LEO statistics

[Nick Nasty]

Make no mistake: Police do NOT have any right to detain people. They have a granted POWER and DUTY to detain someone upon suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed, but that is a far stretch from a right.

You still don't have it correct, though you asserted you do. It also includes a crime that might possibly occur, or instances when you might have pertinent information on any of the above. The criteria for legal detention is necessarily broad.

As for the power/right semantic, one of the quickest ways to earn a legal arrest in what otherwise would have been a stop-'n-talk is to attempt to leave when legally detained. It's fun to play word games on the internet, but it doesn't change actual laws and duties.

[ilbob]

John Lott

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/credibility.html

And consider the two largest states with right-to-carry laws, Florida and Texas. During the 15 years after Florida's concealed-carry law took effect in October 1987, about 800,000 licenses were issued. Only 143 of these (two-hundredths of 1 percent) were revoked due to firearms-related violations.

But even this statistic overstates the risks, as almost all of these cases apparently resulted from people accidentally carrying a gun into a restricted area, such as an airport. No one claims that these unintentional violations posed any harm. In general, permit-holders were model law-abiders. Even off-duty police officers in Florida were convicted of violent crimes at a higher rate than permit-holders.

My google-foo is better than yours.

[General Geoff]

You still don't have it correct, though you asserted you do. It also includes a crime that might possibly occur, or instances when you might have pertinent information on any of the above.

Were this the case, you could be detained while walking down the street in broad daylight because you might murder someone in the next five minutes. The justice system does not work like that.

And furthermore, if the police are furnished with unverified information about a crime being committed, it is the police officer's duty to OBSERVE the suspect for any wrong-doing; they CANNOT detain that person without first-hand observance of, or reasonable suspicion of, a crime being committed (An anonymous tip about a crime being committed is not enough). This is how it works in Pennsylvania, it might be different in Washington State.

As for the power/right semantic, one of the quickest ways to earn a legal arrest in what otherwise would have been a stop-'n-talk is to attempt to leave when legally detained.

I simply ask, "Am I being detained?" If the answer is no, I leave. If the answer is yes, I'll wait in silence until they say I'm free to go. Not sure what constitutes an arrestable offense there.


FYI, the difference between a power and a right is not merely semantic. One is inalienable, the other is a privilege.

[IAJack]

See that is all I was looking for. Is that such a big deal?

[Nick Nasty]

Were this the case, you could be detained while walking down the street in broad daylight because you might murder someone in the next five minutes. The justice system does not work like that.

Didn't say it did. I don't know why you're seeking to argue this point when what you think isn't true, coming from someone qualified to tell you so. You sort of get it right in the next paragraph when you say:

or reasonable suspicion of, a crime being committed

This is the essence of what's called a "Terry stop." It negates all the rest of the BS you wished governed actual police work. Reasonable suspicion is the level of concern a police officer needs to have in order to legally detain someone. There is nothing about reasonable suspicion that says a police officer must observe someone for a period of time, regardless of the source of information.

People have dramatic misunderstandings about what reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and even an arrest are.

[General Geoff]

Reasonable suspicion is the level of concern a police officer needs to have in order to legally detain someone.

What reasonable suspicion do you have on someone who is walking down the street, not observably breaking any laws (which is what I was doing every time I was unlawfully detained)?

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

That said, I thought at least this forum would be above this sort of BS. Since anecdotal "evidence" and "I heard somewhere something like" is good enough now, try this: not two weeks ago, I arrested a CPL-holding shoplifter with his legally carried gun on his person. I have yet to encounter a police officer committing a crime.

I don't think "hey check this site out, almost every day you'll get a link to a newspaper somewhere with a gruesome cop story" is an anecdote - I'm helping him find information for his project.

[Atroxus]

Originally Posted by IAJack

See that is all I was looking for. Is that such a big deal?

LOL, I am glad you found what you were looking for, but I think your thread got hijacked Good luck with your efforts though on getting that "may issue" changed to "shall issue".

[Nick Nasty]

What reasonable suspicion do you have on someone who is walking down the street, not observably breaking any laws (which is what I was doing every time I was unlawfully detained)?

I've looked into my crystal ball and I've already seen that you're going to give me a list of nonsense. If I say "oh did you look up" you'll say you looked down. If I say "did you wear a t-shirt" you'll say "no a tank-top."

Instead I'll recommend this to you, since this is what truly sniffs out the BS for the endless people who claim to have had their "rights" "violated" by the police: file a complaint. The FBI investigates civil rights violations. If your civil rights have been violated three times by these illegal detentions, you'll be able to go down to your local police department and file three complaints. I'll keep an eye on the Allentown news scene to see how it pans out (this would definitely make the news). No breath-holding though.

[General Geoff]

Instead I'll recommend this to you, since this is what truly sniffs out the BS for the endless people who claim to have had their "rights" "violated" by the police: file a complaint. The FBI investigates civil rights violations. If your civil rights have been violated three times by these illegal detentions, you'll be able to go down to your local police department and file three complaints. I'll keep an eye on the Allentown news scene to see how it pans out (this would definitely make the news).

I have filed complaints, both in Allentown and in Catasauqua. I have a friend who has indeed filed suit against the Allentown Police Department due to civil rights violations. I know of several others who have a suit going against Dickson City PD (I wasn't there for that incident).

I will, however make it a point to call the FBI if the same officer harasses me twice. FWIW, the complaint I sent to the Chief of Police in Catasauqua was never responded to (this was about a year ago).

[Nick Nasty]

Ah now I see what's up.

[nrthwoods]

I don't think the intent of comparing ccw holders with police was to bash them in order to further his cause. I think he chose police in particular because we typically regard police as responsible and trustworthy of providing enforcement and protecting the people. They're the good guys, criminalizing them wouldn't do much justice, it would be like saying "ccw carriers commit less crimes than criminals". Wouldn't be much of an edge.

