Questionable procedures by police last night

[sam59]

Crop

I think he was talking to me.

 

[Jim Diver]

DunedinDragon,

If you really want to keep a scanner in your car, spend a little time and money and get a HAM radio license. Then you can keep a HAM radio in your car. Just about all HAM radios can double as a scanner. Not to mention you get alot better reception and they are ALOT more useful. In addition, HAM radios do not raise the RED FLAG that scanners do. They are alot easier to explain away.

PM me if you want more info about getting a HAM license. It's real easy.

 

[Jeff White]

Cropcirclewalker said;

This "Officer Safety" nonsequiter is what has my skivvies in a twist. I just cannot understand how a leo can purposefully disarm the most law abiding segment of our population.

Ever had someone just go totally crazy on you over a minor thing? I'm talking about turning from the most nice, polite person you'd ever want to meet into a raving, swearing, fists into the air lunatic?

I have. I have seen it happen more times then I can count in almost 21 years. I'm sure that Molon Labe and The Real Hawkeye are probably are nice calm people too. But based just on what they post here, do you think it would be safe for one of us to leave them armed while we wrote them a traffic ticket? Some people, even CCW holders hate authority and hate the police. Even people who don't express hatred of the police have been known to snap when faced with a simple traffic violation.

I have a suggestion for all of you guys who don't want to be temporarily disarmed when having contact with the police. Don't break the traffic laws. That's the number one reason most people in this country have any contact with the police.

alduro and I have both said that neither of us would ever have a problem with being disarmed by another officer during a traffic stop. alduro has even related that it has happened to him. So if police officers will disarm another officer who they don't know for safety reasons, why shouldn't they disarm a CCW holder?

I'm still waiting for an answer to harm it does to anyone?

Jeff

 

[orangeninja]

Real quick....before this thread gets closed.


The IIRC numbers for officer fatalities are correct (I assume). The assaults not being reported by civillians are also correct. However your assumption that assaults on police officers are automatically reported are incorrect.

For instance, an officer goes to handcuff a subject, the guy resists, the officer gets injured during the altercation by the actions of the subject (which would normally be assault) will be classified as resisting arrest, not assault. So in reality you could almost throw assault and resisting arrest in the same boat except for the runners. I would say that a lot of police officers getting assaulted go unreported and the MAJORITY of correctional and jailer assaultes go unreported.

Jeff can probably back up my claim since there is no hard data on this, usually assault and resisting arrest don't get tagged at the same time unless you know the guy was actively combating you.

As for some of the other posts I've read. Some of you guys should do a little introspection. Do you see any cops whining here? Do you see any cops complaining about their job? I will back up any argument with data, factual or academic before I toss an opinion out. It's called intelligent debate, thus far only NineseveN is anywhere close to that.....which don't get me wrong NineseveN, I belive you are wrong as can be, but at least we're not telling each other to shut up and go flip burgers.

I'll respond to actual questions directed at me that have any sincere relevance, otherwise, alduro is done with this thread.............

 

[Baron Holbach4]

I have a suggestion for all of you guys who don't want to be temporarily disarmed when having contact with the police. Don't break the traffic laws. That's the number one reason most people in this country have any contact with the police.

Jeff, obeying traffic laws is something I have always tried to live up to. At most I exceed the speed limit by 5 miles an hour. I also make sure all my papers are in order. Considering the regulatory climate we live in and the enthusiasm of some regulators, what can I expect if I am pulled over by an LEO for a minor traffic infraction, such as breaking the speed limit by a minimum amount? I would not be carrying a firearm and my behavior would be polite and respectful. What is standard procedure for LEOs in such cases? Considering that there would be nothing to be suspicious about or anything to provoke probable cause, would the officer still request permission to search my car? If I do not grant the LEO permission, does that mean he will detain me until a warrant is obtained to conduct a search?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hawk

That's the best you got. There is a big difference, I do it and do it well. You just talk a lot behind a keyboard.

What makes you think I would want a job that required that I become a pain in the butt in the opinion of 99% of the population?

As for the earlier post about your cholesterol, I noticed you did not refute the part about being a miserable fella.

