I guess to start this off, I would really like to see an actual news story. The only thing linked to by the OP was a blog, and all I can find searching on the internet is a signed opinion piece from the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Not that I'm the smartest guy on the planet, but if something that I am supposed to read as fact has more than 5 weasel words in the first couple of paragraphs, it doesn't count as fact. NRA bulletins included.
Now, to address some of the comments here:
The number one concern on a Leo's mind is scene security and safety. By handcuffing the homeowner it made one less thing for the officer to worry about.
Looks like all worked out in the end. Maybe a different officer would have handled it differently, but the bottom line is she needed to get the scene under control. And she did, and all went to bed safely that night.
Post #2, and is one of the most logical ones in this thread.
Actually, by taking the homeowner into temporary custody (which is what handcuffing amounts to), the LEO assumed a legally actionable responsibility for safeguarding that homeowner. So it's really one MORE thing for the LEO to worry about.
Yes and no. But this is an excellent point, and I agree.
Seems to be standard operating procedure when a gun is involved. However a responsible officer would have relocated him to a cruiser for safe-r keeping-
Agreed, and what I would do should I feel the need to put him in cuffs.
It would seem to me that handcuffing someone who has not broken the law would open up a legal can of worms. Seems like it would be very similar to the risk a citizen faces as a result of detaining a suspect.
Nope. It is placing into temporary custody for the safety of the officer and the owner.
Unless you need body detail, I have to agree here. The police rarely seem to offer real "help". When I was robbed at the age of 19, the cops gave up every detail of my personal information to the perp's family. I had his brothers and buddies showing up on my door step attempting to "persuade" me to drop the charges.
Needless to say, I have never felt so violated by the cops in my life. I decided that I would never involve the cops in my life again unless someone is dead, leaving me little choice.
Let's see. Off the top of my head, insurance reporting is the first reason I can come up with. Beyond that, Law Enforcement Officers exist for a reason. This is no longer the wild west, we have these great big books of rules that people are obligated to follow. Vigilante justice has no place in a polite society.
As a law enforcement officer myself, unless I know the person/homeowner/business owner, I am going to handcuff them too. Depending on the circumstances. I cant count how many calls I have been on where the home owner and/or reporting party has been 100% compliant and within a matter of minutes (again depending on the situation) has gone from "Joe/Jane Citizen" to A-hole in a split second.
I may inconvenience someone for a few minutes, and for that I will take an ass chewing. But I'm going home at the end of my shift.
+50. I totally agree.
Perfect example. I accompanied a husband who was under in the middle of a very acrimonious divorce to retrieve belongings from his (soon-to-be-former) home. We met in a church parking long, and he and his buddy had pistols strapped to their sides. I informed them that their actions were, according to Arkansas state law, illegal, and I would appreciate it greatly if they would refrain from brandishing their weapons.
The buddy took my suggestion to heart, and when we arrived at the residence, he had concealed his weapon. The idiot husband, however, still had his glock in a freaking drop leg holster. So, instead of him retrieving his belongings from his home, he got a summons and his weapon confiscated. Guy went from my best buddy ever to biggest a-hole ever in a two minute drive because "I didn't want him to be able to defend himself from his ****** wife, and I couldn't stop him."
But I digress....
Securing the home owner under the guise of, "officer safety", was not what she did wrong. It was the way she went about it.
Maybe, maybe not. We are all basing our judgments on a piece from an opinion page, not any factual representation of the truth.
I certainly see the officer safety side of the coin.
Go ahead, cuff the homeowner who called for help. Put them in the back of the cruiser. Maybe give them a little taste of the taser if they get "lippy," why not? Heck, the officer would be a lot safer if she'd have simply shot the homeowner when she arrived on the scene. No reason to get into cuffing distance, no time wasted, no one filing with a complaint with Internal Affairs afterward...
In all seriousness, I don't know any/many folks who would respond well to that situation. Call the police, they arrive, you disarm, and they cuff & stuff you? If they arrive at my house, they'll have me, the wife, and the kids all on the scene. Do they all get "secured" for the officer's safety? Or just me, trussed up in front of my kids 'cause I called for police assistance?
