussed in this thread.

Most of the discussion has been about whether a LEO has the legal power to question a person just because they are OC with CC being a minor almost non-existent tangent.

Third and fourth options. Petition the lawmakers or become a test case.

I stand corrected......feel free do try any of the 4

I all ready did state my possible willingness to become a test case after I get my LTCH. And stated that I do use the third option.


Honestly, I don't expect cops to protect myself and or my family. Would I like it if they could do so? Yes if they could do so without restricting my rights, if it came down to it I'd rather not have to cause damage to anyone else. But do I expect it? Again no. Would I blame them if something happened to my family? Again no.

That is sad, I'm sorry but it is. You pay us to protect you and your family, thats why we are here. Should you rely only on us, no absolutely not, but you SHOULD expect it. If you live in a community that you can't expect that, then I really feel sorry for you. If you would not sue the police for soething along those lines then you sir are a minority and I applaude you for that stance. I have been sued for a lot stupider reasons.

Why should I expect it? Whats the average response time to a 911 call where you work? I live in Monticello as I have stated and is in my profile. And to tell you the honest truth I'm not sure of what the average response time is here. I know when I lived in Lake Co the avg. time for a ambulance was 5.5 minutes. Not sure on the police though. I do expect a LEO to do his job. Just like I'm expected to do mine. But do I expect them to be able to protect me? Unless your with me or mine 24/7 and most likely armed with a hell of a lot more than your allowed to carry, nope.


I have listed my reasoning for that stance....multiple times so in the essence of bandwidth, I will not rehash that. I do realize that cops are not the ONLY ones, but one of the few professions that it happens daily countrywide. I have been employed in public service since I was 16, starting out in EMS and Fire, so yes I do know about those neighborhoods and put my life on the line frequently then too. But it all comes back to the saying, "Everyone loves fireman and everyone hates cops". I know not everyone loves fireman or hates cops, it's just a saying, but there is more truth to it than most people will admit.

Yes you have listed your reasoning, that being if you didn't question anyone you knew was carrying you'd feel bad if something happened(not trying to trivialize how you feel about your job) And I thank you for your service to the community. But what you haven't stated is what your reasoning is why you think everyone with a gun must be a BG until proven innocent. And please don't say its because guns kill people, cars do also and you have admitted you don't profile drivers unless they are commiting a infraction and carrying is not a infraction. Do you stop and question everyone you see with a knife on their belt? How about a flashlight? They do sell quite a few "tactical" flashlights for self-defense. No most of those cannot be used at a distance. But what kind of distance is the average handgun crime committed at? Usually a knife would be just about as effective. Look at 9/11 they did that with box cutters.

I try to treat everyone I deal with respectfully, until as you said......they give me a reason not too. I'm not asking for you to give up any rights out of respect for our job, just that you try to understand where we are coming from. If you feel you were unconstitutionally searched, then by all means take it however far you want and let the courts or the officers supervisors decide......thats what they get paid for.

I do try to understand where you are coming from. And I hope you will do the same for me if we ever cross in other than a friendly manner. ie a stop compared to sitting down and . If thats whats going on all bets are off.

Off topic in a previous post you mentioned that there was one time you wished you had used more force than you did. Has there ever been a case where you wished you had used less?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Speaking of which I just realized I'm out of beer and damn near out of cigarettes so one more post....

Just for clarification when I stated that I am out of beer doesn't mean I have drank all that I have and am now going to get more. I went to get the first and realized I forgot to buy some the other day and have none. Just to clarify for all the LEOs that may be monitoring this thread and know that my name is Tim and live in monticello.

 

[Jack Ryan]

*(Please take this in context, as I'm only playing Devil's Advocate)

How do you know that the hundreds of people you drive near every day aren't driving with a suspended license, no insurance, under age, no license on their person, etc.?

If you're going to use that as an argument, you should pull over everyone operating a motor vehicle as well.

Those would be called gestapo tactics, er, I mean seat belt check points.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I cannot stop every car I see just to see if they are 100% law-abiding.

There is the crux of the whole problem with this country right now. They have created a country of honorless, liars and cheats by enacting myraids of ridiculous laws they never intend to fully enforce. They serve as nothing but enhancements to bust the chopps of people they really want to slam down hard and excuses to harrass people they really want to slam down hard.

If there's no intention of ever enforcing a law 100%, it should never be on the books. We are not SUPPOSE to be a country of kings, queens, royalty and noble men above the law for it to only be enforce at the whim. of the current king or lords whimsy.

 

[1032JBT]

Why should I expect it? Whats the average response time to a 911 call where you work? I live in Monticello as I have stated and is in my profile. And to tell you the honest truth I'm not sure of what the average response time is here. I know when I lived in Lake Co the avg. time for a ambulance was 5.5 minutes. Not sure on the police though. I do expect a LEO to do his job. Just like I'm expected to do mine. But do I expect them to be able to protect me? Unless your with me or mine 24/7 and most likely armed with a hell of a lot more than your allowed to carry, nope.