Yes, whenever I am reminded that most cops are like you (though I try not to think about it often), I do tend to become miserable. I preferred it when the first job of a police officer was keeping the peace, rather than making most people's lives more troublesome and creating a general atmosphere of despotism.

As for concern, it's more pity.

I guess it's safe to say that I struck a nerve, then?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

alduro and I have both said that neither of us would ever have a problem with being disarmed by another officer during a traffic stop. alduro has even related that it has happened to him. So if police officers will disarm another officer who they don't know for safety reasons, why shouldn't they disarm a CCW holder?

Disarming someone for "safety reasons" makes no logical sense, and I will tell you why. Anyone who intends to do an officer harm will not admit up front that he has a weapon. Those that do inform the officer of that fact are the least likely type to do an officer harm. In fact, I'd say he has more to fear from the officer than visa versa. A logically appropriate reaction to a license holder informing you that he is armed is to say "Thank you for telling me that," and then proceed with a greater degree of peace of mind than if he had not told you. The greater peace of mind should come as a result of knowing that license holders are the most law abiding and least troublesome segment in our society. As are those who volunteer during a traffic stop that they are carrying in accordance with the law. In grade school, we called people like that "teacher's pets" and "goodie two shoes." You have more cause to routinely pat down everyone you pull over who has no CCW license and doesn't admit to carrying than you have cause to disarm a CCW license holder, i.e., you have virtually no cause at all. You guys are not being logical, acting contrary to your best interest, and creating enemies where none need be.

 

[DunedinDragon]

DunedinDragon,

If you really want to keep a scanner in your car, spend a little time and money and get a HAM radio license. Then you can keep a HAM radio in your car. Just about all HAM radios can double as a scanner. Not to mention you get alot better reception and they are ALOT more useful. In addition, HAM radios do not raise the RED FLAG that scanners do. They are alot easier to explain away.

From what I can tell, the ham radios I've seen (at least the portable ones) have the ability to scan, but not to program/filter trunking communications in the VHF range which is the key in being able to follow most law enforcement communications.

As far as raising red flags, if my scanner raises a red flag quite frankly that's the officer's problem not mine. I'm not going to worry about it any more than if I'm legally carrying a weapon (which I do), have a set of binoculars in my car (which I do) or a camera in my car (which I do). They can be as curious about it as they'd like, but possession of such items by themselves, or in combination, aren't by themselves indication of a crime and certainly don't add up to any probable cause scenario I can think of.

I suppose there could be surrounding circumstances such as being in a neighborhood where there has been a lot of peeping tom activity that could add up to probable cause, as long as ALL of the facts known about the situation are true (don't think I won't check them out) and consistent with me and my circumstances. God help the officer's career, and the department that stands behind him, that "lies" to me about surrounding circumstances adding up to probable cause in order to coerce my permission for a search. If it all adds up to probable cause, they don't need my permission.

The LAST thing in the world I'm going to do is modify my lawful behavior in order to preclude raising the suspicion of the police. Would you stop legally carrying a gun simply because it might cause suspicion by the police? If I have to do that, we already have an ENORMOUS problem with police overstepping the bounds of lawful conduct. The problem in that case is not my lawful conduct, but police conduct that needs to be corrected.

 

[pax]

Moderator Note

Let's try to do this thing without any more personal slams, eh?

pax

 

[makarova]

Alduro, fair enouph

Let me start by saying, I learn a lot from this forum. Even my typing is getting better You didn't answer my post about the number of police assaulted by CHLs. I dont know where to get those stats, they don't appear to be covered by the iirc. If you do, I would be grateful. As for my suing the police officer personally and insisting on his pension. I said that since I cant see any other way of bringing my point home. That being that you need a really good reason to infringe a fundamental civil right. You haven't addressed that point either. Your post about suing a police officer was extremely informative and I thank you for that. You're right about those nine ex-lawyers on the Supreme Court are not likely to take such a case, even though the court has affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right some 92 times. And no I dont have the funds you mentioned to persue such a case. I just wish gun rights organizations would be just as gleeful about supporting such a case. But then I wish the NRA had sued the police officers involved in the gun confiscations in New Orleans rather than only suing Mayor Nagin in his official capacity. The legal realities you mentioned involved in such a law suit may well be involved. But I can still wish. Thanks again for your informative posts, and I hope you will take up my challenge on the two points I brought up.