I didn't perceive anyone as attacking you in particular, or accusing you of wrongdoing from behind the badge. There are incidents where this happens, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. It doesn't serve to smear the police as a whole, but pretending it never happens is fantasy.

I'm sure you wouldn't defend anyone who you really thought was wrong, so may I ask,

As a police officer, what is your stance on the "shall issue" policy for your state that sparked this debate?

[Dwrice]

A great precentage of law enforcment officers want to get the bad seeds out worse then the general public they make us look bad and make our jobs that much harder.

[ahpd1992]

this thread was definately hijacked, by Geoff n Nicky

All I can say is Im glad to see cop-bashing isnt limited to the motorcyle forums I belong to

for disclosure purposes, 18yrs LEO, motorcyle cop, NRA member, believe the 2nd amendment wasn't just a suggestion

[General Geoff]

I'd like to apologize for the thread hijack. It should have been handled via PM, sorry.

[ahpd1992]

It keeps me entertained, I long ago stopped trying to make civilians understand the intricacies of what I do for a living. Oh well, my reward will be in heaven, besides I make a good living chasing bad guys, have a lot of fun doin it too

To get to the OP, Im not sure those stats are available. LEO's are allowed nationwide carry thanks to GW Bush post 911. Even states like mine (Illinois) where CCW has no chance of every becoming reality as long as Richey Daley runs the state via the Office of the Mayor - City of Chicago. It doesn't help that the city-folk have taken to shooting up the streets pretty good of late, guns are a big bug-a-boo.

After Heller a lot of the suburbs with gun bans on the books all struck them down. Chicago stood pat on their ban and it is being challenged.

Basically LEO's are allowed to CCW, w/o the same restrictions as a civilian ie: my badge is my permit, the state, and whatever municipality imposes the policy and/or restrictions. As an example my dept requires that I claim what Im going to carry and qualify w/ the weapon, makes sense. In addition if I carry a weapon of the same caliber as one already authorized I must carry duty ammo in that weapon. The ammo is free, but the it isnt always the best out there, just the best bid. The town next to me the Officer's can only carry their Glock 17's on or off duty, which their department's way of seriously limiting/discouraging off duty carry. Its all a crap shoot, I dont know where you'd get the data your looking for.

As far as cops not qualifying under the same restrictions as civilians for CCW I cant speak on that as Illinois doesnt have CCW

Hope this helps

Tom

[mljdeckard]

There are a few things one must remember when you hold up police next to the same light as armed civilians.

We as civilians are not only allowed, but encouraged, to do everything we can to avoid a violent encounter and dealing with people who we know are criminals. Police, on the other hand, must spend their entire day trying to find these people and confront them. Bad things are more likely to happen in the course of their day than ours.

I, as a civilian, can decide that I'm having a bad day, and leave my gun at home. If I am absent-minded, grab the wrong keys, get in the car, and as I'm backing out of the driveway, remember that I forgot the paperwork I was leaving to take care of in the first place, and say to myself; "You know what? My head just isn't in this today, I should leave the gun at home." (I don't do it often, but yes, I have done it.) A cop doesn't go to work and say; "Chief, you know, I'm kind of having a bad day, I was hoping you could let me shuffle around the office and not go out today. My head just isn't in it." WE have the option. Police DON'T.

In saying police are more likely to shoot the wrong person than we are, remember also that police are much more likely to be in a shooting at all than we are.

Actual crimes committed by police is a little bit trickier. All of us know right from wrong, all of us are innocent until proven guilty. I will not rationalize for police, particularly under cover guys, who get too wrapped up in the role and start to blur reality, the law, and their own sense of justice, and decide to do what they can get away with, and what they feel the real justice system can't. But again, they are the ones who will be in a position to have to make these decisions, not us. Police live in a world where every single day, they make a decision to not lie on ticket paperwork, not use a previous speed reading on a new guy's ticket, to not coerce an illegal search, not plant evidence, not get creative in the details of a report, not have to coordinate with the other cops involved to get their stories straight. Good, experienced cops will tell you that life is much less complicated when you are honest, there's less to remember. Younger cops, with varying examples to follow, are still learning how to make sure that they never have to make these decisions. This is something the rest of us don't really have to worry about in our lives.

[Justice5]

To mljdeckard:

WELL STATED!

[ahpd1992]

Yea, that does a good job of summing it up.

FWIW I carry almost 100% of the time, I find being armed off duty does more to keep me out of trouble than in it as I always think that the situation may get physical. I dont have a duty rig on w/ a high retention holster, in fact I usually pocket carry. Im not gonna get in a fight or anything stupid unless I witness a situation where deadly force will be needed to stop further violence. I also find that I dont get all road raged off duty as I know if I get into it w/ a motorist who did something stupid and out comes a baseball bat or tire iron, then I just put myself in a deadly force situation. My gun keeps me a lot calmer, I can sit back and wait/witness and if someone escalates I can intervene.

Also remeber we do see the world differently, I notice things all of the time no one else does. Most just arent trained to look.

Now Im guilty of continuing the hijacking of this thread.

My apologies to the OP

[Neverwinter]

The statistics for permit holders don't have to surpass LEO statistics in order to support CCW permits. Society has set LEOs as a standard for the carrying of firearms. If you believe the statistics of CCW are unacceptable yet meet or exceed those of LEOs, then you are caught in a contradiction.

Some might lump the LEO statistics in with the CCW as unacceptable, but I would conclude that CCW permit holders meet the standard that society has set for firearms possession. That conclusion doesn't denigrate our officers, but acknowledges the exemplary behavior of CCW permit holders.