You should expect it because that is what we are paid for. I don't care what I'm doing, if I'm close to a hot call......I go. As far as average response times, I really don't know, but I can say that calls that are a hot call or sound like they have a pretty good chance of going sideways, we get as many cops there as fast as we can......which on this shift at night when most of them happen is pretty damned fast. No I can't be with you and yours 24/7, hell I can't even be with mine that much, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't expect us to to protect you and yours, in a direct or indirect way. Also I roll in pretty well armed, besides if you know you are going to get into a gunfight, bring a friend with a gun.....preferrably more than one. In all seriousness though, when the SHTF, I don't play nice until it's time to play nice again.


Yes you have listed your reasoning, that being if you didn't question anyone you knew was carrying you'd feel bad if something happened(not trying to trivialize how you feel about your job) And I thank you for your service to the community. But what you haven't stated is what your reasoning is why you think everyone with a gun must be a BG until proven innocent. And please don't say its because guns kill people, cars do also and you have admitted you don't profile drivers unless they are commiting a infraction and carrying is not a infraction. Do you stop and question everyone you see with a knife on their belt? How about a flashlight? They do sell quite a few "tactical" flashlights for self-defense. No most of those cannot be used at a distance. But what kind of distance is the average handgun crime committed at? Usually a knife would be just about as effective. Look at 9/11 they did that with box cutters.


I never said that EVERYONE with a gun is a BG until proven otherwise. As others have stated, I will talk with the person in question with respect and get the situation resoved as quickly as I can. As far as knives.....it depends on why I am talking with the person. If it is a consenual encounter, then the mere removing the knife turns into a Terry Stop and there are positives to keeping things at the consensual level. If I am starting off as a Terry Stop, then the knife gets removed just as the gun would.

I do try to understand where you are coming from. And I hope you will do the same for me if we ever cross in other than a friendly manner. ie a stop compared to sitting down and . If thats whats going on all bets are off.

Off topic in a previous post you mentioned that there was one time you wished you had used more force than you did. Has there ever been a case where you wished you had used less?

No, I have never regretted using too much force. I was trained early on that if it comes time to put hands on people, get control hard and fast because that minimizes the risk of injury to officer and suspect.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Typically a folding/hunting knife cannot effectively kill a human being at 40+ yards. Therefore placing it in a different category. Not no mention a knife has many other "more common" uses as a tool for things other than taking/harming a life of any sort.

However when a LEO asks if you have any weapons on you, usually that is question is followed by examples such as guns, knives, or needles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Plague421
About the same as telling a officer No I do not consent to a search, whats the difference?

Plain sight is the difference. If I have a bag of what appears to be marijuana sitting in my passenger seat, it is no longer up to me whether or not a LEO searches my vehicle.

Yes and in IN marijuana is a crime period. Carrying a weapon is not.

Officer driving down the road, sees me OC pulls over questions me about if I'm licensed, asks to see it, getting it out, calling it in, waiting for response, giving me back the license and telling me to have a good day.
is going to take a hell of a lot more than 35 seconds. And that is not taking into account relieving me of my firearm, unloading and giving it back to me piece by piece. Any officers or people that have been subjected to above scenario care to chime in with approximate time? And considering very few cops walk a beat nowadays. How far could a officer on a bike let alone a motorcycle or car travel in that time?

Either way, it is less than half the time it takes to transport you to the station and process you.

Either way it still is time he could be out trying to prevent actual crimes.

If you agree why do you do it? And please don't give me the its my job line. And please do not take this the wrong way I'm not implying it regarding you or your profession but isn't that what most war criminals use as their defense? I was told to do it/it was my job. I won't do what I'm against nor will I accept it as a defense.

I am not a LEO, however I like to look from the inside out, place myself in a LEO's shoes if you will. The reason I do it and put up with it, even though it is against my will/opinion/morals, the fact remains, no matter what you belive/think it is what it is. I don't make laws, however in order to call myself a law abiding citizen, I must follow those laws. You have to go along to get along, like it or not.

I'm not a LEO either, and I also like to try to view it from both sides. Which is why I have asked their reasoning behind it. But I do have one major problem with what you said. That is "You have to go along to get along, like it or not." If that was the case there would be no need for a court of appeals or even courts at all. You have a right I would almost say a obligation to challenge laws you feel are not just. What if the founding fathers "just went along" or Rosa Parks or anyone that you can think of that fought for our rights.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If everybody looks at it from the other persons view you will see life is one big compromise. Do I like it??? NO Will I compromise to make my life alittle easier??? Yes.

Now if they ever try to take them away I will be right there with you but for now I like being GRAY!