 

[makarova]

Jeff White: Same Challenge

Please show me the number of police officers assaulted or shot by a CHL. Dont forget to give a cite if you take up my challenge, I'm having trouble finding that information. I'll be more than happy to eat crow if necessary but I'd be willing to bet I'll be eating bacon thanks to that recent post, sheesh talk about bad influences

 

[Molon Labe]

show me the number of police officers assaulted or shot by a CHL

Answer: zero.

Yet every time an LEO disarms a CHL holder, the latter is assaulted.

One of these days, a courageous CHL holder will say, "Enough is enough."

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. White said,

alduro and I have both said that neither of us would ever have a problem with being disarmed by another officer during a traffic stop. alduro has even related that it has happened to him. So if police officers will disarm another officer who they don't know for safety reasons, why shouldn't they disarm a CCW holder?

I'm still waiting for an answer to harm it does to anyone?

The leo disarming the leo is a circus I would like to see.

I guess I will take a whack at answering your question if you will answer mine.

There is no harm done to anyone by disarming them unless it causes, by their training an apprehension. I am not a cop but I have seen movies. I think there is some kind of rule in the le community that goes like, "Do not ever give up your piece." (paraphrased) Am I wrong about that?

Now to reiterate my question. How come the cops have to take my piece apart and unload it and do other unsafe handling to unfamiliar firearms before they return it? If you don't mind being disarmed by the cop in the traffic stop, do you mind when they return your "Weapon" in a box in pieces?

 

[RevDisk]

If you really want to keep a scanner in your car, spend a little time and money and get a HAM radio license. Then you can keep a HAM radio in your car. Just about all HAM radios can double as a scanner. Not to mention you get alot better reception and they are ALOT more useful. In addition, HAM radios do not raise the RED FLAG that scanners do. They are alot easier to explain away.

Or one could do what I've done in the past when police officers questioned my electronics. Tell them everything about every piece of equipment, in detail. In very specific technical details. Be sure to go off on tangents at the drop of a hat. Until they get that look on their face that they'd rather be at the dentist getting teeth yanked with a set of pliers rather than hearing any more about LOS, frequency hopping, benefits of digital trunking, wiring schematics, etc.




I was gonna avoid posting in this thread, because I suspected it'd be drawn into an "Us vs Them" mentality. I've seen civvies bash cops for just doing their job. I've also seen the "thin blue line" mentality of police who literally believe they are "all that stands between an orderly society and anarchy." (Yes, I'm paraphrasing the actual words a police officer said to me.) Every group of people have their good folks, and their bad folks.

Often, I am highly critical of police. (I'm highly critical of many things, so any cops here don't need to feel like they're being singled out. My rants about the Army are the stuff of legends.) For one simple reason. They enforce the laws inside the US. The good ones and the bad ones. They are the enforcement arm of the government. Earlier in the thread, alduro meantioned his thoughts that police are "superior folks". Erm, righto. Because they are the long arm of the government, so to speak, they deserve and require a lot of oversight. Our government has checks and balances built into it. The best check and balance is the public keeping a very sharp eye on all levels of government, including the police.

Yea, it sucks. But it's part of being a professional. Think being a cop is bad, try being a soldier these days. It's part of the job. High standards, professional conduct, public scrutiny, etc.

"Heh, civilians/whatever. They wouldn't last five minutes in this job." I've heard it from cops, soldiers, firefighters, nurses, docs, coroners, etc etc. It's fine to have pride in your work, but when you start to feel serious contempt for the folks in general you serve, it's time to switch jobs. Nothing wrong with feeling contempt for specific individuals, plenty of idiots to go around.

 

[DunedinDragon]

Or one could do what I've done in the past when police officers questioned my electronics. Tell them everything about every piece of equipment, in detail. In very specific technical details. Be sure to go off on tangents at the drop of a hat. Until they get that look on their face that they'd rather be at the dentist getting teeth yanked with a set of pliers rather than hearing any more about LOS, frequency hopping, benefits of digital trunking, wiring schematics, etc.

