Police officer looking for respectful dialoge

Armed tellers! Years ago before the cop thing I serviced ATMs for looms Fargo through college. Opening an ATM in Ogden with a million plus in it. No way I would have done that unarmed.

Porter N, thanks for the responses.

Hope you had a partner to watch your back, stargate. Intent on your job, being armed probably wouldn't help if someone wanted to take that money from you - or several someones.

One of the benefits of living where I do is the fact that most criminals are aware that anyone around them might be armed, and that most of us are not afraid to back up someone who is is trouble. Mostly they stay out of this state... they tend to go where people are more helpless and compliant victims.

I go into the bank (and everywhere else) all the time openly armed. The only question I've ever gotten was from a new teller... she said, "Oh! That looks nice. What is it?"

The first time I met the sheriff here we talked about open carry and so forth. He looked at my .357M revolver and joked about me getting a "real gun." He's a Glock man, you see.

We get armed money deliveries and pick ups twice a week at the restaurant were i work. There was a recent story of the same company's armed money courier walking out of a bank getting shot dead and robbed for that money. SOME people will do what they have to do to get what they want. SO i shouldn't ever speak in absolutes or i have to eat my words when i have news articles and scenario after hypothetical scenario thrown back at me to prove my absolutes wrong. So not everyone that OCs becomes a target for crime and yes, deterrence probably works pretty good. prison or possible penalties we have in place isn't a deterrent enough for the criminals that are out there, so there is also going to be a percentage of those criminals that want to get what they want, no matter what deterrence may be in their way? just my opinions.

stargateranch said:

Armed tellers! Years ago before the cop thing I serviced ATMs for looms Fargo through college. Opening an ATM in Ogden with a million plus in it. No way I would have done that unarmed.

Porter N, thanks for the responses.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? You might be delusional if you think having a handgun on your hip would be sufficient against a true attempt to do anything. In fact, you should have had a SWAT team-like presence if it was obvious and predictable what you were doing.

I thought LEOs, two partners, not present in force, realized that they are NO MATCH for a real gang of practiced, armed predators. Even 'in force' they're no match.

Edit to add as a ATM servicer, you are not a LEO and are going to have a rough time if you, alone, have to shoot someone who is trying to rob an ATM, because you have to prove you did a manslaughter (minimum) in protection of assets and property. (IANAL)

sawah said:

Wait, what? You might be delusional if you think having a handgun on your hip would be sufficient against a true attempt to do anything. In fact, you should have had a SWAT team-like presence if it was obvious and predictable what you were doing.

I thought LEOs, two partners, not present in force, realized that they are NO MATCH for a real gang of practiced, armed predators. Even 'in force' they're no match.

Edit to add as a ATM servicer, you are not a LEO and are going to have a rough time if you, alone, have to shoot someone who is trying to rob an ATM, because you have to prove you did a manslaughter (minimum) in protection of assets and property. (IANAL)

Click to expand...

Add protection of self to your list - in fact make it first.

You are right

sawah said:

Wait, what? You might be delusional if you think having a handgun on your hip would be sufficient against a true attempt to do anything. In fact, you should have had a SWAT team-like presence if it was obvious and predictable what you were doing.

I thought LEOs, two partners, not present in force, realized that they are NO MATCH for a real gang of practiced, armed predators. Even 'in force' they're no match.

Edit to add as a ATM servicer, you are not a LEO and are going to have a rough time if you, alone, have to shoot someone who is trying to rob an ATM, because you have to prove you did a manslaughter (minimum) in protection of assets and property. (IANAL)

Click to expand...

If the blonde guy off Die Hard attacked with his army of mercenaries I would have been screwed. Plus they had Yamaha Phazer II's

stargateranch said:

Hello,

I am a officer here in Utah, I support the right to keep and bear arms. I am attempting to educate myself and those I work with and also make contacting those who open carry a good experience for all involved. That said I will make a few statements so you understand where I am coming from and then ask several questions and would appreciate your insight.

Statements, These are my personal beliefs

Click to expand...

Noted. Others have responded to the point of beating a dead horse, I'll just note that I read and understood your assumptions before answering.

Questions,

1. Do you mind being contacted in a casual manner? not detained. I seriously just want to talk to you, I love guns and assuming you are not carrying a gigantic piece of crap (hi-point comes to mind) I will ask you how you like it and how it shoots, and maybe if you are selling it (do not tell my wife). Unless you are super busy thats cool too.

Click to expand...

This is a perfectly peachy thing to do, I enjoy talking to anybody about firearms, at length, to the point where their eyes glaze over. If that's our conversation, or you want to talk about how great OSU was in winning over Michigan the other night in basketball, count me in. Once it slips to "so...got a CHL (which I don't need to OC)/can I see ID" we become official business from that point forward and I will ask if I'm being detained and am I free to go, and nothing else. And I won't produce ID unless being detained, at all, period, full stop.

