Lucky,
While this is not the worst case of an officer stopping someone I have heard of, it is not what I want to see. I am going to speak from more of a philosophical note with this one.
A few comments:
1) A government enforcer does not have 'rights' bestowed upon them. Your badge might give you powers or privileges, but human beings all have the same rights for the mere fact that they are human. You don't have a 'right' to disarm someone, you might have a court permission slip. This is important, because you should be judging not what you can get away with as a LEO, but instead as what any other human being would be able to do. .
I understand that Rich. I honestly feel though that the people on this forum don't think of police as human beings ourselves. I know you kind of addressed this below, but I want to emphasize - Don't I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like everyone else? Mainly, in this context, the right to life? Do I not have the right to see to my protection when entering potentially dangerous situations? People seem to forget that I'm just a regular shmoe who was hired by the city to enforce the laws of the state. I'm really no different than you or the guy next door who may choose to become an officer. And I certainly don't get off on disarming people just because I can get away with it.
If I pulled over to help someone on the side of the road and they had a gun in their waistband or anywhere else, I would not order them around or disarm them or anything else. I would either stay and help if I felt comfortable or leave if they made me uncomfortable. Remember, every time you exercise power over people that anyone without a badge wouldn't have it is a 'bad thing'.
But the reality is that I don't have the luxury of just leaving if I feel uncomfortable, whereas you would. What would become of the world if every time an officer felt he was entering a potentially dangerous situation, he just left? I have a duty and responsibility to address criminals and crimes in general despite the potential danger. However, I'm given tools, training, and beneficial case law to accomplish that purpose as safely as possible. And also a reality, despite those things, a certain number of officers are killed every year performing their duties.
2) I agree that the courts have been sympathetic towards officers during traffic stops with the reason of 'officer safety'. While I wish you, personally, a safe life and career, 'officer safety' is a BS excuse for doing questionable things. You have the same 'right' towards self defense and life as any of the rest of us. The difference, as I am sure you would note, is in the fact that LEOs go out and purposely put themselves in harm's way. But that is not something that then makes them more than human. You accept that risk and responsibility on your own. It does not confer extra rights or powers because you put yourself in a risky situation. Each time that you utilize more power over someone else, you take from them.
I do appreciate you sentiment here, but I don't just accept a risk with a shrug of my shoulders and hope for the best. I choose to put myself at risk for others sake. You, i'm sure, live a perfectly safe and quiet life, and probably will never have a need for the police. However, there are others who are beaten, robbed, raped, and killed. They need and deserve for their offender to be brought to justice. I'm the guy that chooses to put myself in danger by confronting that offender and taking him into custody. There are neighborhoods plagued with drug dealers who make life in that neighborhood a living hell as the residents hide in their homes in fear of catching a stray bullet. They need someone to confront those dealers and take them out of those neighborhoods. I'm that guy. There are battered women who need someone to lock up that abusive boyfriend who is especially violent. I choose to be that guy for her benefit. Yes, risk comes with that, but why shouldn't it be minimized as much as possible for me? Our country needs soldiers to defend our freedom. Should we not give them the equipment and ability to undertake that task with as little risk to their safety as possible? Or do we just tell them 'well you knew the risk when you signed up, so quit complaining and go do your job?'
3) If the firearm made you at all nervous or in fear for your safety, you had every right to leave the person alone and leave the proximity while defending your life in escaping if you are engaged. The extra fear that might occur comes from the fact that you are already exercising a power that another person does not have. By pulling this person over, you put yourself in an adversarial role to their rights and liberty. I dare say that if I, for instance, did the same thing to this person, he probably would have shot me. And I wouldn't really blame him.