Actually, I now realize that's pretty much what I did, and it evidently worked like a charm. When he asked me who I listened to I told him it was a trunking scanner and how I had my trunks and filters set up. He didn't seem too interested after that....

That's explains the glazed look in his eyes...hmmmmmm......

 

[Lupinus]

I'm with Jeff. People turn into real aholes over nothing in a split second. I work at a customer service counter in a supermarket and people go ballistic on me at least once or twice a day over nothing. One of the main reasons? We rent movies. To open a movie account you need a verifiable listed local home phone number in your or a spouses name and a state issued photo ID. No matter how you say it I have at least five people a day who say yes they have this and when I call information the number either can't be found, is in someone else's name (not a spouse), is an unlisted number, or is a cell phone. When I tell them it is unlisted, they say yes. When I say the operator can't find it, well its a cell phone. It isn't my fault you are to stupid to comprehend what I explained to you before you took the time out of your life to fill out the form and out of my life to call for a number that you already know what the outcome of my call to information will be. I have lost count of the number of time I have been yelled out, called nasty names, and felt like they were about ready to come around to my side of the counter if I didn't open the account for them. And when they do tell you outright that the number is a cell or unlisted and you explain you would then need to see the most recent bill the response can often be just as bad. And yes, I am a very polite customer service gun even if some very impolite things are going through my mind. All this over not being able to rent king kong or fun with dick and jane, I can imagine the idiocy officers have to go through writing these same morons a ticket. I wouldn't want 90% of the general public armed around me either when I am doing something they don't like it only takes one to be that much of a hot head they will shoot you over something that small, and with as hot headed some people are over not getting a movie account I can easily believe there are people chp holders or not that would loose their head and threaten or kill a cop over a ticket even for something their own stupidity has caused and not one bit of jbt.

You may not like police, heck I don't like some police and like even less what police departments on the whole have become these days turning into revenue generators for the most idiotic of fines. But they are humans, most are good people, and their job puts there in the position where they are going to make people angry and they have the right to do their job and be safe at the same time. Yes they could be a cop serial killer, but the odds are so far against it that it isn't worth me arguing and ending up in jail. If it isn't the law don't offer the information up if you don't want to, but if you are asked answer truthfully and if he wants your gun for the time being give it to him, I don't blame him one bit for not wanting you armed when he is about to make you angry and anyone who has had to give people answers they don't like on a regular basis can relate even if its only in some small way.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I have never volunteered the information. I carry almost 24/7 and have been doing so for a little over 25 years. I have been pulled over a few times in that time period. I have never volunteered the info, and was never asked, except for one time, but that was because my AR 15 was in plain view and he asked me if I had any weapons. I guess he was hoping I'd say no, and then he could arrest me for something. Anyway, I said yes, and pointed to it. As a result, he held me there for a half hour waiting for backup before he would proceed after that. I was on my way to the range, and now my time was so eaten up that I no longer had the time window to go to the range that day, and had to turn around and go home after this experience. I think it ate up a total of about 45 minutes just because I crossed an orange cone line when the lane in front of me was totally stopped, and the other lane, leading up to my exit, was totally empty. I had to argue with him that it was not an assault rifle, which took up additional time because he called it in to his supervisor, who wanted all kinds of details on the mechanism of the weapon. I had to explain that an assault rifle has a selector switch for full auto or burst, while this has no full auto or burst setting. What a pain in the butt!

Anyway, I have a question for the cops here. When a cop asks you to surrender your CCW, do they expect you to reach for it, or do they want to take it from the holster? Seems to me that reaching for a CCW in front of a cop is kind of asking to be shot, no? I mean, even if they tell you to do it, their squad car video would only pick up a perp reaching for a weapon, and it would go down as a good shoot, wouldn't it? I mean, this would almost literally be a license to murder, wouldn't it, assuming the cop was a secret psychopath (far from impossible)?

