Police officer looking for respectful dialoge

wrightme said:

It wasn't an 'obvious joke.'

Click to expand...

Just because you didn't get it doesn't it make it not obvious for the majority.

wrightme said:

It wasn't an 'obvious joke.'

Click to expand...

Lighten up. That was the intention, if you took it otherwise, I apologize.

VW_Factor said:

Just because you didn't get it doesn't it make it not obvious for the majority.

Click to expand...

I have to say that I really enjoy your "Best of Beretta Lady" sig. Always look forward to the updates. :>

stargateranch said:

I think that's what officers fall back on since Utah does not have a brandishing statute.

Click to expand...

I have to ask, are police officers are required to be able to read English in Utah? That one is rhetorical of course.

A non-rhethorical question for you. You encounter a police officer who has arrested someone for breaking a law that does not exist or does not apply to the situation or even that the law specifically states is not a crime. What do you do?

ugh!

stargateranch said:

I think that's what officers fall back on since Utah does not have a brandishing statute. You are driving down the freeway you cut someone off they pull up next to you and point a legally possessed handgun at you. That I would call hazardous, we struggle with that everyday. It a nearly everyday occurrence. I wish there was a better code for situations like that.

Click to expand...

76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
(1) As used in this section, "threatening manner" does not include:
(a) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or
(b) informing another of the actor's possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(2)(a).
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for those persons described in Section 76-10-503, a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another's use of unlawful force:
(a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or
(b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.

If we have no statute, then what is this? I'll presume you just didn't know, so now you do, and knowing is half the battle, as GI Joe would say.

Cheers,

Kevin

LovesHisXD45 said:

76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
(1) As used in this section, "threatening manner" does not include:
(a) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or
(b) informing another of the actor's possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(2)(a).
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for those persons described in Section 76-10-503, a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another's use of unlawful force:
(a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or
(b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.

If we have no statute, then what is this? I'll presume you just didn't know, so now you do, and knowing is half the battle, as GI Joe would say.

Cheers,

Kevin

Click to expand...

Since we now know there is a statute, why don't the Utah police know about it? I would be willing to bet my yearly salary that any Utah police officer would state that they know the law better than most anyone else.

stargateranch said:

It's true there are so many laws that you can pull almost any vehilce over if you look hard enough. But unlike the Cache Valley officer I do not belive that makes them a criminial. I would estimate, rougly that 10% of the people I contact are invovled in things I would consider criminal, theft, fraud, narcotics and so on. A burned out taillight is not criminal, and more often then not I stop next to them at the next stop light, have them roll down there window and let them know they have a light out. Most people are decent people.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I was on the road the other day and a firetruck came up on my six. It was not going to a fire, and it had the right headlight burnt out. We were almost at the turn left exit and with plenty of time at the speed limit to get out of its way, I increased my speed a fraction from 40 mph to 45 and started to enter the left turn lane.

I glanced up in the mirror and realized with a bit of a gasp that this huge fire truck had increased their speed to about 60 in the last 200 meters and I barely cleared the dotted line on my right entering the turn lane (I wanted to turn, so the truck not flashing or anything, could get a right-of-way just out of courtesy for an emergency services vehicle in neutral mode, could get by).

WHY would he do that and almost slam into my passenger-side bumper? I have to wonder if uniformed emergency personnel (which includes police) have an inordinate sense of entitlement.

To bring it back to the topic of the OP's post, would a LEO have pulled over this truck and cited it for dangerous driving, headlight out (it was daylight but a cloudy dark day) and even reckless driving and speeding? Sixty in a forty, almost hitting a car, intimidating. I'm just glad he didn't hit the air horn and make me crash!

We're all in this together. Stuff like this tells me something's wrong. Maybe the volunteer fireman, normally an nice guy was playing, maybe he was on the way to get the light fixed. Maybe he was a muscle-head and steroid abuser?

IF I were the LEO, knowing this, I think I would have even asked for a blood test. I mean, seriously. I can understand 'professional courtesy' among LEOs and other emergency crews, but this was ridiculous.

stargateranch said:

I think that's what officers fall back on since Utah does not have a brandishing statute. You are driving down the freeway you cut someone off they pull up next to you and point a legally possessed handgun at you. That I would call hazardous, we struggle with that everyday. It a nearly everyday occurrence. I wish there was a better code for situations like that.