2. Why not concealed? From a purely tactical standpoint I would rather have my weapon concealed. A concealed weapon lends to the surprise part of speed, surprise, and violence of action. I am looking for real reasons, not "cause I can". I will accept deterrence as a legitimate reason.

Click to expand...

I do carry concealed on occasion, but not for a tactical advantage. A tactical advantage, to me, suggests a mindset of me wanting to play Joe Hero and nail a bad guy who is already in the act of comitting of a crime. I'm not a police officer, I'd much prefer the potential criminal saw me, cringed in fear, and left the scene before doing a bad guy thing. So, yes, deterrence. Plus, frankly, it is an overt sign that I am a free man, and in today's world, we need as many signs as possible that there are still free men left in the world.

3. How do you want to be approached? Like I said before I cannot just ignore a call I get dispatched to. Man with a gun calls are not entirely uncommon, I must respond and make sure no laws are being violated, or are about to be. Is there anyway I can do that without stepping on your toes or making this a huge deal when it does not need to be? Keep in mind I just want to make sure that you are not going to kill or hurt anyone (that doesn't need killin'). I would have a hard time sleeping if I did not confront an armed individual who later killed someones child.

Click to expand...

Approach me as you would any other person not breaking the law and treat me with the same respect you'd treat your fellow officers or friends. I'm tall, clean cut, fit, dress nicely and my firearm is sufficiently nice, and in a hand tooled custom made holster/belt (yeah, I make'em) so as to set me apart from Jeremiah Crackhead who, likely, is none of those things and further, who likely doesn't open carry. I would caution though that as open carry grows, you can't make assumptions based on anything except probable cause, and sooner or later the folks who don't dress nicely but are peaceful decent citizens are going to start open carrying. The burden is fully on peace officers to have a fully articulated suspiscion/probable cause, and this burden will grow as time passes. The days of "he looked shady" are going the way of the dinosaur, so it's best to prepare and be in tip top legal shape, I say.

4. If you could tell a group of cops anything what would you tell us? I will pass it on to my co-workers and hopefully we can avoid stupidity on both ends.

Click to expand...

Instead of repeating what others have said, I'll add something new. The best way to generate positive relations when you encounter us OC'ers, is to give us a nice comment if you're in casual conversation, or if you "have to check us out", do it without making it seem like we're doing something wrong. Smile maybe. By that, I mean a comment that makes it be known that you understand that OC is our right and that you fully respect that right, and then follow it up with nothing (no fishing conversations, pumping for information, "voluntary contact interrogation", etc). "Great day for open carry today", that kind of thing (a pair of cops said that to a buddy of mine while he was in a checkout line at the drugstore, then said nothing else). Nothing gets me to go into "ignore you" mode faster than playing Lean Mean Joe Jarhead and his Sunglass-ed SWAT Team Assistant with me. I've had a lot of experiences in life with those types of personalities, and they do not impress me nor do they intimidate me, in fact, they kind of bore me and all you'll get in return is a tired stare, abject silence and these words "Am I being detained officer? Am I free to go?"

And please, please, please, help your buddies to fully understand the laws that they are enforcing. It's a pet peeve of mine when I hear police first or second hand stating (in Ohio) that open carry is illegal/menacing/public disturbance/disturbing the peace/illegal if you have a CHL or any other such nonsense. Fortunately I only hear it second hand these days, but I understand that in lots of places, this kind of ignorance of the law is rampant amongst peace officers. It's fine to be ignorant of a given law (there are so many!) but it seems rather careless and lawsuit-ready to start trying to enforce laws one does not understand. I'm a nice guy, but cuff and stuff me for simply and peacefully OC'ing with "it's (everything I mentioned)" and I'm going to eat your department's budget for my lunch in my fully funded lawsuit (in Ohio, police/cities pay for 2nd Amendment rights violations lawsuits for all parties, by law, if they negligently arrest peaceful citizens exercising their rights), count on it. If in doubt, then look it up first. There are no violent crimes where there is a question of law breaking (as well as things like stealing, mugging, etc), but if you don't know otherwise, don't start trying to enforce (what may not exist) until you have the facts. Just my opinions of course.

Thanks for reading, thanks for replying.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your straight forward attitude and the demonstrated tact and courtesy you've displayed. It's an encouraging sign that the times are a'changin'. The better peace officer/citizen relations are in a rights-respecting sense, the better off everybody is in the long run. As was noted earlier, one can no longer assume gun=bad guy, as since the advent of widespread CHL across the states, open carry has started to flourish and will continue to grow expotentially as time goes on. Your professional attitude is a credit to your profession.