Sarcastic section aside, every situation is different. That's why departments give their officers that holy word, "discretion." A mom, dad, and kids at the scene of a break in is a very different situation than a single guy than a single girl. And sorry kids, we profile. A guy wearing a suit is going to get treated differently than a guy in hood rat clothes.
Uh, I AM in public safety. If you need to clear the scene you wait for another officer to help, you don't hog tie the victim and search by yourself just *hoping* that the bad guy is gone.
The officer should have called for backup. Citizens who have behaved well should be treated well, and should not be put in risky or uncomfortable situations.
As for the officer safety issue, the first rule in any kind of life-saving is to not put more lives at risk. It's just as important to keep the citizen save as the cop. The cop put herself first. (But, that's what cops do.)
What if you can't get backup? What if your radio isn't transmitting? These things are more common that you might believe. I have each happen to me at least once a shift.
I hate to bust some bubbles, but you're damn right I'm going to put myself first and everyone else second. If I, the LEO, gets injured/killed, the situation is going to go from bad to worse. And believe me, every LEO has had enough credible threats against him or her to mistrust everyone they meet, Mr. Rodgers included.
BINGO!!!! I got a speeding ticket and the cop ( with gun drawn ) made me exit the vehicle, walk backwards, and put my hands on the trunk.
Never been arrested,no warrants, NOTHING!!!
A few months ago, my wife was going 4mph over the speed limit and the cop gave her one for 11 over.
You're in Louisiana. All bets are off. Your law enforcement makes Chicago's look like pretty, honest angles that fart happiness and money. I'm sincerely sorry for those experiences, but that's the way the cookie crumbles around there. You and the rest of the citizens of your state need to band together and get serious about cleaning up the problems in your LE departments. And government as a whole, while you're at it.
If a cop handcuffs you don't they have to arrest you first?
Isn't being handcuffed without being under arrest illegal improsinment? and woul not such action be cuase for crimainal charges against the office?
In my jurisdiction, no, nope, and not so much.
Placing someone in custody with cuffs on constitutes an "arrest", by definition: you are taking their freedom away. Opens the officer and department up to a lawsuit from the victim. Want to take bets on what a jury of CIVILIANS woud rule on that one? It may be SOP, for awhile........
No, actually, it doesn't. Legally speaking, it is a investigatory detention, as it is both limited and temporary. The legal test is "whether the detention is temporary and whether the police acted with reasonable dispatch to quickly confirm or dispel the suspicions that initially induced the investigative detention."
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2
I'm still mighty curious about something and I'd appreciate input from any LEOs who might be wading through this:
If a citizen hears/sees a prowler and calls 911 to request an officer to check things out, and when that officer arrives he/she says, "I'm going to cuff you and put you in the back of the cruiser until I get the place secured."
And the homeowner says, "Say WHAT? The HELL you are! Never mind, get off my property!"
What happens next? I'm quite serious. I'm a very mild mannered person but I can't imagine agreeing to something so absurd, especially when I'd invited the officer into my home.
I still have a hard time believing that this would happen in even 1 in 100 such encounters. But, if it does, do I end up with a "resisting arrest" or "assaulting an officer" charge?
What kind of social contract are you entering into when you bring the police into your home?
-Sam
Depends. Have I asked you for ID to prove that you are, in fact, the property owner and not the prowler? Am I so familiar with your address that I didn't need to look at my pager to confirm it? Have I spent most of the night dealing with domestic disputes?
It's all situational. In the hypothetical you gave, I'd suggest that you have a good night, and head back out on the road. Most of the time, anyway.
This thread is truly amazing and is exemplary of the reaction so many have these days that when a cop gets clipped, the question is what they did to bring it on. The ignorant cop who cuffed the victim is the very reason for this. She should be fired, tried, and imprisoned.
Based on..............
Like I've said numerous times, you sure are getting an awful lot of information from an opinion piece in a newspaper. Don't you think that fired, tried, and imprisoned is perhaps putting a few dozen carts before the proverbial horse?