First off +1 for a good post. I agree with probably 95% of what you said. Now -1 for "NO Will I compromise to make my life alittle easier??? Yes." For the same reason I used in my last post. Did the founding fathers compromise to make their life's easier? Wouldn't if of been easier to just pay a bit more rather than risk death on the field of battle. Yes a extreme comparison but a apt one I think. And I'm glad that if it ever came down to it I would be glad to have a "gray man" or 20 at my back.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You should expect it because that is what we are paid for. I don't care what I'm doing, if I'm close to a hot call......I go. As far as average response times, I really don't know, but I can say that calls that are a hot call or sound like they have a pretty good chance of going sideways, we get as many cops there as fast as we can......which on this shift at night when most of them happen is pretty damned fast. No I can't be with you and yours 24/7, hell I can't even be with mine that much, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't expect us to to protect you and yours, in a direct or indirect way. Also I roll in pretty well armed, besides if you know you are going to get into a gunfight, bring a friend with a gun.....preferrably more than one. In all seriousness though, when the SHTF, I don't play nice until it's time to play nice again.

I expect you to do your job which is to enforce the laws. Within constitutional limits. If attempting to protect me and mine is part of that, well I thank you. And do I expect you to attempt to protect me and mine. Yes. Do I actually expect you to protect us? No. I know you can't be everywhere and anywhere. Nor do I expect or hope that you will be. You have a job, that job is not personal bodyguard.

But back to somewhat the topic at hand. Do I expect you to check if there is a guy hiding in the bushes outside my house at midnight? Yes if you see him. Will I be pissed if you did see it and ignore it? Yes. But do I expect you to know that the guy you pass turning over my garden at noon is actually a mass murderer that is digging graves for my family, that he has tied up in the house? No.

Same for a person carrying if you see some average joe schmo walking down the street with a holstered pistol do I expect you to question him? vs A guy walking up and down a street past the same store eying it? Or some guy who is acting suspicious (yes a judgement call) who is continuously gripping something under his shirt.


I never said that EVERYONE with a gun is a BG until proven otherwise. As others have stated, I will talk with the person in question with respect and get the situation resoved as quickly as I can. As far as knives.....it depends on why I am talking with the person. If it is a consenual encounter, then the mere removing the knife turns into a Terry Stop and there are positives to keeping things at the consensual level. If I am starting off as a Terry Stop, then the knife gets removed just as the gun would.

And I may be wrong and do not feel like going through 25 or so pages but I'm pretty sure you stated that if you see someone carrying you will check them.
Why would you talk to them just because they had a gun if you didn't suspect they were a BG. Well let me rephrase that why would you question whether they had a ltch or not if you didn't suspect them of being a BG? And as for the mere removing a knife/gun changing it from a consenual to a Terry stop, you have to have a reason to perform a T stop don't you? What is your reason? Other than they are carrying?

 

[1032JBT]

And I may be wrong and do not feel like going through 25 or so pages but I'm pretty sure you stated that if you see someone carrying you will check them.
Why would you talk to them just because they had a gun if you didn't suspect they were a BG. Well let me rephrase that why would you question whether they had a ltch or not if you didn't suspect them of being a BG? And as for the mere removing a knife/gun changing it from a consenual to a Terry stop, you have to have a reason to perform a T stop don't you? What is your reason? Other than they are carrying?

I would check them, but that doesn't mean I think they are a BG. I have put lots of people in jail that were not "BG's", just people that made a mistake and unfortunately jail was a consequence of that mistake. I would verify the LTCH because BG's might carry OC or CC and sometimes good guys make mistakes. I said I have arrested for carrying without a LTCH, not that I have everytime. The ones I have arrested for that charge also had other reasons to deserve my attention. Before you ask, yes I have let someone go that did not have a LTCH and was armed. In that situation they are explaind what could happen and told if they are going to continue to carry then they better get a LTCH and sent on their way. As stated earlier......it's the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES that is the determining factor if they go to jail, not just the mere fact they have a gun and don't have a LTCH or don't have it on them.

If while on that consensual encounter I find out something that deserves more attention, then it moves to a Terry stop. As an example only: if I contact you for the initial reason to verify the LTCH and when you talk to me you are obviously slobbering drunk......then it might move to a Terry Stop based on Public Intoxication. If you are OC and I get a call from dispatch about a MWG, then it's a Terry Stop from the get go.

 

[1032JBT]

Ok.....it's bedtime now. I have to be up in 5 hrs. Take care all and again.......thanks for keeping this civil in nature. We don't have to all agree to get along.

 

[ATM]

...If you are OC and I get a call from dispatch about a MWG, then it's a Terry Stop from the get go.

Doesn't make sense to me. Is there a reason for this procedure? A citizen seeing MWG in some way upgrades the nature of response above the officer personally seeing the MWG?

 

[jeremy]

From reading ALL 24 pages up to this point I would like to first congratulate everyone on their civility.

Ok now on to my observation. From what I have read it seems that using reasonable man thought has a lot to do with what side of the badge you are on. The LEO's believe that OC alone is a reason for asking to see you LTCH. While Non-LEO's believe quite the opposite.

Just my .02 YMMV!