At least we are trying to find some resolution between the legitimate goal of ENSURING "officer safety" , and the GUISE of concern for same frequently employed as an excuse for abuse of power.

My wife and my step-daughter were stopped at gun-point on I-20 in Arlington, Texas some years ago because their vehicle " matched the description " of a vehicle used in an armed robbery.

My 26 year old grand daughter's life was placed at risk by 2 Ohio State Patrol officers who "pegged" her and her significant other as "probable drug transporters " based upon their appearance as apparent "lower socio-economic Hispanics" (Doo-rag (sp ?) on SO's head, and 6 year old SUV.

The troopers partially dismantled grand daughter's vehicle searching for drugs - including the engine compartment. No drugs.....................free to go.

Further down the highway GD's vehicle stalls out in the middle of the highway because Barney Fife & Guber Jr. had failed to properly re-install emissions equipment that they had dismantled under the hood.

This is another one of the many anecdotal accounts of over-zealous law enforcement in the absence of any crime.

No "officer safety" involved in this one - simply hard-working troopers striving to chalk-up a neat drug-bust on the highways of America.

The "war on drug" accounts for most of this sort of stupidity.

I respectfully reserve ALL Rights Conferred, Guaranteed, Protected, Recognized, or INFERRED by the US Constitution and the Constitution of whatever US State I may be in at the time. I will not, NOR WILL MY VEHICLE be searched without the presentation of a VALID warrant for the same. I reserve the rights to travel, freely associate, and be free from UNREASONABLE searches or seizures.

That is my current planned response to ANY officer who interferes with ANY of my rights. These are not to pick a fight or make the officer's job difficult... it is to protect my rights, for any rights that I an not willing to exercise are rights that I no longer have!

wrightme said:

Now, absent the portion about 'ride-along.'
Given
What statute is your department enforcing (you know, you are law enforcement, not law enactment) if you are sent out in response to a citizen complaining that someone in public has a firearm 'lawfully under the individual's control?' How does your department justify the expense incurred to respond to lawful activity?

Click to expand...

Just FYI, Lawfully under the individual's control is not referring to the firearm, it is referring to the vehicle itself, which is lawfully in the individual's posession, or under the individual's control. Read the passage again. It clearly states "or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession, or lawfully under the individual's control."

wrightme said:

How do you feel it is your 'duty to investigate' if a citizen calls and reports the lawful conduct of OC?

Click to expand...

Has anybody considered that maybe the officer is not allowed to pick and choose which calls he responds to when he is assigned same from his dispatcher? If a dispatcher comes over the radio and says "Officer Stargateranch, I need you to respond to 123 blah blah street for a reported MWAG." do you think he has the authority to say, "I'm sorry dispatch, but I will not be responding to this call, because it's probably nothing more than a law abiding citizen exercising his rights." ??? Maybe that is where his "duty to respond" or "duty to investigate" comes, even if it's to ride by, see a seemingly law abiding MWAG going about his business, and just driving by. Just something to ponder. I for one, while I can see the problem with his examples as mentioned in his first post, can appreciate his desire to get a better grasp of our position on the matter, and can respect his well mannered responses, even in the face of hostility here from some members. Just my $0.02. Keep the change.

JoeSparky said:

So, you are telling me that your Department is in VIOLATION OF STATE LAW in this and you're willing to go along with it? What about your OATH of Support of the Constitution and the fact that NO ONE is above the law, DEPARTMENTALLY OR INDIVIDUALLY?
As to being told how/where your back up weapons are that is great BUT, I have not been trained on YOUR weapons as I've trained with MINE.
I understand about the LIABILITY waiver and the confidential nature of some of the info that one might be privy too...

My Criminal history is absolutely clean, traffic citations only--- last one about 8 years ago, I think!

Bottom line: State law is VERY clear that neither YOU or YOUR DEPARTMENT can enforce any policy, rule, law ect on this! For what it is worth, YOUR's IS NOT THE ONLY DEPT IN THE STATE OF UTAH TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS LAW!!!!!! But that is NO excuse... "If all your friends were jumping off the cliff would you do the same?" Just because others are doing it does not make it right!

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the part about the ride along program being voluntary. As mentioned, if you don't like the fact that you cannot ride along armed, you don't have to ride along. No different than them requiring shoes instead of flip flops or pants instead of shorts. No different that deciding not to shop at a business that doesn't allow you to carry. Besides, many states prohibit, by law, the carrying of a firearm inside a government building. Is a police car not considered to be an extension of the government building, and as such also a prohibited location?

Medic1210 said:

Maybe you missed the part about the ride along program being voluntary. As mentioned, if you don't like the fact that you cannot ride along armed, you don't have to ride along. No different than them requiring shoes instead of flip flops or pants instead of shorts. No different that deciding not to shop at a business that doesn't allow you to carry. Besides, many states prohibit, by law, the carrying of a firearm inside a government building. Is a police car not considered to be an extension of the government building, and as such also a prohibited location?