Which is exactly why police need Terry protection. You're absolutely right that me pulling them over puts them automatically in a state of animosity towards me. Which is why having them armed is specifically dangerous should their emotion get the best of them and they decide to act out. Again, every time an officer confronts an armed person who has animosity towards the officer, I should just walk away? What would that do to society? It would quickly be over run by whatever gang had the most fire power, and the common citizen would either cower in fear, or if they were an armed citizen, they would band together with other armed citizens to fight the gang. There would be blood and chaos in the streets (i.e. "Wild Wild West"). Would that be better?
As a side story - I had someone try to 'pull me over' in New Haven. He ended up making roadrunner dust clouds back around my car and leaving about 30 feet of rubber when he noticed the muzzle of a Glock 22. He was right to do that too, because I was not bluffing. My concern was not whether he had a government permission slip to do what he was doing or anything else. My concern was that he had blocked my travel and was approaching my vehicle in a threatening manner. Now think about how they tell you to approach a car in the academy and how many times a police officer will approach a car with their hand on their sidearm. What would you think/do if you were in your car and someone walked towards your door with their eyes fixed on you and their hand on their firearm?
I'm assuming this wasn't a uniformed officer, and if that was the case then that's exactly what you should have done. Now to a person approached by an officer, who no doubt appears intimidating, most people know that we are not free to impose our own will on people. The difference between me and citizens is that while I have extra authority and power, I also have extra rules that I am limited by. Criminals have no rules. Most people know that if they are pulled over, they are going to get a ticket, and they'll be on their way. That is unless of course they are involved in other illegal activity, in which case they should be worried.
Remember that not everyone believes that a LEO has some sort of extra power/rights/authority over them and will treat a LEO the same way. They are not all just 'gangbangers' or 'on drugs' or whatever will be used to justify their behavior in the reports. Some people just understand that they are human and so are you. This kind of understanding is going to become more common and more pronounced over time. It is important that you understand it completely.
Which is exactly why I'm more at risk. But I still have a job to do that is to the benefit of all of society in general.
Don't lose sight of what is good and right by justifying actions with the law.
I won't, not because of law, but because I am governed by God, and answer to Him.
If what I am describing makes you think "Well, it would be difficult to do any of my job if I lived by those rules" then congratulations. This is why 'law enforcement' is wrong.
Law enforcement if wrong? Then tell me Rich, what would America look like without it? I'd really like to know what your vision of that America would be.
It is why policing was so very different even a few decades ago. Look at the way police forces have changed. Look at the avalanche of man made laws that have no victim. Police once upon a time called themselves 'peace officers' and would have been appalled at what goes on today on a regular basis. The job of a peace officer is meant to be difficult and very limited in power. Sound familiar? The same principle was to be applied to all elements of the government.
True Rich. And I could spawn a whole other debate on this concept. I will argue that government, and police, have reacted, responded, and evolved based on what society has given them. This country was founded on good, Christian, virtuous, and moral men. They governed themselves because they answered to God, not government. Alexis De Tocqueville, in his observation of America in the late 1700's said "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
However, as time passed and people began rejecting God and embracing their own carnal nature, there became more need for a heavy handed government and laws to keep people in line.
Fast forward into police history, police had to involve according to the threats to the public they encountered. There was no SWAT team until after the 1966 Univ. of Texas bell tower sniper/shootings. Police were completely unequipped to stop him. There were no patrol rifles until the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery and shootout, when the public and police were at the mercy of "the bad guys." There was no "active shooter" police response plan until after the Columbine incident. Before that it was hold the perimeter and wait for the hostage negotiator. Not anymore. Now first two officers on scene go in and face the threat immediately. That's the reason why Major Nadal Hassan (sp?) was stopped from killing even more soldiers - because that one officer didn't wait around but went right in to stop the threat because she had received active shooter training.
My point is that police evolved and became more militarized over time based on the threats they faced which they were completely unequipped for. The police evolved as the evil in society did. It's nothing we chose for ourselves. The more evil and savage or society becomes, the more laws will be passed, the stronger government will become, and the more militarized the police will become. But that's not the police's fault. It is because of the evil that is among us.