Reminds me of a Western I saw where this young hot shot gun slinger, wishing to rack up a reputation for himself, would go up to unsuspecting strangers within view of distant witnesses, and start up a conversation about their sidearm. Eventually, he'd ask if he could see it, and the friendly passerby said "sure," and proceeded to reach for it so as to hand it to him for a good look. Bang! The gun slinger would draw and fire, and the witnesses would all report that they saw the other feller draw first. I would be very hesitant to draw my weapon at the request of a cop for this reason. After all, I don't know him from Adam, and I'd surely like to make it home alive, which you must admit is always somewhat less likely to happen when one of them has you in his clutches.

 

[DunedinDragon]

Anyway, I have a question for the cops here. When a cop asks you to surrender your CCW, do they expect you to reach for it, or do they want to take it from the holster?

In my situation they simply had me get out of the truck and asked me where it was. I told him it was on my hip and he explained that he was going to take it off of me, but would be returning it. He then took it out of the holster and disarmed the weapon (I had to kind of show him where the slide lock was, I don't think he was familiar with Sigs as he was pushing on the decocking lever). I'd suspect most officers would handle it that way.

 

[NineseveN]

Alduro:

However your assumption that assaults on police officers are automatically reported are incorrect.

I believe I said (or meant to say) assaults with injuries as far as the automatically reported assaults. Maybe cops do it differently in some places, but up here, if the officer has an injury (aside from a superficial scratch or something of that nature of course), I can say with high confidence that it goes on the books as an assault against the officer. Again, there is no hard data, I'm just taking this from the cops I know personally or have talked to on-line for many years. Despite some claims that I am a cop basher, I have a great number of friends and acquaintances that are police officers and they know my views on these kinds of subjects. I would say the majority of LEO's I personally know agree on the major points, even if not on the specific details.

For instance, an officer goes to handcuff a subject, the guy resists, the officer gets injured during the altercation by the actions of the subject (which would normally be assault) will be classified as resisting arrest, not assault. So in reality you could almost throw assault and resisting arrest in the same boat except for the runners. I would say that a lot of police officers getting assaulted go unreported and the MAJORITY of correctional and jailer assaults go unreported.

Most resisting arrest claims involve no physical assault from what I am being told by my police friends. If it actually rises to the level of a true assault (i.e. the suspect takes a swing at the officer or physically combats the officer to avoid the arrest, it's an assault). Again, things may be different for different areas and agencies.

As far as "correctional and jailer assaults" go, while the number might surprise us, it has little to do with this discussion. A person that is legally incarcerated has no right to bear arms, and this discussion centers around the disarming of free citizens during a stop.

Jeff can probably back up my claim since there is no hard data on this, usually assault and resisting arrest don't get tagged at the same time unless you know the guy was actively combating you.

Well, come on now, there aren't many calls that end up as assault charges when two citizens verbally argue and then someone unintentionally gets struck, now are there? If two guys are arguing over a remote control and while they're grappling someone gets an elbow, I doubt that even gets called in, let alone classified as an assault. So again, I stand by my statement that most likely, the rate for assaults against an officer being reported is much, much higher than assaults against the non-police officers.

And I think I have proven that police work is not as dangerous as some make it out to be. The potential is there, sure; every stop could be 'the one'. Then again, I walk past at least 10-12 drug addicts on the way to work through downtown, any one of those could be waiting to assault, kill or rape anyone one of the thousands of business-folk that make that same walk to their office every dark morning or late night.

 

[NineseveN]

alduro and I have both said that neither of us would ever have a problem with being disarmed by another officer during a traffic stop. alduro has even related that it has happened to him. So if police officers will disarm another officer who they don't know for safety reasons, why shouldn't they disarm a CCW holder?

This is a nonsensical argument. Remember, communists that were in power were big proponents of the state, but it's different when you're the one in power, now isn't it? You enforce the laws, obviously you agree with them, because if you had any strength of character and you disagreed with the laws, you would not be enforcing them. It's nothing to agree to be subject to a law you agree with and enforce.

Where is the harm? I dunno, I'm still trying to find a medical professional that can diagnose a black eye on my civil rights.