Click to expand...

And UTAH has PROHIBITED any agency, authority, city, municipality, county, school district, library.... from making or enforcing and rule, policy, law .... Here let me give you a copy of the law and a link to its location....

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53/htm/53_05a010200.htm

53-5a-102. Uniform firearm laws.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; or
(b) require an individual to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(3) In conjunction with Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, this section is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities.
(4) All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501(9); and
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.
(7) Nothing in this section restricts or expands private property rights.

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 382, 2008 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 53_05a010200.ZIP 2,580 Bytes


and another related law....

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_050000.htm

76-10-500. Uniform law.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
(a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
(b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

Enacted by Chapter 5, 1999 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 76_10_050000.ZIP 2,133 Bytes

JoeSparky said:

And UTAH has PROHIBITED any agency, authority, city, municipality, county, school district, library.... from making or enforcing and rule, policy, law .... Here let me give you a copy of the law and a link to its location....

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53/htm/53_05a010200.htm

53-5a-102. Uniform firearm laws.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; or
(b) require an individual to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(3) In conjunction with Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, this section is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities.
(4) All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501(9); and
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.
(7) Nothing in this section restricts or expands private property rights.

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 382, 2008 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 53_05a010200.ZIP 2,580 Bytes


and another related law....

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_050000.htm

76-10-500. Uniform law.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
(a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
(b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

Enacted by Chapter 5, 1999 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 76_10_050000.ZIP 2,133 Bytes

Click to expand...

I can appreciate your citation, but as I learned after reading further in this multi-paged thread after quoting you, and making my statement, this situation was already resolved with you admitting you misread/ misinterpreted the law you were using as your justification. Why quote the law again instead of just saying this has already been resolved as noted several posts after the one I quoted? I stand by my claim that since you are not being forced to participate in a ride along, you are not being forced to give up your right to carry, which as already discussed, doesn't even apply to a police car that you are not operating in the first place.

stargateranch said:

1. When you open carry the police may be called. I work for the citizens of Utah both those who open carry and those who make the call reporting the activity. I have a duty to investigate even if that means driving by, smiling and waving, and then moving on. Please do not fault me for responding to a request from another citizen.

Click to expand...

You have zero 'duty' to act. Period. SCOTUS has ruled on this.

If you're 'ordered' to investigate that's different, but that's contractual obligation to obey your boss imho.

Dave_pro2a said:

You have zero 'duty' to act. Period. SCOTUS has ruled on this.

If you're 'ordered' to investigate that's different, but that's contractual obligation to obey your boss imho.

Click to expand...

You are correct, it is contractual. I also believe it is a moral obligation I am being paid, it would be dishonest to collect a salary then pick and chose the calls I respond to. And let me say it this way.

I disagree with DUI checkpoints, I personally believe that amounts to a detention and perhaps a search. The Supreme Court has ruled it does not. I still get assigned to work them and do so because I am being paid and have the same obligations described above. On a side note weeks ago the Utah legislature passed legislation disallowing checkpoints, I agree with that.

Duty is defined as legal or moral obligation. I believe I had a moral duty to earn my pay within the confines of the law as constituted.

stargateranch said:

2. Guns make me nervous, some cops with guns make me nervous. I do not know you weapon handling skills

Click to expand...

Cops with guns make me nervous, too. I don't know your weapon handling skills, but I'm pretty sure mine are better. How should I act out this fear and ignorance? Honest question. Shall I, perhaps, learn to ignore it?

stargateranch said:

I disagree with DUI checkpoints, I personally believe that amounts to a detention and perhaps a search. The Supreme Court has ruled it does not. I still get assigned to work them and do so because I am being paid and have the same obligations described above. On a side note weeks ago the Utah legislature passed legislation disallowing checkpoints, I agree with that.

Click to expand...

Part of me appreciates your viewpoint, the rest of me is concerned that you engage in behavior you believe/know to be unconstitutional (which DUI checkpoints undoubtedly are, opinions of "The Statist Nine" not withstanding).

I carry because I can. That is a real reason and I wonder why it isn't good enough for you?

sudden valley gunner said:

I carry because I can. That is a real reason and I wonder why it isn't good enough for you?

Click to expand...

The "because I can" answers almost any question and gives no real reason or thought provoking answer to a question honestly posed.

Let me give and example:

Why do you arrest people for DUI? Because I can.

Why do you use iodine before drawing blood? Because I can.


Sadly I am, believe it or not, a strong supporter of many of your positions and am attempting to understand and learn. Because I can teaches me nothing and I am left to assume you don't know why you do, or don't care to share. None of you business is a better answer then because I can.