Click to expand...

LovesHisXD45 said:

76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
--snip--
If we have no statute, then what is this? I'll presume you just didn't know, so now you do, and knowing is half the battle, as GI Joe would say.

Cheers,

Kevin

Click to expand...

As previously noted there is also this that reads very much like "brandishing" laws:

76-5-102. Assault.
(b) a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to another;
http://law.justia.com/codes/utah/201...r-05/76-5-102/

Gunslinger said:

I have to say that I really enjoy your "Best of Beretta Lady" sig. Always look forward to the updates. :>

Click to expand...

That is a tall order.

After seeing her posts alluding to her superior "I am more enlightened" attitude, and her "entitlement" towards the money that she didn't earn..

I think she deserved to be put on ignore.

VW_Factor said:

That is a tall order.

After seeing her posts alluding to her superior "I am more enlightened" attitude, and her "entitlement" towards the money that she didn't earn..

I think she deserved to be put on ignore.

Click to expand...

But then the stock in aspirin would drop dramatically :lol:

Questions,

1. Do you mind being contacted in a casual manner? No. But I would doubt being contacted by an LEO is generally casual. Everything I have learned is that you guys are trained to get us to admit to something so you can arrest us. As such, I don't feel comfortable talking to an LEO, at all.

2. Why not concealed? Deterrence.

3. How do you want to be approached? Like I said before I cannot just ignore a call I get dispatched to. That is simply not true. You guys use discretion all the time. Why you don't tell the person that calls to complain about someone with a gun to get a life is beyond me.

I must respond and make sure no laws are being violated. This is simply not true.

4. If you could tell a group of cops anything what would you tell us? To start standing up for our rights instead of treating everyone as if they are a dangerous person.

Spideynw said:

SNIP

1. Do you mind being contacted in a casual manner? No. But I would doubt being contacted by an LEO is generally casual. Everything I have learned is that you guys are trained to get us to admit to something so you can arrest us. As such, I don't feel comfortable talking to an LEO, at all.

2. Why not concealed? Deterrence.

3. How do you want to be approached? Like I said before I cannot just ignore a call I get dispatched to. That is simply not true. You guys use discretion all the time. Why you don't tell the person that calls to complain about someone with a gun to get a life is beyond me.

I must respond and make sure no laws are being violated. This is simply not true.

4. If you could tell a group of cops anything what would you tell us? To start standing up for our rights instead of treating everyone as if they are a dangerous person.

Click to expand...

The boldface speaks to an issue I have. I might frame it thus: police are so used to their own spin and deliberate alteration of meaning they forgot they do it. It is ingrained.

There is no way a casual encounter can match up with making sure no laws are being violated.

It is an investigatory encounter. Period.

But, oh no. We've heard the words consensual encounter, social contact, and casual encounter. All of which bypass the essential nature of the encounter: the citizen is being investigated and is in legal jeopardy. Some encounters are genuinely social. Some are genuinely casual. But, those terms are rarely used in those senses here by visiting police. I don't even want to go into whether there have been plenty of consensual encounters that weren't really consensual.

Maybe if too-many police could stop being representatives for The Ministry of Truth from Orwell's 1984...

Folks, Thanks

Sorry was out of town at my sisters wedding last few days. I greatly appriciate the information that was given in ernest. I even used some of my new found knowledge at the gun show today.

Feel free to send a private message with anything you would like to add or questions you have of me. Again big thanks to those who added value and helped me with this thread.

I'm sure you saw drivers on the highway waving guns at each other as well on your way back as well... :lol:

stargateranch said:

Sorry was out of town at my sisters wedding last few days. I greatly appriciate the information that was given in ernest. I even used some of my new found knowledge at the gun show today.

Feel free to send a private message with anything you would like to add or questions you have of me. Again big thanks to those who added value and helped me with this thread.

Click to expand...

Thank you for starting the thread. It has elicited some interesting and thought-provoking responses.

Also, thank you for your dedicated service as a law enforcement officer.

I would lov80e to sit down with you and have a one on one discussion.

You can send a pm or call me my number is on the bottom of my posts. Or just text me if you wish.