 

[DunedinDragon]

And I think I have proven that police work is not as dangerous as some make it out to be. The potential is there, sure; every stop could be 'the one'. Then again, I walk past at least 10-12 drug addicts on the way to work through downtown, any one of those could be waiting to assault, kill or rape anyone one of the thousands of business-folk that make that same walk to their officer every dark morning or late night.

I certainly would think you're not comparing the level of potential violence you face on your walk downtown to someone who's job it is to intentionally place themselves into a situation where there is every reason to believe something bad might happen. I cook my dinner every day, but the likelihood I'll get burned is far less than someone who works a grill as a cook for 8 hours a day.

If someone told you your neighbor was arguing with his wife and had his gun out would you rush over there and confront him? Most reasonable people wouldn't throw themselves into a situation like that unless there were given no choice..but that's exactly the situation a police officer finds himself in. He can't decline to go confront that situation because it's potentially dangerous.

I'm willing to concede a certain amount of latitude to police officers because of that. In return I expect police officers to recognize pretty quickly I'm not a danger to them and not automatically treat me as a criminal. As long as both sides retain that type of balance, everything should work out fine.

 

[NineseveN]

But we're talking about interaction between cops and citizens in non-violent situations (i.e. traffics stops, not responding to DV calls) and between citizens and citizens in non-violent situations (i.e. walking your dog, going to work, not bar fights).

If an officer responds to a DV call, and there is evidence of violence (physical or verbal), then I would think that most would be okay with them disarming the parties involved or keeping them away from their weapons until the situation can be cleared up and the proper arrests made if necessary. A traffic stop for running a red-light is non-violent until violence (verbal or physical) is introduced. Furthermore, since licensed CCW holders are, as has already been said, historically and statistically unlikely to engage in violence or illegal felonious conduct, disarming them in a mere traffic stop is simply illogical and serves no concrete legitimate purpose, except to combat some illusionary "potential" for that stop to go bad for the officer. We don't infringe on the rights of others based solely on "potential", sorry, that's just not the way this country works (or at least, not the way it should be working).

 

[DunedinDragon]

Actually, in THIS thread, we ARE talking about a report of potential violence as it all started from a "reported" drunk having a verbal confrontation with a bus driver.

 

[NineseveN]

Well, to clarify, you took issue with something that I said. I am clarifying for you the context of what I said that you took issue with, which is indeed in the realm of a routine traffic stop; one of the areas that this discussion has drifted into. Those of us that have been engaging in that particular aspect of the discussion have all hopefully addressed your specific case beforehand...I did.

I don't see any problem with the way the cops acted as you tell it here. I say that's a pretty professional stop IMHO.

...taking into account the need to administer a field sobriety test based on the complaint. Though, one has to wonder, how did the bus driver have any credibility to ascertain that you were in fact, intoxicated? How did the police manage to give that kind of a complaint credibility if there was no odor of alcohol coming from your person and no evidence of the substance in your vehicle? Do you slur your words? I have a hard time getting from point A to point B, unless you were in fact in the bus driver's face (inside his personal space) and he reported that you smelled of alcohol. Odd complaint to make I think, but I digress.

In any event, the discussion has moved on into a couple of different areas, it happens, it's the nature of a public discussion forum.

 

[Art Eatman]

Nineseven, while I'm in accord with the idea that a CHL holder is very unlikely to be a problem for an officer, some of the posts in this very thread make me believe that disarming everybody during a traffic stop is not at all unwise. Too many people just can't get a handle on the realities of the world we live in, and have too short a fuse. Either that or Keyboard Kommando-itis is attacking...

Cops want to go home at end of shift, just like plain folks. I expect them to set up a system that's loaded in favor of going home unhurt. I don't know why anybody would expect otherwise. That's just plain common sense.

I'm spoiled, I guess, by my own interactions with cops and traffic stops. I'm usually out of my vehicle, billfold in one hand and DL/CHL in the other before the cop's out of his car. I'm smiling. I get asked for my gun's location; it's in the console. End of queries about guns, unless we get into a BS session about guns. I sometimes get a warning ticket. It's been years since I had to write a check to a JP. The cop goes on his way; I go on mine. End of deal.

I lead an ulcer-free life.

, Art