I can travel if you wish but let's take the time and discuss this issue and have a useful conversation

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 8014487574

1. I am totally fine having a conversation with anyone about firearms. If I am open carrying, I expect some comments and questions and welcome it. (I probably conceal more than I open carry. 70/30 or so) I have my personal opinions about people who open carry just for the confernetations or just to prove people wrong if/when someone says that they cant do it. Open carry is some level of deterrence, but it can also make you a target. I have been carrying since I was 18, so I had to open carry until I was nearly 22, when I finally got my CC permit, So I’m comfortable with either.

2. I do carry concealed most of the time, but I think it is totally personal preference. If I am buying ammo, it’s easier to open carry and not have the guy at the gun counter ask if I’m 21, and it can start up conversations. Never have I had a confrontation with the law or with anyone about my carrying and I really don’t want to. If I’m going somewhere that I think my carrying may cause a confrontation, I will cc. I already brought up deterrence, but I also think it could make me a target – if someone comes in to rob a bank, they’re going to rob the bank. That’s their goal and they’ve prepared for it and could probably shoot anyone with a gun rather than run away at the sight of another armed person.

3. I’ve never been the reason for the police being called. I don’t carry because I think I’m a cop. I don’t carry because I think I’m better than a cop or better than anyone else. I carry solely to protect my family and myself. I have carried in stores and had police officers walk past me without saying a word. I have had a police officer ask me if I was off duty. I am not sure what SOP is for MWAG calls, but I would assume some level of caution and wariness would be displayed by responding officers, since – like you said – I could be a methed-out junkie ready to rob someone. But at the same time, I think a few simple questions would let you know that, while I may be a bit nervous at first, I’m definitely not breaking any laws and am just one of those people who OC/CCs for protection.

4. I personally respect police officers as a whole or as a theoretical force – but just like you said, you are somewhat wary of some police officers with guns since they may just shoot it to qualify and never touch it again. I think most people are somewhat wary of police officers as individuals because most people have been pulled over by a jerk-cop or something. I haven’t had any negative encounters with any member of law enforcement from local PD or SWAT teams that frequent where I work to the US Marshals I met the other day about an ongoing case I assisted with. I think that level of professionalism and – while you have to remain cautious and safe – the level of respect for us as people and as people who are trying to do the best by us in protecting our own is what keeps relations positive and can open the way for good conversation and relations.

I see a couple others have offered to visit face-to-face and i, too, would be more than willing and would love to do so.

Porter N said:

--snip--

I already brought up deterrence, but I also think it could make me a target – if someone comes in to rob a bank, they’re going to rob the bank. That’s their goal and they’ve prepared for it and could probably shoot anyone with a gun rather than run away at the sight of another armed person.

Click to expand...

The oft repeated old wive's tale/urban legend of the LAC OCer being preemptively taken out in a holdup or robbery.

To the contary, there have been numerous reported incidents where BGs quickly changed their mind at the very sight of a LAC with a gun.

Porter N said:

<snip> I already brought up deterrence, but I also think it could make me a target – if someone comes in to rob a bank, they’re going to rob the bank. That’s their goal and they’ve prepared for it and could probably shoot anyone with a gun rather than run away at the sight of another armed person. <snip>

Click to expand...

Not knowing the facts regarding every bank robbery everywhere, but using the last dozen or so reported bank robberies here in the St. Louis area, the bank robbers state that they have a weapon, but never show it. Now, is this because they have a weapon and don't show it, or is it because they do not have a weapon, so they can not show it?

Tellers don't care, they hand over the money. Basically it boils down to robbers don't like getting shot, it curtails their ability to spend their ill-gotten gains. If bank robbers were not worried about being shot, they would hold up armored cars and not banks. Why? Because bank robbers know that banks no longer have armed guards. So, visibly armed citizens provide the same deterrence that armed bank guards did.

The greater number of visibly armed citizens means that criminals will go to where the number of visibly armed citizens are low or non-existent....like, Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and any other urban area controlled by leftist hoplophobes and anti-liberty statists.

Criminals like breathing and will prey on the defenseless not the defended.

OC for ME said:

--snip--
bank robbers know that banks no longer have armed guards. So, visibly armed citizens provide the same deterrence that armed bank guards did.

Click to expand...

Some banks still do employ armed security - at least in VA.